Correctional Services Strategic Plan and Budget 2008/09

Meeting report

The Chairperson commenced the meeting by congratulating the Commissioner of the DCS for a job well done at the Excellence Awards. It was good to see officials being rewarded for their good work. He said that it would surely raise their morale and thus positively impact on their work in the future. He also gave a special welcome to Mr Mbethe from the National Treasury.

The Commissioner acknowledged the compliment but went on to say that he had an announcement to make. He said that a new grant was being introduced, namely the death grant, as a compensation payment to families of deceased officials. The grant was intended to assist families of officials, who died in the line of duty, during their time of hardship.

Ms Jenny Schreiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner of the DCS, gave the presentation on the DCS Strategic Planning for 2008/09. She began by highlighting that the DCS would be refining their performance indicators to ensure that they accurately measure how many offenders benefit from their services. She also said that there would be policy developments in the upcoming financial year. She noted that the priorities for this year would be the seven-day establishment, the case management system, the integration of the Criminal Justice System, reduction of overcrowding and the building program for new centres. 

Ms Schreiner listed the Strategic Projects for 2008/09. These were: the centres of excellence, enhancing safety and security, remand detention, the seven-day establishment, the offender rehabilitation path (ORP), social re-integration and infrastructure development. She added that in everything that the Department undertook, they would ensure that they improved service delivery.

Ms Schreiner went on to give a breakdown of the Department’s plans for their Administration, Security, Corrections, Development, Care, Social Re-Integration and Facilities programs. The measurable objective for Administration would be to provide the administrative, management, financial, ICT, research, policy co-ordination and good governance support functions necessary for all service delivery by the Department and in support of the functions of the ministry. She highlighted what the performance indicators would be. The strategy for improving administration would be to correct identified deficiencies, reduce the vacancy rate, implement new function-oriented organisational structure, improve performance management systems and reduce the turn around time for filling vacancies.

Ms Schreiner said that the measurable objective for Security would be to prevent persons incarcerated from participating in criminal activities and escaping, by providing an environment that ensured the safety of all persons entrusted to the Department’s care as well as the safety of the public. Some of the main performance indicators would be the number of escapes per 10 000 inmates, the number of assaults per 10 000 inmates, the number of unnatural deaths per 10 000 inmates and the provision of access security at DCS facilities. The DCS strategy for security would be to ensure compliance with security policies, procedures, standards and applicable legislation. She also said that they would improve security management to improve the detention and working environment of inmates, staff, service providers and ultimately for the public.

Ms Schreiner said that the measurable objective for Corrections would be the need to address the specific rehabilitation needs of persons who had been sentenced to supervision, incarceration or parole, through regular assessment and providing needs-based correctional programs to address all the elements associated with offending behaviours. Their strategy would include ensuring compliance with corrections policies, procedures, standards and applicable legislation. The DCS would also improve administration and management of correctional centres. She said that they would also provide quality assured correctional programs with support from service providers.

With regards to Development, Ms Schreiner said that the objective would be to provide needs-based educational, skills and other development related programs, to facilitate the re-integration of offenders into communities. The main focus of their strategy would be to enhance compliance. They would improve education, sports, recreation, arts and culture levels of offenders and also enhance their opportunities for employability in partnership with external service providers.

The DCS objectives for Care would be to ensure the personal well-being of incarcerated persons by providing various needs-based services. Some of the performance indicators would be the percentage of offenders in needs-based care programs, 100% access to primary health care for offenders with TB, STI, HIV and chronic medication. They would ensure 100% access to comprehensive HIV/AIDS programs and services for offenders. The main strategy for the implementation of these care programs was compliance.

On the topic of Social Integration, Ms Schreiner said that the objective would be to provide needs based programs and services to offenders to facilitate their social acceptance and effective re-integration into communities. Performance indicators for this would include the percentage of offenders eligible for consideration for release on parole and the percentage of offenders participating in re-integration programs. The DCS planned to achieve this by reviewing and aligning policy procedures and standards with the White Paper on Corrections, effective administration and effective implementation of Community Corrections systems.

The objective for Facilities would be to provide facilities to support the Department in its core functions of security, development, care and social re-integration. Performance indicators would include the number of beds in correctional centres, the number of correctional centres created and the increasing improvement and maintenance of correctional centres. The plan was to improve compliance, build and upgrade facilities, maintain facilities according to DCS policy and to provide leasehold office accommodation for all needs.

Ms Singh, Chief Financial Officer of the DCS, gave the presentation on the budget allocation. She pointed out that Ms Schreiner had dealt with the purposes of the individual allocations.

Ms Singh said that there would be an increase in the budget from R2.8 billion; R3.1billion, R3.3 billion and R3.6billion respectively over the 2007/8; 2008/9; 2009/10 and 2010/11 financial years mainly due to the allocation for the Master Information System Plan (MISP) project and the adjusted provision for an additional amount allocated for accommodation charges. She explained that the decline in the Management Programme Administration sub-program was due to the efficiency gains savings budget reduction applied by the National Treasury over the MTEF period.

Ms Singh stated that the budget allocation for security would be R3.4billion; R3.8billion; R4.1billion and R4.4billion respectively over the next four financial years. She said that this would be due to the improvement of security in prisons, additional allocation of personnel costs for the New Kimberly Correctional Centre and additional allocation for the implementation of the PSCBC Resolution 1 of 2007. She explained that the activities of the Security program were labour intensive and as such the personnel budget accounted for approximately 91.7% of the budget allocated in this program over the MTEF period.

The budget allocation for Corrections would steadily increase from R1.064 billion in the next financial year to 1.2 billion in the 2010/11 financial year. Additional allocations were made to the baseline as a result of the implementation of the White Paper on Corrections. Another reason was the establishment of parole boards and correctional supervision. The allocation of a supervisory personnel budget also accounted for the growth of budget in this program. The decline in budget from 2007/8 to 2008/9 was due to the funds shifted to the Programmes Development and Care to finance approved White Paper projects implementation.

Ms Singh said that the budget allocation for Care would rise from R1.2 billion in 2007/08 to R1. 3billion in 2008/9. The reasons would be the implementation of the three meal system per day, the provision of additional remuneration for Health Care workers and the progressive implementation of the comprehensive HIV/AIDS program nationally.

The budget allocation for Development would be R397 million in 2008/9 mainly because the Department was trying to put rehabilitation of offenders at the centre of its activities which included the training of offenders to ensure their skills and social development.

The budget allocation for social integration would be R386 million in 2008/9 and the allocation for facilities would be R1.7 billion excluding the R513 million roll-over from the previous financial year.

In her presentation Ms Singh highlighted that the key cost drivers were personnel numbers, numbers of inmates (including trial detainees), supervision cases and parolees and the implementation of the White Paper projects. She also explained how the provision of the vacancy rate was calculated. She concluded her presentation by giving a breakdown of the state expenditure for the year to date. The graphs and statistics were available in the Estimates of National Expenditure document.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked how much of the budget allocation was going to the head office where only 1400 members sit.

Mr Vernie Petersen (National Commissioner: DCS) commented that he acknowledged that payment must go where service was given. He said that the Department was looking into shifting their budget and resources to the provinces.

Ms Singh (CFO: DCS) explained that R 3.4 billion was spent at the Head Office. This was a result of the centralised activities of the Department, Capital Works, IT and Management Information System Programme (MISP).

Mr S Shah (DA) asked the Department to verify why and how they intended to reduce the vacancy rate to 7%. He noted that there were conflicting figures provided.

Mr Petersen explained that the proposed vacancy rate was 5% as stipulated in the budget. The Department was in the process of reducing the vacancy rate from 8.5% to 7%. He said that their ultimate goal was 5%. They had made strides in the reduction of the vacancy rate. One of the challenges they faced was Resolution 1 of 2007. He said that they have begun to restore the situation. He said that since the beginning of the year they had been working on recruiting school leavers for entry level positions.

Mr Shah also questioned the reduction of the percentage allocation for rehabilitation of prisoners. He asked what the impact of this reduction would be on the implementation of the White Paper. However he commented that the proposed target was now more realistic. He highlighted that the function of the parole board was important and asked what the Department’s progress was in terms of training parole officers.

The Chairperson asked why the Department had only spent 77% of their allocation for the previous financial year. He asked why they were under spending. He noted that the previous year the Department had a roll over of R200 million. He said that he could foresee the same thing happening this year.

Mr Petersen explained that the main reason why there was under spending was because a lot of the budget was allocated for infrastructure. The way the budget worked was that they were given money for the complete project. However, infrastructure projects took time to be completed and since they pay for the work as it was done, this was what resulted in the roll over. Their main project at the moment was the Kimberly facility. It was necessary for them to consider that there were contingencies that hinder progress such as labour strikes and weather changes.

Mr Petersen said that the second reason for the roll over was the fact that the DCS had reduced their working days to Monday to Friday and no longer worked on Saturdays. This freed up a lot of money, approximately R600 million to be exact. He noted that Treasury had not yet reduced their allocation for personnel hence the roll over. Once this had been done, the roll over should be reduced. 

Mr Petersen explained that now the Department’s focus would be on filling vacant posts. The Department was doing well with regards to this as 10000 bodies have come into the system to date.

Ms Singh, Chief Financial Officer DCS, also commented on under spending. She explained that when money was budgeted for it had to be spent on a specific project, it could not then be misappropriated. When under spending was noted, the best thing would be to re-allocate that money to where it was needed. She said that when the Department had exhausted legitimate ways to spend the money then they had to surrender it.

The Chairperson asked if there was going to be a roll-over this year.

Mr Petersen said that they were going to need the support of the Committee for the roll-over this year. As he had explained it was necessary to roll-over the budget for the Kimberly project.

Mr Mbethe, National Treasury, interjected and explained that the building of the Kimberly facility was taking longer than was anticipated. He said that the R500 million was required to complete the project. The amount requested for the roll-over was small. Without the roll-over the completion of the project would not be possible.

The Chairperson asked Mr Mbethe what made him sure that the building would be completed. He said that the bottom line question was whether there was bad management at DCS.

Mr Petersen explained that if it were possible for his colleagues and himself to build it themselves, then they would. Infrastructural projects were always complex with regard to budgeting and payment. They were trying to speed it up. They had been engaging with other role players. A R247 million roll-over was required. He said that the law allowed for roll-overs when dealing with infrastructural projects.

The Chairperson pointed out that the previous year, Mr Motseki from the DCS had assured the Committee that they needed a R534 million budget and that they would use all of it.

Mr Mbethe explained that infrastructural projects were entirely dependent on the Department of Public Works (DPW). He explained that if there were delays with billing or construction then it was the fault of the DPW. He said that perhaps it was necessary for the Committee to engage with the DPW and the DCS together.

Mr Petersen explained that when they request an allocation, it was based on information gathered on the particular projects in question. They could not control how suppliers would operate. They did try to put pressure on the suppliers but this was sometimes fruitless. They regularly got feedback on the level of completion but that was as far as they could control the progress.

Mr Mbethe noted with appreciation the Department’s attempts to deal with the issues of spending and the vacancy rate. The Department had gone from over spending to under spending. When they were over spending the reasons were overtime and medical aid. Under spending was a result of their own efficiency since they had cut down on overtime and medical aid. He explained that they had reserved some money for the seven-day program. Compared to previous years the DCS had improved their administration. Treasury would continue to monitor the Department’s efficiency in expenditure.

Ms Singh added that the Department regularly sent compliance reports to the Treasury. There were also disciplinary institutions in place to prevent unauthorised expenditure. She explained that the Department needed to have disciplinary measures in place for when these procedures were not followed.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked if there were any alternative, cheaper ways to build facilities without enlisting Public Private Partnerships (PPPs).

Mr Petersen explained that the Department had concluded that PPPs were the better option because they were ‘value for money’ and the risk transfer was also appreciated by the Department. The DCS continued to challenge PPPs to provide good value for money. The Kimberly facility (which was still work in progress) would be run on the same basis as PPPs.

Mrs Ngwenya also wanted to know if the DCS could sustain their seven-day program.

Mr Petersen explained that the Department needed money and the people to sustain the seven-day program. Capacity was always a problem when it came to implementation of the Department’s programs. At the moment they havd already taken up over 8000 officials but this was still not enough. There had been a suggestion to have a four-shift system but they finally settled on a two-shift system. They were looking into testing the seven-day program which was to be implemented on 1 July. However it would not be a big bang extravaganza as the implementation would take a phase-in approach.

Ms Ngwenya also noted that in their 2007/08 strategic plan the Department had indicated their intention to train personnel for their Social Integration program. She asked how far they were with that program.

Ms Schreiner explained that the Department was working on their Rehabilitation program. They had been trying to project the rehabilitation path in an attempt to enhance their program.

Ms Ngwenya also asked if there was going to be an increase in the budget to allow for the intended electronic monitoring program. She commented that the number of probation violations was too high. She asked what the Department was doing to reduce these numbers.

Mr Petersen explained that the key focus of the Department was to standardise parole boards. They were working with the National Council on Correctional Services and the Parole Review Board on this initiative.

Mr Petersen went on to say that the Department had enlisted the help of the CSIR for the Electronic Monitoring System (EMS). Before they approached Treasury for money they needed to determine what the efficiency gains would be and how this would impact on service delivery. The CSIR was to do all this research in the meanwhile.

Ms Schreiner said that the only way to deal with violation of parole was through the EMS. The Department must look into how adequate their systems were in creating parole conditions. They would have to do risk and security assessments. Another important way to curb violation of parole was by ensuring that rehabilitation did not end on release but extended to when the offenders were back in society. The Department should ensure that their staff was appropriately trained and equipped to deal with parole issues.

Ms C Chikunga (ANC) appreciated the introduction of the Death Grant. However she was interested to know whether it was intended for every official or for specific deaths.

The Chairperson asked if the Death Grant had been included in the present budget.

Mr Petersen explained that the Death Grant was specifically to compensate the families of those officials who died in the line of duty. He explained that the amount was not a reflection of the value of the life but it was just intended to help the families during their time of difficulty.

Mrs Chikunga asked what had been done to curb under-spending. This was a clear indication of bad planning within the Department. While the Department was budgeting for the training of their officials, the impact of this training was not visible.

Ms Schreiner explained that the training of officials was an on-going process. She said that the Department would follow this up with a report.

Mr Petersen added that it was difficult to say what improvement there was. He said that the Department would report back on this.

Ms Chikunga explained that one way to assess the effectiveness of training was through testing and examination to see how much the trainees had learnt. She said that the Department needed to be more upfront about the areas where they need improvement. She asked if nurses would benefit from their proposed pay increments for general practitioners.

Mr Petersen explained that all nurses functioning as general practitioners were set to get a pay increment. At the moment the private health sector had better remuneration for their nurses. He said that it was time to acknowledge those nurses in the DCS who were proficient in primary health care. Those who did not have suitable qualifications, would be given three years to obtain this and thereafter would be eligible for the pay increment. He assured the Committee that all those identified as worthy would receive pay increments.

Ms Chikunga questioned the nature of the American donation that the Department had received. She asked if it was a once-off donation, how much it was and how it was spent.

Ms Singh explained that the Department received R5 million from American donors. R4.1 million of this had been used to date. The donation was not sufficient to cover the whole population.

The Chairperson highlighted that the President had set a six-month period during which all departments were to address the issue of vacancies.

Mr Petersen explained that the cause of the high number of vacancies was scarce skills. The Department had begun to target professionals by streamlining career paths and offering better remuneration packages. He acknowledged that was difficult for the public sector to attract and retain professionals. An alternative they were looking at was the training of such professionals by the Department. This initiative would take the form of a dual process that integrated in-sourcing and out-sourcing. The centres of expertise would be at the head of this initiative. He concluded that the Department hoped that these initiatives would improve the vacancy situation.

The Chairperson highlighted that while doing his oversight work he had discovered that in some DCS officials were living in shacks. He asked whether any provision had been made for accommodation in the Budget. He said that while others were living in poverty, in the Eastern Cape he discovered that the regional director was living in a hotel with his family paying up to R28 000 per month. He asked how the Department could spend such an amount on one person yet they neglected so many others.

Ms Ngwenya added that she had heard that some officials had up to R1 000 taken off their remuneration to pay for accommodation. Was there a need to increase the budget to account for accommodation costs?

Mr E Xolo (ANC) noted that some officials who do not live on site were being charged exorbitant prices for single rooms. Some of the places they lived in had no insulation and no provision for cooking.

Mr Petersen said that the Department would need to come back and report on the exact situation. Although they acknowledged that there was a problem, the Department also felt that they were not in the business of providing accommodation. Historically it had made sense to provide housing for officials who had come from far away to work at these institutions. It was no longer feasible to continue with this because accommodation pushed up the per capita cost for each official. In the past they had seen retired officials not being able to purchase their own homes and thereafter being in a worse situation because they had not invested in property while they were in the service.

Mr Petersen assured the Committee that the Department would look into the accommodation situation and would amend their policy accordingly. Another measure they would take was to advise their officials to invest in property. Generally there had been mismanagement when it came to the provision and managing of housing allocations.

With regards to the Regional Director in the Eastern Cape who was living in a lavish hotel, the Department had a duty to ensure that his accommodation was provided for. If an official was transferred in the interest of the State, he must be provided with accommodation. The only problem was that there was no property available in the Eastern Cape at the time that the Director had moved there.

Mr Petersen concluded by saying that while the Department did not think it was necessary to raise the budget for accommodation; they would ensure that minimum requirements were met when allocating residence for their officials.

Ms Chikunga asked the Department to provide the Committee with the results of their pilot projects. She asked them to also name the centres at which this project was piloted. She also questioned how many custodial staff they had and whether this number was sufficient.

Mr Xolo asked if the Department had any plans for the skills development of offenders. He asked if this was provided for in the proposed budget. How did the Department intended to attract and retain scarce skills with this budget. He also asked how the appointed members of the Parole Board relate with the offenders on parole. He suggested that it would be beneficial to use traditional leaders to help with the re-integration of offenders into society.

Ms Chikunga asked the Department to verify what they meant by 100% access to HIV medical care. She was confused because one document stated that 31 institutions were providing comprehensive medical care. She was aware that there was a staffing shortage and that sometimes at night there were no nurses to care for the patients. She asked how the DCS was going to ensure that they reach this goal of 100% access.

Ms Ngwenya asked the Department to provide the results of the 2007/08 audit of services providers. What steps were being taken to improve community based programs? She also asked how the DCS intended to ensure the effective function of the Parole Board and what steps had been taken by the Board to ensure victim participation.

Finally Mr Xolo noted that the Department was claiming that they intended to upgrade and build new facilities. He said that in his recent visits to certain facilities he had discovered that they were poorly furnished and he wondered what was being done to rectify the situation.