Introduction

1. This slide should reflect whether the risk is being successfully mitigated or not. The reason for the successful mitigation of the risk or the reason why the risk is not being mitigated must also be reflected. 2. Challenges faced mitigating the risk can also appear on this slide.

Recommendations
Recommendations must be of the level where Executive Management must interact with. Recommendations must be very clear, operationalisable and have not hidden resource implications.

RISK NO. 1: INADEQUATE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

Number suppliers complying with Contract specifications versus Number of Contracts Awarded Number of officials benefiting from Skills Transfer versus Number of Officials Targeted Percentage of relevant staff trained versus the Number of that should Receive Training Number of disputes between contracting parties versus Number of Contracting Parties Number of litigation, arbitration, conciliation and mediation processes amongst contracting parties versus Number of Contracting Parties Number of projects completed versus Number of Projects Awarded Number of audit and inspection queries Availability of contracts data Number of cancelled/ terminated contracts versus Number of Contracts Awarded Number of variation orders Various Committees (Steering Committees, Project Committees etc.) reports versus Number of Contracts Awarded Number of Contracts not paid on time vs. those paid on time Number of contracts not renewed on time versus Number of Contracts up for Renewal Number of new contracts awarded compared to last financial year Utilization of the Contract

RISK NO. 1: INADEQUATE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT (cont)

Indicators Number suppliers complying with Contract specifications versus Number of Contracts Awarded Number of officials benefiting from Skills Transfer versus Number of Officials Targeted Percentage of relevant staff trained versus the Number of that should Receive Training Number of disputes between contracting parties versus Number of Contracting Parties Number of litigation, arbitration, conciliation and mediation processes amongst contracting parties versus Number of Contracting Parties Number of projects completed versus Number of Projects Awarded Number of audit and inspection queries Availability of contracts data 1st Qtr 11/12 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

RISK NO. 1: INADEQUATE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT (cont)

Indicators Number of cancelled/ terminated contracts versus Number of Contracts Awarded Number of variation orders Various Committees (Steering Committees, Project Committees etc.) reports versus Number of Contracts Awarded Number of Contracts not paid on time vs. those paid on time 1st Qtr 11/12 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

Number of contracts not renewed on time versus Number of Contracts up for Renewal
Number of new contracts awarded compared to last financial year Utilization of the Contract

RISK NO. 2: INADEQUATE HR PROVISIONING IN ORDER TO DELIVER THE CORE MANDATE OF THE DEPARTMENT
Indicators not yet developed

RISK 3: INEFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF CASE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES

Number of health assessments completed vs the number of offenders admitted Number of offenders oriented/inducted vs the number of offenders admitted Comprehensive assessment profiling completed against the number that should have been completed Percentage of offenders serving sentence longer than 24 months who have Correctional Sentence Plans developed against the percentage (70% ) that should have been developed Number of CRT`s functioning against the number of CRT`s that should be functioning Number of offenders who completed Correctional Programs against the target of 48929( 12233 per quarter) Number of offenders who completed the Pre-release Program against the number of offenders who were placed /released.

Number of Health assessments completed vs number of offenders admitted

1.2 1
0.8

0.6 0.4
0.2 0
number of offenders admitted health assessment completed
1st qtr 11/12 2nd qtr 11/12 3rd qtr 11/12 4th qtr 11/12

Number of Offenders oriented / inducted vs number of offenders admitted

1.2 1 0.8
0.6

0.4 0.2
0
1st qtr 11/12 2nd qtr 11/12 3rd qtr 11/12 4th qtr 11/12/ Number of offenders oriented /inducted Number of offenders admitted

Comp h

m t p ofili g ompl t g i houl h ompl t

t th

th t

1 t qtr 11 12 2 qtr 11 12

3rd qtr 11 12 4th qtr 11 12

Comprehe ive e m e t profili g omplete

Comprehe i ve e m e t profili g th t houl h ve e e omplete

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Percentage of offenders serving longer than 24 month who have Correctional Sentence Plans developed against the percentage (70%) that should have been developed

Pe e

st qt 11/12

2n qt 11/12

4th qt 11/12

qt 11/12

#

$

   !         

e e

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

e e e e e e m nths wh have e ti nal Sentence Plans evel e

Pe c entage (70%) f Sentence Plans that sh l have been evel e

#

   "       %

Nu ber of CRT's functioning against the nu ber of CRT's that should be functioning

12
1 08 06 04 02
' 0 '& '&
Numbe f RT's Fun ti ning Numbe f RT's th t sh ul be fun ti ning

1st qt 11/12 2n qt 11/12 3 qt 11/12 4th qt 11/12

' )

' )

Number of Offenders who completed Correctional Programmes against the target of 48929 (12233 per quarter)

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1st qtr 11/12 Sexual Programme y DCS Sexual Programme y Exter al Servi e Provider estorative Justi e y DCS Restorative Justi e y Exter al Provider Crossroads y DCS Crossroads y Exter al Servi e Provider

2 d qtr 11/12

3rd qtr 11/12 4th qtr 11/12

Num r

O i s

rs r 12 01 08 06 04 2 0

c m (

C rr c i l Pr r mm s r uar r) (C )

11 12

11 12

11 12

11 12

e e

e yD e y Ex e eP e e yD e y e e e

e
A e A e Ex e

eP eP e eP

P e- e e e y D P e- e e e y Ex e P e e Be e Be e eP yD y Ex e e

Nu ber of offenders ho co pl ted the re-rel as rogra against the nu ber of offenders ho ere plac d / rel as d

12
1 08 06 04 02
4 43 2 9@ @
Num e f f fe e c m ple e P e- e le e p g m e Num e f f fe e e le e e e pl ce /

1 q 11/12 2 3 4 q 11/12 q 11/12 q 11/12

6 7A 3 8 49 8 73

3 5 6

A3 43 7 A 3 3 4 49 8 73 5 4 4 3 2 6

RISK NO. 4: INADEQUATE IT SYSTEMS SECURITY

Developed and approved IT Security Policy Number of users trained in IT Security policy in relation to the total number of users. Number of sites with effective IT security infrastructure (Firewalls & IPS/IDS) in relation to the total number of computerized sites. Number of resolved IT security breaches in relation the total number of reported IT security breaches incidents. Number of DCS workstations with sufficient IT security controls (i.e. Patches, updated anti-virus system, etc.) in relation to the total number of workstations.

RISK NO. 4: INADEQUATE IT SYSTEMS SECURITY (cont)

Indicators Developed and approved IT Security Policy Number of users trained in IT Security policy in relation to the total number of users. Number of sites with effective IT security infrastructure (Firewalls & IPS/IDS) in relation to the total number of computerized sites. Number of resolved IT security breaches in relation the total number of reported IT security breaches incidents. 1st Qtr 11/12 None that exist None so far 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

10

150 Number of DCS workstations with Workstations sufficient IT security controls (i.e. with security Patches, updated anti-virus controls system, etc.) in relation to the total against 168 number of workstations. total PCs

RISK NO. 5: INADEQUATE BASIC IT INFRASTRUCTURE

Number of sites with reliable WAN connectivity to a dedicated server room. Number of server rooms meeting DCS server room standards in relation to the total number of sites with server rooms. Number of DCS centers with adequate network/data points in relation to the total number of networkable computerized devices. Number of servers down due to inadequate basic IT infrastructure in relation to the total number of servers. Number of sites without WAN connectivity in relation to the number of sites within the DCS. Number of computers connected to the DCS network in relation to the total number of computers. Number of calls logged for inadequate IT infrastructure versus total number of calls. Number of sites experienced WAN down time in relation to the total number of sites with WAN connectivity. Number of sites with effective backup solutions in relation to the total number of computerized sites. IT Human Resource capacity versus IT services available considering the geographical spread of DCS.

RISK NO. 5: INADEQUATE BASIC IT INFRASTRUCTURE (Cont)

Indicators Number of sites with reliable WAN connectivity to a dedicated server room. Number of server rooms meeting DCS server room standards in relation to the total number of sites with server rooms. Number of DCS centers with adequate network/data points in relation to the total number of networkable computerized devices. Number of servers down due to inadequate basic IT infrastructure in relation to the total number of servers. 1st Qtr 11/12 10 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

10

None

Number of sites without WAN connectivity in relation to the number of sites within the DCS.

None

RISK NO. 5: INADEQUATE BASIC IT INFRASTRUCTURE (Cont)

Indicators Number of computers connected to the DCS network in relation to the total number of computers. Number of calls logged for inadequate IT infrastructure versus total number of calls. Number of sites experienced WAN down time in relation to the total number of sites with WAN connectivity. Number of sites with effective backup solutions in relation to the total number of computerized sites. IT Human Resource capacity versus IT services available considering the geographical spread of DCS. 1st Qtr 11/12 170 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

None

None

Inadequate IT staff versus DCS spread

RISK NO. 6: LACK OF INTEGRATED PLANNING ON INFRA-STRUCTURAL NEEDS

Annual Regional Building Advisory Committee and National Building Advisory Committee Meetings to prioritize infrastructure projects with clear scope by the Regions. Integrated Infrastructure Life Cycle Plan PRRC for the monitoring of new major infrastructure involvement to ensure integrated planning with Regions and Head Office Branches

RISK NO. 6: LACK OF INTEGRATED PLANNING ON INFRA-STRUCTURAL NEEDS(Cont)

Indicators Annual Regional Building Advisory Committee and National Building Advisory Committee Meetings to prioritize infrastructure projects with clear scope by the Regions. Integrated Infrastructure Life Cycle Plan PRRC for the monitoring of new major infrastructure involvement to ensure integrated planning with Regions and Head Office Branches 1st Qtr 11/12 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

RISK NO 7: LACK OF COMPREHENSIVE, ACCURATE AND RELIABLE DATA FOR DECISION MAKING

Indicators not yet developed

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY

No
1 2

Indicator Reviewed HRD Strategy aligned to Public Service Strategic HRD Framework Vision 2015

Responsible Head Office

Current filled, vacant and unfunded HRD posts Regions (to report overall (number of HRD practitioner / trainer posts filled for region and per m/area) at CO, SCO, ASD and DD level) Number of trainers and HRD managers trained as Occupational, Development, Education and Training Development Practitioners (ODETDP), Assessors, Moderators and Skills Dev Facilitators, Shooting Range Officers Training centres accredited vs total number of training centres Shooting ranges accredited vs total number of shooting ranges. Functioning of HRD Forums, Regional and National Learning Committee Meetings held Regions (to report overall for region and per m/area)

4 5

Regions (to report overall for region and per m/area) Regions (to report overall for region and per m/area) Regions (to report overall for region and per m/area)

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

No
7

Indicator Training Statistics and Expenditure Learnerships Internships Courses offered Bursaries Budget Allocated and Spent Learner record system developed Training evaluation system developed

Responsible Region (to report overall regional statistics)

8 9 10

Head Office and Regions Head Office Head Office

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 2: Current filled and vacant HRD posts (number of HRD practitioner/trainer posts filled at CO, SCO, ASD & DD level)

Posts Status Not funded Post

1st Qtr 11/12 Filled Vacant

2n Qtr 11/12 Filled Vacant

3rd Qtr 11/12 Filled Vacant

4th Qtr 11/12 Filled Vacant

DD ASD SCO CO

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 2: Current filled and vacant HRD posts (number of HRD practitioner/trainer posts filled at CO, SCO, ASD & DD level)
Barb F DD ASD SCO CO V Bethal F V Klerks F V Polok F V Rooigr F V Rusten F V T/Ndou F V Witban F V R/Off F V

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 3: Number of trainers and HRD managers trained as Occupational, Development, Education and Training Development Practitioners (ODETDP), Assessors, Moderators , Skills Development Facilitators and Firearm Control Officers Regions and H/Office to report

1st Qtr 11/12

Current Require d

2n Qtr 11/12
Current Require d

3rd Qtr 11/12

Current Require d

4th Qtr 11/12

Current Require d

Assessors Moderators OD ETDP Skills Dev Facilitators Firearm Control Officers

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 3: Number of trainers and HRD managers trained as Occupational, Development, Education and Training Development Practitioners (ODETDP), Assessors, Moderators , Skills Development Facilitators and Firearm Control Officers Regions and H/Office to report

Barb C Asses sors Moder ators OD ETDP Firear m Contro l Officer s R

Bethal C R

Klerksd Polokw C R C R

Rooigr C R

Rusten C R

T/Ndou Witban C R C R

R/Off C R

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 4: Training centres accredited vs total number of training centres Regions and Head Office to report 1st Qtr 11/12 Number of training centres Number of accredited training centres 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 4: Training centres accredited vs total number of training centres Regions and Head Office to report
Barb Number of training centres Number of accredited training centres Betha Klerks Polokw Rooigr Rusten T/Ndou Witban R/Off

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 5: Shooting ranges accredited vs total number of shooting ranges Regions and Head Office to report
1st Qtr 11/12 Number of shooting ranges Number of accredited shooting ranges 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 5: Shooting ranges accredited vs total number of shooting ranges Regions and Head Office to report
Barb Number of shooting ranges Number of accredited shooting ranges Betha Klerks Polokw Rooigr Rusten T/Ndou Witban R/Off

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 6: Functioning of HRD Forums, National and Regional Learning Committees
Dates of meetings held Forum Regional Learning Committee Barberton Learning Committee Bethal Learning Committee Klerksdorp Learning Committee Polokwane Learning Committee Rooigrond Learning Committee Rustenburg Learning Committee Thohoyandou Learning Committee Witbank Learning Committee 1st Qtr 11/12 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 7: Training statistics (Learnerships, Internships, External Training, Number of people trained, Bursaries) Regional and Ahead Office to report
Annual target Learnerships (number that commenced in the quarter) Internships (that commenced in the quarter) External Training (completed in the quarter) Number of people trained (completed in the quarter) 1st Qtr 11/12 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 8: Budget Allocated and Budget Spent
Annual target Learnership/s Internships (that commenced in the quarter) External Training Functional Training Bursaries Budget Spent 1st Qtr 11/12 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

RISK NO. 8: INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF HRD STRATEGY Cont

Indicator 8: Budget Allocated and Budget Spent
Annual target Barberton Bethal Klerksdorp Polokwane Rooigrond Rustenburg Thohoyandou Witbank Regional Office Total for Region Budget Spent 1st Qtr 11/12 2nd Qtr 11/12 3rd Qtr 11/12 4th Qtr 11/12

RISK NO. 9: INADEQUATE ASSET / FLEET MANAGEMENT IN DCS.

Risk Mitigation Indicators: Asset register is up to date Assets are balancing Assets are reconciling Asset classification is correct Asset valuation is correct

RISK NO. 9: INADEQUATE ASSET / FLEET MANAGEMENT IN DCS (Cont)

Indicators Asset register is up to date Assets are balancing Assets are reconciling Asset classification is correct Asset valuation is correct Barb Bethal Klerks Polok Rooigr Rust Thoh Witb RO

RISK NO. 10: OVERCROWDING DUE TO REMAND DETAINEES.

Risk Mitigation Indicators: Indicator1: Regional distribution Indicator 1.1: Regional distribution Indicator 1.2: Distribution in terms of gender Indicator 1.3: Distribution in terms of age Indicator 1.4: Foreign National RDs Indicator 2: ATDs with and without bail Indicator 2.1: RDs children with and without bail Indicator 3: RDs per period in detention Indicator 3.1: RDs who spent more than 24 months in detention Indicator 4: Diversion of RDs Indicator 9.1: Sec 63A application (Centres with capacity of 140% and above) Indicator 9.2: Sec 63(1) application Indicator 9.3: Approved applications ito 63 applications

RISK NO. 10: OVERCROWDING DUE TO REMAND DETAINEES. (Cont)

Indicator1: Regional Distribution

Quarters Regional distribution Distribution in terms of gender Males 1st QTR 11/12 2nd QTR 11/12 3rd QTR 11/12 4th QTR 11/12 Females Distribution in terms of age children Youth Adults Foreign National ATDs

Comments:

RISK NO. 10: OVERCROWDING DUE TO REMAND DETAINEES. (Cont)

Indicator 2: ATDs with and without bail
Risk Mitigation Indicators

ATD children with bail

1st QTR 2nd QTR 3rd QTR 4th QTR

ATD children without bail

1st QTR 2nd QTR 3rd QTR 4th QTR

11/12
LMN Region

11/12

11/12 11/12

11/12

11/12

11/12

11/12

Comments:

RISK NO. 10: OVERCROWDING DUE TO REMAND DETAINEES. (Cont)

Indicator 3: ATDs who spent more than 24 months in detention Risk Mitigation Indicators Females Males Comments: 1st QTR 11/12 2nd QTR 11/12 3rd QTR 11/12 4th QTR 11/12

RISK NO. 10: OVERCROWDING DUE TO REMAND DETAINEES. (Cont)

Indicator 4: Diversion of ATDs
Sec 63A application (Centres with capacity of 140% and above) Sec 63(1) application Approved applications i.t.o 63 applications
Subm itted Concl uded

Section 62

Section 62(f)

Section 71

Section 72

Subm itted

Concl uded

Subm itted

Concl uded

Subm itted

Concl uded

Subm itted

Concl uded

Subm itted

Concl uded

Subm itted

Concl uded

1st QTR 11/12 2nd QTR 11/12 3rd QTR 11/12 4th QTR 11/12

Comments:

RISK NO. 10: OVERCROWDING DUE TO SENTENCED OFFENDERS (Cont)

Risk Mitigation Indicators: Number of offenders qualifying to be considered for placement on parole & correctional supervision who have not been considered Number of offenders with approved dates of placement on parole & correctional supervision who are still incarcerated Number of backlog at CMC`s and CSPB Number of offenders who have reached of their sentence against the number who have been considered for possible referral to court quo Number of offenders who have reached 1/6 of their sentence and who have been considered for possible placement Number of cases in custody with unpaid fines

Ind c

1: Nu be

f ffende s n cus dy

h exp ed p ce en d e

1.2
1

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0

1st 2 d 3rd 4th

tr 11/12 tr 11/12 tr 11/12 tr 11/12

1.2
1

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0

1st 2 d 3rd 4th

tr 11/12 tr 11/12 tr 11/12 tr 11/12

FB

Ind c

2: Nu b e

f ffende s

h exp e d c ns de CMC

n d es nd n

B E E D

DC

EB D CF

B F DH

E EF

FE C B D

c ns d e e d by

Ind c

3: Nu be

f ffende s efe ed by CMC e d n p ce en

CS B

h u dec s n

1.2 1 0.8
0.6

0.4 0.2 0
1st qtr 11/12 2 d qtr 11/12 3rd qtr 11/12 Num er of ases re eived Num er of ases fi alised Num er of ases outsta di g

4t qtr 11/12

Ind c 4: Sec n 276 1 : Nu be f ffende s d ed, pp ved be p ced unde supe v s n nd s n cus dy f e 1/6 f sen ence
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Num er of Offe ders admitted

1st qtr 11/12 2 d qtr 11/12 3rd qtr 11/12

Approved to e pla ed u der Supervisio

ustod after 1/6

4t qtr 11/12

Ind cator 5: Sect on 287(4)(b) 276A(3): Number of offenders reached of sentence, cons dered for referra to court a quo and p aced under superv s on.

1.2 1 0.8
0.6

0.4 0.2 0
1st qtr 11/12 2 d qtr 11/12 3rd qtr 11/12 Offe ders rea hed 1/4 Co sidered for referral Pla ed u der supervisio

4th qtr 11/12

Ind c d

6: Sec n 276 1 f / 287 4 f ne c ses: u be ed, nu be f p ce en s pp ved nd nu be s

f ffende s n cus dy

1.2 1 0.8 0.6

0.4 0.2 0
Num er of offe ders admitted 1st qtr 11/12 2 d qtr 11/12 3rd qtr 11/12 Approved to e pla ed u der Supervisio

Still i

ustody

4t qtr 11/12

Ind c

7: Nu be Of Offende s S In Cus dy W h Exp ed D es

ce en

1.2 1 0.8
0.6

0.4 0.2
0

1st qtr 11/12 2 d qtr 11/12 3rd qtr 11/12 4th qtr 11/12