Problems within the Department of Correctional Services

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or Department) was meant to brief the Committee on its Quarterly Administrative and Financial Services and to provide an update on the review of the Correctional Services Act. However, he felt that the Committee could not engage properly with the Department because it had received the presentation one day before the date of the meeting. Instead, he proposed that the Committee abandon the agenda for the day in favour of using the meeting as an opportunity to raise specific questions on any matter falling within the competence of the Department.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said she felt like the Department had two Departments in one Department. Often one heard reports from different regions which spoke a different tone to that of the national Department. It was puzzling why the Department could not consolidate its reports and speak with one voice with its regional Departments. Perhaps it was time the Committee invite the Minister to explain why the Department lacked coordination.

Mr A Fritz (DA) said he was taken aback by the Departments’ actions of giving members documents a day before the meeting. It was impossible for the Committee to engage meaningfully in a discussion if documents were handed at the eleventh hour.

Ms Jenny Schreiner, Acting National Commissioner, DCS, apologised on behalf of the Department for the late submission of documents, saying it was not a deliberate strategy aimed at stifling debate. There were technical issues that the Department could not get right on time which resulted in delays.

Mr Z Madasa (ANC) said it was important for the Department and the Committee to realise the importance of working together in harmony. There seemed to be ‘a war of attrition between the Committee and the Department’ which needed to be addressed. There were policy gaps within the Department and one often had no clue whether the Department had embraced a policy framework that was in-line with government’s service delivery plan. For instance, there was no policy plan which supported the ideals of a developmental state model. The numerous complaints, which included the issue of inhumane conditions and delayed paroles, only underlined the policy gaps and the lack of coordination within the Department. All the complaints were forwarded to the Department and till now there had been no response on how the complaints were resolved. Incidents of fraud and corruption related cases were commonly reported but with no outcomes of the proceedings being tabled before the Committee.

Ms Schreiner admitted that reporting lines and the way complaints and disciplinary matters were handled needed to be improved drastically. At present, the Department was overhauling its reporting lines, including assigning specific personnel to deal with complaints. If the plan succeeded, the flow of information to management level would be improved since it had been noted that often complaints never reached the attention of top level management.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) requested detailed information about the Department’s policy on promotions, transfers, reshuffling and dismissals. She read a list of DCS officials who were promoted to senior positions within a short period of time despite not possessing proper qualifications to support the promotions or appointments. Furthermore, what was startling in most of the promotions was that the individuals concerned had personal relationships or connections with certain high-ranking officials. Others were even promoted notwithstanding the fact that they had cases of misconduct pending over them.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) remarked that the situation at the Department was chaotic. This state of affairs existed because Departmental officials undermined the Committee. The issue of promotion policy needed to be clarified sooner rather than later because it impacted heavily on service delivery. In Barberton prison, an official with over 25 years of service remained on the same rank while other officials with far less experience than him had been promoted several times. Inmates also complained that they were being transferred from one prison to another without proper consultations and respect of their rights.

Mr S Abram (ANC) restated the rumour that certain kitchens were operating under unhealthy conditions. What measures did the Department have to ensure that at the very least standard were maintained at acceptable levels?

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked why there were so many high disciplinary hearings in the Department which were not matched by the number of disciplinary measures or dismissals. Did that suggest all those individuals were wrongly accused and acquitted? In certain other correctional facilities, juveniles were allowed to wear the same attire as adult offender, why was it so?

Mr Fritz asked what contributed to an increase in the number of escapees in the current financial year compared to the previous. Did that have anything to do with the award of security contracts to new contactors who were failing to provide adequate security at the correctional facilities?

Ms Ngwenya asked what happened to the money allocated by the Treasury towards the implementation of the seven-day establishment. There was a rumour that the seven-day establishment programme was never put in place and no one knew what happened to that money. Millions were allocated towards the improvement of security at the correctional centres yet there was still an increase in the number of escapees. She suggested that the Department be sent away and report back with the answers in the next meeting.

Ms Schreiner replied that the seven-day establishment operation had been the Department’s focus since the last quarter. However, the implementation of the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) and the global financial recession had made a huge impact on the budget of the Department, creating a need to adjust certain areas in line with prioritisation of certain programmes. As a result, the seven- day establishment allocation was used to mitigate the impact of those eventualities and ended up being used on those operations deemed critical to the Department. The Department still had to submit a detailed report to the Committee on how diversions were made and how they impacted on certain scheduled programmes. The seven-day establishment was still considered by the Department as a critical programme which, if well-implemented, would enable the Department to ensure better staff utilisation.

Mr Abram appealed to the Department to consider the Committee as peers and not critics or enemies. At times, when Departments made presentations to Parliament, they did so with a degree of a lack of diligence as if they were not accountable to Parliament. Some presentations and reports would be submitted despite containing countless spelling and grammatical errors to Committees. In the current financial year, the Department received several qualifications from the Auditor General; the Committee would have appreciated it if the Department would spell out what turnaround strategy would be implemented to correct those qualifications. Also, an explanation should be provided about why there was under-utilisation of inmate manpower to do certain things. One could not comprehend why inmates could be locked for up to 23 hours a day when some had skills that could have immensely benefited the Department.

Ms Schreiner said the Department was extremely aware of the fact that it was accountable to Parliament and the need for the Committee and the Department to be partners could not have been better said. There were challenges within the Department, especially with regard to the flow of information, but measures were being taken to correct those challenges. One programme of action currently being reviewed was on the area of a specific turnaround time for attending to complaints and queries. The appointment of Parliamentary Liaison Officer would go a long way in ensuring that information from Parliament reached Department’s top management quickly and on time to ensure a speedy response from the Department. The envisaged turnaround time for complaints would be 14 days but it was important to note that certain complaints may need a little more than 14 days to process.

The Chairperson noted from the report that a tendency which the Committee had sought to squash by bringing the two Departments; the DCS and the Department of Public Works (DPW) together was emerging once again. A blame card was being used whereby one Department, especially the DCS, would inform the Committee that DPW was not spending its budget allocation properly. However, in the previous meeting, where both departments were present, DCS could not challenge the claim by DPW that it had spent up to 97% of its allocation.

The Chairperson also said that the Department should come up with answers on how it dealt with incidents of abuse of power especially in the Western Cape. The question asked on why juveniles wore orange uniforms also needed a quick response. Lastly, the management was asked to prepare a document where it would inform the Committee about what its vision was and where it was taking the Department as far as service delivery was concerned.

Ms Schreiner asked for more time to consider some of the questions asked. She said some questions needed responses from different regions that still needed to be forwarded with the questions.

All Members agreed that the Department be allowed time to consider the questions and provide a written submission at a later stage with full answers of what was asked.  The Committee identified the 10 March 2010 as the new date for the discussion of outstanding questions. The Chairperson asked members to submit any supplementary questions, in writing to the Committee Secretary, so that they could be forwarded to the Department.

The meeting was adjourned.