Department of Justice and Constitutional
Description: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Overview of Budget, Constraints and the impact on Departments planning When everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority Content Executive Summary Main Challenges Criteria for
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"Department of Justice and Constitutional" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Overview of Budget, Constraints and the impact on Department’s planning When everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority<br>
slide2. Content Executive Summary
Main Challenges
Criteria for Budget Allocation
Budgetary Performance Previous Financial Year
Budgetary Headline Information
Planned Reallocation to Priorities due to projected under spending on Infrastructure Programme
Donor Support
Impact of Proposed further cuts
Challenges to be addressed in the current financial year
Regional Spending
Conclusion<br>
slide3. Executive Summary DOJ&CD has absorbed significant cuts until 2017/18.
2017/18 was the first time Entities are significantly affected – NPA, Public Protector and Legal Aid SA
Main challenge for all (including DOJ&CD) relates to Staff Establishment to service existing service points.
Shortfall on Compensation
Further challenge for DOJ&CD is maintenance of infrastructure costs (include security Infrastructure) (Ministerial priority)
Inadequate investment in ICT (Ministerial Priority)
High Cost of Compliance
Additional pressures due to Commissions
Uncertainty on budget allocations and related planning 3<br>
slide4. Main Challenge to Business Units Competing mandates
Inadequacy of funding in government and National Treasury practice to refer justice cluster to DOJCD to achieve efficacy of funding allocation
Inability to cut further without impacting on service delivery points
Inability to further absorb increases in cost of living increases beyond budgetary increases
Slow response time and lack of agility in general
E.g. Process to approve amendments in Job Descriptions & severance packages
Slow processes in alignment of resources in the Justice Value Chain
Slow response time in reorganisation of Business - e.g. State Attorney
Clarity of Policy in terms of understanding the real impact on both the public and the operations of the Justice Value Chain
Determination of non performing programmes and non essential programmes 4<br>
slide5. Criteria for Budget Allocation Spending Trends
Performance – Fix Non-performing Programmes that are critical and cannot be cut
Demand Pressures, risks & looming crisis, growth catalysts
Efficiencies & Savings
Value for Money
Remove Non-Core Programmes
Transformative Impact & Vulnerable/ Key Groups
Policy Blockages 5<br>
slide6. Budget Assumptions & Guiding Principles for cutting of budget Compensation ceiling to remain
Salary Increases will remain within Inflation – therefore compensation not to be touched
Earmarked Funds not to be touched
Infrastructure and Accommodation
IJS/CJS
Magistrate Salaries
ICT as lever for transformation not to be touched (need however more funding to fulfil transformational vision & infrastructure capacity requirements)
Consideration for contractual obligations that cannot be touched
Critical operations spending items e.g. witness fees, Psychiatric Observation (Need increase or VCC to be utilised to sustain) 6<br>
slide7. Budgetary Performance Previous Financial Year<br>
slide8. 8 COMPOSITION OF UNDER SPENDING PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR<br>
slide9. Composition of Budget – Discretionary R1.1 billion<br>
slide10. 10 HIGH SPENDING ITEMS FOR 2017/18 VERSUS 2018/19<br>
slide11. 11 COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES ITEMS PERFORMANCE 2017/18 VERSUS 2018/19<br>
slide12. Budgetary Headline Information<br>
slide13. 13 CONTEXT OF PROPOSED BUDGET CUT SINCE 2015<br>
slide14. 2018 MTEF ALLOCATIONS PER PROGRAMME 14<br>
slide15. 2018 MTEF ALLOCATIONS PER ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATIONS 15<br>
slide16. Highest Cost drivers Department 16<br>
slide17. Year on Year Overall Growth<br>
slide18. Year on Year COE Growth<br>
slide19. Year to Year G&S Growth<br>
slide20. Year to Year Payment for Cap Ass Growth<br>
slide21. Funding Choices R’000 21<br>
slide22. Planned reallocation to priorities from expected under spending from DPW<br>
slide23. DONOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT International Aid
Sexual Offences Courts
Relationship with private sector support
Technical support on contract management review of SCM
Community Advice Offices
GBV
NPA<br>
slide24. Impact of Proposed Further Cuts<br>
slide25. 25<br>
slide26. 26 HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE BUDGET CUT SINCE 2015<br>
slide27. 27<br>
slide28. Existing Impact of budget cuts on Courts Increased threats to witnesses due to the reduction of protection services (NPA)
Compromised level of security provisioning in courts and department’s buildings
A sluggish eradication of backlog cases
Non appointment of key positions such as prosecutors, court interpreters, maintenance officers, estate administrators and administrative staff providing corporate services such as finance, human resources and IT etc.
Reduced pace on the implementation of the IJS/CJS project thus prolonging the programme completion 28<br>
slide29. 29 FURTHER SERVICE DELIVERY IMPACT OF PROPOSED BUDGET CUT SERVICE POINTS<br>
slide30. Challenges in the Department to be addressed this financial year New priority areas e.g. NPA Directorate, One Man Stations, Aspirant Prosecutor, Family Advocate, Regional Support Services
Potential overspending on Compensation – already at 8%
Reliability of aligned Performance Information on which management decisions are made
Potential unbundling of DOJCD functions and related costs
Inadequate alignment of resources of all the entities in relation to productivity information
Inadequate alignment of policies, strategy and procedures of all the entities
Delays in finalisation of policies and operating models e.g. language interpretation, virtual libraries, security services, accommodation standards, psych evaluations, witness fees, building management of new courts, gardening and cleaning services in courts, GBV projects, community advice offices, TRC community rehabilitation projects, OSD cost implications, Family Advocate
Delays in creating permanent staff establishment in critical areas (ICT, SCM, Asset Management, Internal Control, Justice College)
Impact of Commissions on the workload of the Department
Impact of potential non-performance of DPW on infrastructure roll-out of the department
Maintenance of infrastructure and Replacement of equipment/ computers/fleet/ tools of trade/PABX
Inadequate demand management, SCM value chain and Contract management
Inadequate resourcing of specialised procurement areas<br>
slide31. 31 FUNDED BY REMAINING DISCRETIONARY BUDGET<br>
slide32. REGIONAL SPENDING<br>
slide34. BUDGET ALLOCATION SHARE PER REGION<br>
slide36. Conclusion The DOJ&CD together with entities need to explore possibilities of consolidating/aligning their support services in order to release financial resources to be redirected toward funding co-functions.
Investment in automation need to be increased as to realise operational and cost efficiencies.
All entities in the Justice family must continuously and jointly review their business processes in order to ensure alignment 36<br>
slide2. Content Executive Summary
Main Challenges
Criteria for Budget Allocation
Budgetary Performance Previous Financial Year
Budgetary Headline Information
Planned Reallocation to Priorities due to projected under spending on Infrastructure Programme
Donor Support
Impact of Proposed further cuts
Challenges to be addressed in the current financial year
Regional Spending
Conclusion<br>
slide3. Executive Summary DOJ&CD has absorbed significant cuts until 2017/18.
2017/18 was the first time Entities are significantly affected – NPA, Public Protector and Legal Aid SA
Main challenge for all (including DOJ&CD) relates to Staff Establishment to service existing service points.
Shortfall on Compensation
Further challenge for DOJ&CD is maintenance of infrastructure costs (include security Infrastructure) (Ministerial priority)
Inadequate investment in ICT (Ministerial Priority)
High Cost of Compliance
Additional pressures due to Commissions
Uncertainty on budget allocations and related planning 3<br>
slide4. Main Challenge to Business Units Competing mandates
Inadequacy of funding in government and National Treasury practice to refer justice cluster to DOJCD to achieve efficacy of funding allocation
Inability to cut further without impacting on service delivery points
Inability to further absorb increases in cost of living increases beyond budgetary increases
Slow response time and lack of agility in general
E.g. Process to approve amendments in Job Descriptions & severance packages
Slow processes in alignment of resources in the Justice Value Chain
Slow response time in reorganisation of Business - e.g. State Attorney
Clarity of Policy in terms of understanding the real impact on both the public and the operations of the Justice Value Chain
Determination of non performing programmes and non essential programmes 4<br>
slide5. Criteria for Budget Allocation Spending Trends
Performance – Fix Non-performing Programmes that are critical and cannot be cut
Demand Pressures, risks & looming crisis, growth catalysts
Efficiencies & Savings
Value for Money
Remove Non-Core Programmes
Transformative Impact & Vulnerable/ Key Groups
Policy Blockages 5<br>
slide6. Budget Assumptions & Guiding Principles for cutting of budget Compensation ceiling to remain
Salary Increases will remain within Inflation – therefore compensation not to be touched
Earmarked Funds not to be touched
Infrastructure and Accommodation
IJS/CJS
Magistrate Salaries
ICT as lever for transformation not to be touched (need however more funding to fulfil transformational vision & infrastructure capacity requirements)
Consideration for contractual obligations that cannot be touched
Critical operations spending items e.g. witness fees, Psychiatric Observation (Need increase or VCC to be utilised to sustain) 6<br>
slide7. Budgetary Performance Previous Financial Year<br>
slide8. 8 COMPOSITION OF UNDER SPENDING PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR<br>
slide9. Composition of Budget – Discretionary R1.1 billion<br>
slide10. 10 HIGH SPENDING ITEMS FOR 2017/18 VERSUS 2018/19<br>
slide11. 11 COST CONTAINMENT MEASURES ITEMS PERFORMANCE 2017/18 VERSUS 2018/19<br>
slide12. Budgetary Headline Information<br>
slide13. 13 CONTEXT OF PROPOSED BUDGET CUT SINCE 2015<br>
slide14. 2018 MTEF ALLOCATIONS PER PROGRAMME 14<br>
slide15. 2018 MTEF ALLOCATIONS PER ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATIONS 15<br>
slide16. Highest Cost drivers Department 16<br>
slide17. Year on Year Overall Growth<br>
slide18. Year on Year COE Growth<br>
slide19. Year to Year G&S Growth<br>
slide20. Year to Year Payment for Cap Ass Growth<br>
slide21. Funding Choices R’000 21<br>
slide22. Planned reallocation to priorities from expected under spending from DPW<br>
slide23. DONOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT International Aid
Sexual Offences Courts
Relationship with private sector support
Technical support on contract management review of SCM
Community Advice Offices
GBV
NPA<br>
slide24. Impact of Proposed Further Cuts<br>
slide25. 25<br>
slide26. 26 HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE BUDGET CUT SINCE 2015<br>
slide27. 27<br>
slide28. Existing Impact of budget cuts on Courts Increased threats to witnesses due to the reduction of protection services (NPA)
Compromised level of security provisioning in courts and department’s buildings
A sluggish eradication of backlog cases
Non appointment of key positions such as prosecutors, court interpreters, maintenance officers, estate administrators and administrative staff providing corporate services such as finance, human resources and IT etc.
Reduced pace on the implementation of the IJS/CJS project thus prolonging the programme completion 28<br>
slide29. 29 FURTHER SERVICE DELIVERY IMPACT OF PROPOSED BUDGET CUT SERVICE POINTS<br>
slide30. Challenges in the Department to be addressed this financial year New priority areas e.g. NPA Directorate, One Man Stations, Aspirant Prosecutor, Family Advocate, Regional Support Services
Potential overspending on Compensation – already at 8%
Reliability of aligned Performance Information on which management decisions are made
Potential unbundling of DOJCD functions and related costs
Inadequate alignment of resources of all the entities in relation to productivity information
Inadequate alignment of policies, strategy and procedures of all the entities
Delays in finalisation of policies and operating models e.g. language interpretation, virtual libraries, security services, accommodation standards, psych evaluations, witness fees, building management of new courts, gardening and cleaning services in courts, GBV projects, community advice offices, TRC community rehabilitation projects, OSD cost implications, Family Advocate
Delays in creating permanent staff establishment in critical areas (ICT, SCM, Asset Management, Internal Control, Justice College)
Impact of Commissions on the workload of the Department
Impact of potential non-performance of DPW on infrastructure roll-out of the department
Maintenance of infrastructure and Replacement of equipment/ computers/fleet/ tools of trade/PABX
Inadequate demand management, SCM value chain and Contract management
Inadequate resourcing of specialised procurement areas<br>
slide31. 31 FUNDED BY REMAINING DISCRETIONARY BUDGET<br>
slide32. REGIONAL SPENDING<br>
slide34. BUDGET ALLOCATION SHARE PER REGION<br>
slide36. Conclusion The DOJ&CD together with entities need to explore possibilities of consolidating/aligning their support services in order to release financial resources to be redirected toward funding co-functions.
Investment in automation need to be increased as to realise operational and cost efficiencies.
All entities in the Justice family must continuously and jointly review their business processes in order to ensure alignment 36<br>