The new Integrated Governance framework requires a high level of synergy of policies of Government Departments, particularly those in the JCPS structure.

The Department's core business is rehabilitation through correction and human development in secure, safe and humane detention or in community-based correctional supervision. This has an impact on the role that DCS plays in the Justice Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cluster and the Social Sector Cluster of Integrated Governance. It also impacts on the role that these cluster departments play in relation to support of the Department of Correctional Services' mandate. Within the JCPS, the Department must take its place as a key component of the integrated justice system, and correct the practice, which has been to treat Correctional Services as the other side of the fence in the criminal justice system.

The Department regards overcrowding as one of its most important challenges. It does not only have significant negative implications on the ability of the Department to deliver on its new core business, but constitutional provisions also oblige Government to act urgently on the matter. Although the Department, together with its partners in the JCPS, has introduced measures to address this issue, this White Paper stresses the need for a more effective and systematic long-term management of awaiting-trial detainees. In its long-term view, the Department motivates that Constitutional provisions and international practice support a position in which the management and care of awaiting-trial detainees should not be the responsibility of the Department of Correctional Services, but should fall under Ministry of Justice.

The IJS has developed a overcrowding checklist of measures aimed at reducing the number of ATDs in DCS facilities. The list also provides various mechanisms for monitoring the levels of ATDs and feeding this information into the relevant departments that can unblock the causes. These include:

· the awaiting-trial offender project aimed at reducing the detention cycle time of awaiting-trial detainees;

· involvement in the Saturday courts project, which was introduced in ninety-nine courts countrywide;

· the establishment of a Departmental Task Team to liaise with a task team working on overcrowding within the Security cluster at implementation level;

· the utilization of sections 62[f] and 63[a] of the Criminal Procedure Act by the Heads of Prison in court applications which resulted in the release of prisoners; and

· the use of the amendment of Section 81 of the Correctional Services Act to allow the release, under specific conditions, of awaiting-trial prisoners who have been allowed bail but could not afford to pay due to the prisoner's personal social conditions.

The monitoring of levels of children in DCS detention is taken forward by the Inter Sectoral Child Justice Committee, with DCs providing monthly reports to the committee. Mechanisms have been established at provincial/regional level to ensure that cases involving children are fast tracked through the criminal justice system, that secure care facilities are utilised where they exist, and that children destined for reform schools are transferred there speedily.

Overcrowding is addressed through both these initiatives in the IJS and through the social crime prevention work taken forward through the Social Sector in both the work on social cohesion & social justice, and the urban renewal and integrated sustainable rural development programmes. The long term solution to overcrowding lies in the reduction of the levels of crime in South Africa and hence the reduction of the rate at which we incarcerate our citizens.

The Integrated Justice Court Centre concept constitutes a key part of the work of the US, and has been rolled out at the following (46) Magistrates' Courts. It is intended that through improved court centres and case flow management that the levels of ATDs and the case backlogs can be addressed.

The Case Roll Management System has also been implemented at the Johannesburg Commercial Crime Court. Due to resource constraints the concept is currently not operational at Odi and Bellville courts. The concept will however be re-established shortly.

Further roll out has been put on hold in order to formally procure the Case Roll Management System or a similar system. The NPA is leading the procurement process

Average case preparation cycle time

There is a significant difference between the various size groups. The cycle time in the smaller courts are less than in the bigger courts. Eastern Cape and Free State provinces are above the national averages. Eastern Cape consists of for large courts (Port Elizabeth, New Brighton, Uitenhage and Urntata). There is no reason for concern at this stage. Free State only consist of Bloernfontein who have managed to bring there cycle time down to 93 days at the end of March 2004

There is a significant difference between the various size groups. The smaller the court, the higher the percentage cases on the roll for less than 60 days. Eastern Cape, Free State and KZN provinces are below the national averages.

There is a significant difference between the various size groups. The cycle time in the smaller courts are less than in the bigger courts. In general the adjudication cycle time in the Northern Province, Free State (Bioernfontein), Eastern Cape (Large Court Category) Provinces is higher than the national averages. In general the average adjudication cycle time is however increasing. This could relate to the fact that (a) cases are scrutinized more thoroughly before been placed on the roll and less withdrawals are taking place (b) more cases are been defended (c) more serious crimes on the roll (d) the reduction in case preparation cycle time is clocking up the next fase (adjudication), statistics in this regard has not been analyzed thoroughly.

Differences between the various size groups are not significant. The smaller courts however dispose of a bigger percentage of the inflow (new cases)

There is a significant difference between the various size groups. The smaller the court the less cases the court disposes of-very obvious, this is not a very good performance measure to compare the various size group courts,

Differences between the various size groups are not significant.

Differences between the various size groups are not significant. Generally the accepted norm is that between 25 % and 33% of the cases on the roll should be trial ready. Most of the smaller and medium courts are above the norm especially in Gauteng and Free State Provinces

There is a significant difference between the various size groups. Percentage wise the bigger courts refer more cases back for further investigation than the smaller courts. Eastern Cape, KZN, in the large court category and North West, Gauteng and Free State provinces in the medium court category are above the national averages.

There is a significant difference between the various size groups. Percentage wise the bigger courts have fewer children involved with cases on the roll and the rural environment has more. KZN, Northern Cape in the large court category, Western Cape, KZN and Eastern Cape in the medium court category, North West in the small court category are above the national averages.

According to the statistics and performance measures it seems as if the smaller courts in general are more productive than bigger courts,

The under performance of some of the Court Centres is a concern. The provincial project managers from BAG and the national project team have assisted most of these courts during the later part of 2003. Data integrity audits, feedback on performance and guidelines on conducting local performance analysis was focused on during the visits. A statistical analysis report on improvement and performance related to the mentioned courts were discussed.

Guidelines to conduct a local performance analysis and to develop corrective measures were also made available to local management. As corrective measures normally take time before the expected outcome is achieved, the performances at these courts will however be monitored

Not withstanding the fact that the Case Roll Management System has reduced case related query time by 99% (from 8 minutes to 5 seconds) and between 2,5 and 5 hours are gained daily, it is also clear from the statistics that the Court Centre concept is not only enhancing the management of cases, it has also had a positive impact .on the productivity at various courts. Furthermore, the comprehensive analysis of the statistics produced by the project identifies weaknesses and areas for improvement that place court

managers in a position to institute corrective actions in those areas. The National implementation Team should however during 2004 focus on guiding local management in interpreting the statistics and to institute corrective measures.

Cabinet has approved a Criminal Justice Review process, the terms of reference of which have not yet been finalised, which it is envisaged would provide the US with a platform for addressing issues related to alignment of policy and procedures across the criminal justice system.