Department of Correctional Services Budget Briefing

Meeting report

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
15 MAY 2002
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BUDGET BRIEFING

Document Handed out:
Department of Correctional Services Budget Vote 19

Chairperson: Mr.Kgoshi Mokoena

SUMMARY
The Committee advised the Department to utilize the huge deficit in its budget which was hindering access to further funding from the treasury. The Department was asked to fill the allocated vacant posts in order to ease pressure on personnel and to qualify for more personnel. The Committee expressed dissatisfaction with the deal with Asset Procurement and Operation Partnership System, which it said did not necessarily add value for money.

MINUTES
Briefing by Commissioner L. Mti
The Commissioner informed the Committee that Treasury had already approved the budget vote and that there was therefore little room for further negotiations. He said that the Department was happy with the new arrangement put in place by Cabinet around budget allocations, which he said resolved the perennial problem of late allocations. The Department was in the process of re-engineering itself to move from a safe custody to a rehabilitative institution. He added that the presentation was in line with what had been planned for last year with the exception of a few in-puts on the budget allocations.

Briefing by N.W.Tshivhase (CFO)
Mr Tshivhase said that the expenditure component on the budget was excellent. He said the aim of the Department was to contribute to maintaining and protecting a just, peaceful and safe society by enforcing sentences of the courts in the manner prescribed by the Correctional Services Act (Act no 111 of 1998). The Department was mandated to detain all prisoners in safe custody whilst ensuring their human dignity and promoting the social responsibility and human development of all prisoners and persons subject to community corrections.

Mr Tshivhase also outlined the Mission and Vision of the Department which he said was to be one of the best in the world in delivering correctional services with integrity and commitment with a mission to deliver a Correctional Service in partnership with stakeholders. The Department would achieve this by incarceration of prisoners under conditions consistent with human dignity; rehabilitation and reintegration programmes that ensured proper supervision of persons under community corrections procurement. The Department through the acquisition of adequate resources is enabled for effective response to challenges of progressive management, trained personnel, sound work ethics, performance management and good governance.

Mr Tshivhase touched on the core business of the Department, which he outlined as keeping offenders in safe custody and to supervise and control probationers and parolees. He added that other areas were to maintain control, discipline and a safe environment in prison and to provide humane conditions for offenders. The other responsibilities the Department is tasked with was to provide rehabilitation programmes, which help offenders to address their behaviour and allow them to live and lead responsible lives and to assist offenders with re-integration into the community.

Mr Tshivase said that the medium term objectives of the Department were contained in a Green Paper on Correctional Services developed by the Department. He said the objectives were to create a culture of good governance to combat corruption, crime, malpractice and mal- administration within the Department. The Department would endeavour to improve the skills capacity of lower level staff and the retention of skilled personnel and at the same time improve prisoner management. He continued that the Department would take appropriate measures to adequately address the special needs of targeted prisoner categories including but not limited to: the youth; females; the aged; pregnant females and mothers with infants; terminally-ill prisoners; the mentally challenged; and prisoners with disabilities. The Department would strive to enhance the rehabilitation programmes and prisoner peer-educator programmes.

Discussion
Mr Sogoni (ANC) asked what action the Department was taking on the many rumours that prisoners were being hired for criminal purposes. What was the Department's assessment of the Community Correction Programme.

Mr Mti said that the issue of prisoners being hired for criminal purposes was a very serious matter that was currently being investigated by the relevant authorities. He said the Judge who was leading the probe team had already handed over an interim report and that the Department was in the process of preparing appropriate recommendations to the Minister.

He said the Community Correction programme could be even more successful. The Department was nurturing the in-put of communities since personnel could not be relied on for supervision. He added that there was a lot of scepticism around the possible success of the programme especially with regard to hardcore and habitual criminals.

The Department was re-conceptualising the programme to give it a proper meaning. Unemployment was negatively affecting the programme in that most prisoners had no money for transport to supervisory centres. He noted that the Departments' approach was that the Community was encouraged to get involved and report absconding. He continued that there was no model for measuring the success of the programme since it was a relatively new concept. Various tertiary institutions had been engaged to try and find a scientific way to measure success indicators.

Mr Sogoni asked for an explanation regarding the decrease in personnel and whether money allocated for vehicles involved buying new ones or was it for maintenance as well. He also asked of the Department was getting value for money in respect of the APOPS (Asset Procurement and Operation Partnership System - private prisons) services.

Mr Mti said that one-third of the officers at APOPS came from the Department. He expressed the view that any investment that did not generate income must be questioned on the score of suitability. He explained that the relationship between the Department and APOPS was informed by the existing contract which provide for penalties whenever convicts escape and that the Department designates officers to monitor the running of these facilities.

Mr Mti added that most of the hardcore criminals and those serving long sentences had been transferred to these facilities in order to transfer the risk of escape to the third party. He said that vehicles were purchased and maintained by the Department of Transport and that Correction Services only released monies for such services. The APOPS programme is a very expensive one for the government and that it is important to take the two institutions initially as a pilot project .

Ms Kgoali (ANC) advised the Department to spend the money laying idle in their budget before going to ask for more especially where treasury gives a go ahead for the deficit to be diverted to other projects. She then asked if disciplinary measures were in place to penalise those who damage vehicles. She asked it the Department did its own Capital Works or this was handled by the DOPW.

Mr. Tshivhase said that the Department was allowed to divert deficit funds to other projects but that it had so far not done so. All cases involving vehicle damage were referred to the traffic police for appropriate action. As for Capital works, he said that these were undertaken by Public Works who the Department pays to execute the projects.

Mr Mkhaliphi said that the Department had 14% vacancies which was he said was totally unacceptable. He asked the Department to take drastic measures to fill these vacancies. How was the Department coping with the PFMA framework?

Mr Mti admitted that there had been some sluggishness on the part of the Department in filling the vacant posts. He promised to correct the situation. He was particularly happy with the PFMA especially in view of the fact that it had decentralised financial management and vested responsibility in Provincial Commissioners. This would enhance the quality of accountability.

Mr Sogoni (ANC) faulted the deal with APOPS, which he said was hollow and an unnecessary drain on the taxpayers' money and offered no added value. He expressed outrage that APOPS was able to tap into the Department's personnel resource because it could pay better salaries but that it was the government, which was, in actual sense, paying for this hefty remuneration package.

Ms Kgoali enquired why some prisoners were offered expensive medical treatment.

Mr Mti replied that some prisoners have their own medical aid facilities, which they are entitled to when they fall ill. He said that it was not the Department's policy to give prisoners expensive medical treatment.

Mr Mkhaliphi lamented that for the most part, contractors were good at keeping to the letter and not the spirit of the contract they enter into. The sourcing out of Correctional services to APOPS raised some very fundamental issues of accountability. He added that it was now not easy to oversee this particular arrangement and asked the Chair to allow deliberation on the issue at some later stage.

Mr Mti said that the issue of APOPS and its viability had a long history. The Department was responsible for ensuring that there was no deviation from the terms of the contract.