Department of Correctional Services Annual Report 2011/12

Correctional Services

16 October 2012
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The annual report of the Department of Correctional Services was discussed in depth by the Portfolio Committee and officials of the Department, based on an analysis of the report by the Committee researcher.

The Committee researcher noted a lack of consistency between performance and planned targets, and some targets were not clearly measurable. Key successes were the reduction of escapes; implementation of an electronic monitoring system; the launching of a halfway house, and the establishment of the Medical Parole Advisory Board.

Key challenges were the development of Correctional Service Plans within 21 days; retention and attraction of scarce skills like psychologists, artisans, social workers and educators; increases in irregular expenditure, fruitless and wasteful expenditure and overcrowding; and under-expenditure of R893 million. Targets for inmate skills development, production workshops, agriculture, and chicken production were not achieved.

In discussion, the DCS had to face and defend themselves against severe criticism. An important issue was the lack of consequences for DCS members guilty of offences that the Chairperson described as “dismissable.”  There had been very few dismissals. The DCS countered that there was a lack of regional centralisation, which made it difficult to dismiss people. There were questions about the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the DCS and the Department of Public Works. The rollout of electronic monitoring received attention. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into with the Independent Development Trust (IDT) for a fencing contract, caused concern. The Auditor General had claimed that it was not fully in accord with Treasury regulations. Members doubted if it was in accord with the bidding principles in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

There were questions about mother and child facilities. As had happened before during the term of the present Committee, failure to recruit psychologists, social workers and educators, was cause for grave concern. There were questions about material losses, as well as about the appointment of foreigners, especially as IT consultants. The DCS was urged to engage with other departments about agricultural production, and to make haste with the proposed trading entity.

There was considerable discussion about the DCS receiving yet another qualified audit. The Department was interrogated about adhering to Treasury regulations, and a failure to respond to Auditor General recommendations over the preceding three years. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure caused concern.  

The Department responded that the audit qualification had to be contextualized. It had at no point decided to willfully disregard regulations.  The DCS was willing to do what it took to achieve an unqualified audit. The DCS team could take the Department to an unqualified audit.  The DCS National Commissioner assured the Committee that the Department had the leadership ability to face its challenges.
 

Meeting report

Analysis by Committee Researcher
Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Committee researcher, noted a lack of consistency between performance and planned targets in the annual report.  Some targets were not clearly measurable.  Key successes were the reduction of escapes; implementation of an electronic monitoring system; the launching of a halfway house, and the establishment of the medical parole advisory board.

Key challenges were the development of correctional sentence plans within 21 days; retention and attraction of scarce skills like psychologists, artisans, social workers and educators; increases in irregular expenditure, fruitless and wasteful expenditure and overcrowding; and under-spending to the extent of R893 million.

Spending in the various programmes was 89.9% for Administration; 99.8% for Security; 97.6% for Corrections; 100% for Care; 100% for Development; 100% for Social Reintegration, and 82.1% for facilities.

In the Development programme, targets for skills development; production workshops; agriculture and chicken production were not achieved.

Discussion
Mr Tom Moyane, Department of Correctional Services’ (DCS) National Commissioner, said that there was an action plan for a clean audit. The DCS was a complex department and a wide range of competencies had to be developed. Performance information had to be improved, together with financial performance and management. Leadership and organizational culture had to receive attention. Such matters had to be elevated to the highest level. The DCS was not proud of the fact that only 47% of targets had been met. The question was: why was there failure? Targets had to be measurable in terms of being strategic or operational. The DCS had set 122 targets, which had to be scaled down to measurable proportions.

Financial management had to improve. There had been massive underspending, and bad management of assets. The procurement process was ineffective. The DCS had taken the negative audit opinion seriously. The Auditor General (AG) dashboard had changed since he and the Chief Financial Officer had taken office in 2010.

The state of information technology (IT) in the DCS was the scourge of the Department. But in terms of leadership and governance, he was confident that the DCS could respond.

The core issues were abuse of sick leave and overtime, vacancy rates, and the lack of a recruitment and retention strategy. Human resource challenges were resistance to change, and abuse of alcohol and sick leave. Not only high level positions had to be filled. The coalface also had to be well scaffolded.  Matters of education and health in the DCS were the responsibility of the state. It was difficult for the DCS to recruit in those fields.  Professionalisation had to proceed. There was a lack of internal IT specialists. Change had been achieved in IT governance, and the DCS was turning the corner. Consultants had been at the IT helm for 18 years.  Weak IT impacted on deliverables. The Remand Detainee Offender Management System (RDOMS) was not functioning.

Mr Moyane said a decision had been taken with the previous Minister to cancel Public/Private Partnership (PPP) centres.  Additional bed space would be dealt with.  The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) reports had raised issues around a human rights culture. Assaults and deaths would be dealt with at the highest level.  Tardiness with post mortems had to be dealt with. Policy milestones included the Remand Detention branch, and the differentiation between sentenced and unsentenced offenders; internal audit and the Medical Parole Board. Electronic monitoring would be expanded.

The Chairperson drew attention to a list of offences listed in the Annual Report (AR) on page 196. There were 156 cases of theft and bribery, 8 of sexual harassment, 3 of discrimination, 41 of being asleep on duty, 119 of being under the influence of alcohol, 3 of possession of alcohol, 32 of possession of drugs, 6 of permitting inmates to drink, and 32 of abuse of firearms. There were 421 dismissable offences, but only 183 people had been dismissed. It closely resembled the situation in the previous AR. Officials had committed gross offences without consequences for them. If things continued that way, the sense of impunity would remain. There had been 4 000 misdemeanours the previous year. There were offences committed for which people were locked up in the private sector.

Mr Moyane responded that there had to be introspection about the Department’s organizational culture. It was difficult to restore command and control in an institution once these had been lost. He agreed that the 183 dismissals had not been enough. However, when he joined the DCS in 2010, 41 inmates had escaped from a single prison.  Mr Modise had alerted him, and after a visit there was a decision taken to dismiss officials.  Laws had to be changed to give the Accounting Officer the power to fire people for gross negligence. There was an organizational culture of perceived immunity to the process of law. Junior officials laughed at management. A problem was that due processes of dismissal could be delayed.

Mr Teboho Mokoena, Chief Deputy Commissioner (HR), stated that there were problems at the coalface, when it came to disciplinary action. There was an unwritten rule that an employer could not challenge his own outcomes. When a presiding officer was appointed, whatever outcome or decision was made had to be embraced by the employer. It was assumed that the presiding officer had consulted with the employer. The employer had to have the right to review a decision by a presiding officer when only a written warning was given to someone caught sleeping on the job. There was a double jeopardy. The employer had to be able to do what the CCMA or the labour court did.

Mr Mokoena continued that there had to be centralization at regional level. Regional Commissioners had to have the right to allocate cases before them. The DCS had to build its own case law.

The Chairperson told Mr Moyane that the DCS had to tell the Committee which offences were deemed dismissable, and the Committee would agree and back them up. The DCS was a security institution. It was unacceptable to sleep on duty or abuse a firearm. If the DCS were unable to implement measures, a way would be found to do so.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked about transport for victims to parole hearings. There were also other challenges that prevented them from attending.

Ms Mathibela responded that victims would also be enabled to participate through video. In some regions, DCS staff could help with transport.

Ms Ngwenya asked how many parolees were targeted for electronic monitoring, and a time frame.

Mr Moyane responded that electronic monitoring was in place, with 108 lifer parolees tagged. During the pilot period there had been no escapes. The system would be recommended for a national rollout.

Ms Mathibela added that the pilot would end in March, and rollout would proceed in April 2013.

Ms Ngwenya asked why the DCS and the Department of Public Works (DPW) had not signed the first Service Level Agreement (SLA). She asked about benefits of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Independent Development trust (IDT).

Mr Moyane answered that the SLA had been sent to the DPW, but there had been no response towards establishing a proper mechanism. A proposed meeting with the DG in September had been cancelled. His office would provide inputs about the signing of a redraft. The MOU with IDT was related to basic principles of delivery. The MOU was necessary because of the inability of the DPW to deliver. The agreement for fencing signed with the IDT, was similar to those signed with them by other departments. The Auditor General had been informed, and the DCS was told to check if it was within the law, which was duly done. It had been said that the agreement constituted non-compliance with the PFMA, but the document had gone through to stakeholders before it was signed. Without the IDT, most government departments would be unable to deliver on capital projects.

The Chairperson noted that the AG had picked up deviations with the IDT. The AG was of the opinion that it had not complied with supply chain management principles. He told the delegates from the AG that they could defend their position.

Mr E Sokhela, DCS Chief Financial Officer, said that there had been a need to transfer funds. The IDT had started the bidding process and the DCS had transferred the funds. There had been a pre-payment of R77 million. The AG had claimed that it was not in accord with Treasury regulations, but IDT had advertised for the tender. The IDT had to report on a quarterly basis about monies spent. The question was whether the AG had interpreted rightly. The Department was still engaging with the Treasury. The IDT was a government agency.

The Chairperson remarked that the pre-payment was not like the way the DCS dealt with the State Information and Technology Agency (SITA).  SITA had to do the work before they got paid. The question was who would be held accountable if there were maladministration.  The Portfolio Committee (PC) could not outsource oversight. It was not common practice to pay upfront.

Mr Solly Jiyana, for the AG, said that the matter had been discussed with the DCS before the report. The DCS did not understand the AG’s interpretation. The money had not been spent in terms of supply chain management.

Mr J Selfe (DA) remarked that the PFMA required an open and transparent tender system.  The IDT had secured a fencing contract to the amount of a R0.5bn.  He had looked in the tender gazette for a public advertisement, but there had been none. If the IDT was the implementing agent, and the tender process was not open and transparent, there could be non-compliance with Treasury regulations.

Mr Moyane responded that IDT had advertised the tender in the newspapers. The IDT was an agency of state and had its own supply-chain management system. Similar processes had been followed as was followed by other state departments, notably the Department of Justice. He told the AG that some common ground had to be found in respect of Treasury regulations. He understood the apprehensions, but the DCS legal department had gone into the matter. It was a security issue, and had been informed by objective conditions.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) asked where the 30 houses for offenders serving under two years’ imprisonment were, and when offenders would be migrated to them.

Ms Jolingana, DCS Chief Operations Officer, said that information about the houses would be supplied in writing. The houses were spread across the country.

Mr Magagula remarked on the movement of funds from animal production to administration. He asked what the Department had done to fix the broken abattoir.

Mr Zacharia Modise, Chief Deputy Commissioner, said that the butchery at Zonderwater had been renovated.

Mr Moyane added that offender labour was handicapped by workshops that did not function. A trading account would be opened before the end of the year. Treasury had been approached outside of the budget vote. There had to be a re-capitalisation of all equipment. The trading account would provide the offender with something to take home. He asked the PC for support in the matter. Offender labour could be a source of revenue.

Mr Magagula asked when the instalment of intercom systems and panic buttons would take place.

Mr Modise responded that the second phase of the fencing project would include intercoms. The budget could not accommodate intercoms, and hence it had been shifted to second phase. The DCS had budgeted for panic buttons.  Panic buttons were important, as assault and gangsterism were rife.

The Chairperson remarked that it was the first time he had heard about panic buttons. He questioned the effectiveness of a panic button in a cell with gangs.  After lockup, nothing could be done. He asked what the DCS hoped to achieve with a panic button in a cell with 50 inmates.

Mr Magagula remarked that mother and child facilities had been opened at Pollsmoor and Durban, but had never been properly established.  He asked about funding and implementation.

Ms Jolingana responded that the facilities at Pollsmoor and Durban-Westville were fully functional. Funding would be allocated to units. The private sector had donated fridges, TVs and microwaves. There was no separate budget available for new functions.

Ms Ngubeni (ANC) asked about the well-being of prisoners. The JICS Annual Report referred to some inmates going three months without seeing a doctor. She asked what was being done. She asked why ARV treatment was not handed out to inmates.

Mr Moyane responded that medication could not be dealt with on a piecemeal basis. The DCS could not supply ARV treatment by itself. The Department of Health had to be involved in all transversal issues. Absence of medicine was a problem.

Ms Ngubeni asked why there were Remand Detainees who had been in prison for five years.

Ms Britta Rotman (DCS) replied that the DCS had to implement court decisions. The matter was being discussed in the Justice Cluster, and there were case flow management meetings at the local level. The Correctional Matters Amendment Act would deal with those awaiting trial for longer than two years. It was still a court decision, but the DCS could apply to court.

Ms Ngubeni asked about discipline, counselling and rehabilitation related to abuse of sick leave, resistance to change and alcohol abuse.

Mr Moyane responded that the DCS had employed a specialist on employee wellness, to look at conditions of employment and the work environment.

Ms Ngwenya asked how medical professionals would be attracted, and commented on the shortage of social workers.

The Chairperson replied that according to the DCS,their labour force was short of 18 000 members. The DCS had claimed that the Treasury had instructed them to cut their staff.  In fact, the Treasury had told them to cut costs. It had been a DCS decision to cut costs by cutting staff. HR had to be fixed up. There were people who could not go on parole because there were no social workers.  Inmates were being punished.  Some could not go on parole because of an inability to administer the process.

Mr P Cele (ANC) noted that there were figures for inmate-on-inmate assault (83)% and staff on inmates (17%). There were no figures for assaults by inmates on staff.

Ms Jolingana responded that the percentage for inmate on staff assaults was 3,12%. There had been 165 inmate-on-official assaults.

Mr Cele asked about the retraining of officials – when it would be and where funding would be from.

Ms Jolingana answered that there was funding from SITA to upgrade. There was a training module for emergency support teams.

Mr Cele referred to material losses (AR, page 92). He asked what happened to persons who damaged vehicles. He asked if the people trained for firefighting were new recruits.

Ms Mathibela replied that training firefighters was a statutory requirement, and was already in the system.

Mr Sokhela replied that the DCS retrained people who drove government vehicles. There was a continuous full audit to ensure that transport cars were in a proper state. Cases were fully investigated and people involved were punished.

Mr Mokoena added that 11 people had been cited for mismanagement of state finances, and 183 people had been dismissed.

Mr Cele asked what happened to a supervisor in the event of use of state property without permission.

Mr Mokoena replied that investigations reached a point where the supervisor could be charged with lack of oversight.  In Johannesburg, an offender had been wrongfully released, because the supervisor had failed to exercise due diligence. The supervisor and the Head of Centre were both charged.

Mr Mokoena responded to a question about foreigners in the DCS employ. He did not want to venture a guess about how they had come to be recruited in the first place. The necessary local skills might not have been available.

Mr Moyane said this situation was related to consultants in IT. An audit had indicated that they were working there. The CDC (HR) and the General Information Technology Officer had to check. They were people with high level skills.

The Chairperson referred to 11 chaplains appointed. He asked how one justified a chaplaincy as a scarce skill. The AR was a public document. It had to be explained why 11 foreigners had been appointed.

Mr Alfred Tsetsane (DCS) answers that it was temporary appointments made by heads of centres. Pastors could run programmes. Their congregations were in the system.

Mr Cele asked about a training policy for people who drove DCS vehicles.

Mr Tsetsane answered that there was a special licence for driving state vehicles. Reckless drivers had to pay damages back. If there had not been recklessness, there was state cover. People who were involved in accidents were withdrawn.

Mr S Abram (ANC) remarked that Ms Ngubeni’s question about Remand Detainees held in prison for longer than five years, had not been answered. The matter needed urgent attention. The Department had to engage with the Justice Cluster.

Ms Rotman replied that the longest awaiting trial inmates had had their trial postponed by their legal representatives. They were members of the Boeremag. There was a national integrated case flow. The DCS could engage with Justice about a lack of courtrooms.

Mr Abram referred to the 30 houses dedicated to those serving less than two years. He asked why money had to be spent on that, when non-custodial sentencing or community service might have been considered.

Mr Moyane replied that courts were still doing the sentencing, but judges were looking at alternative sentencing. Non-custodial sentencing was still not a preferred route for Justice.

Mr Abram remarked that gangs were getting ever more violent, but the results of the DCS gang management strategy were not to be seen.

Mr Abram said that he was a farmer. Food security in South Africa had been compromised. He had told Rural Development that farming was a noble profession. The DCS had to engage other departments and people in rural development projects. There were other departments that wanted to develop farming, which would see the DCS as a customer. The DCS had to develop its own farming strength. There was a passion for agriculture in some centres, yet it was lacking in others.

Mr Moyane agreed that there had to be engagement with Agriculture and Rural development towards self-sufficiency

Mr Abram urged the DCS to get the trading entity going. The Department was wasting people who could be used to produce, and get something back for themselves.

Mr Moyane responded that equipment would be re-capitalised through the trading entity.

Mr Abram asked what the R27 million for PPP prisons had been spent on.

Mr Abram said that there had to be a written response in every instance where the AG had shown the red flag. The DCS had to go by the book. A plan of action was needed.

Mr Abram noted that there had been 100% spending on the elderly and infirm. He asked how it had been spent. There was no measuring tool. He asked if the aged and infirm were being informed about their rights. South Africa would be judged by how vulnerable groups were treated.

Mr Moyane responded that the DCS would reply in writing about AG red flag issues and money spent on PPP centres.

The Chairperson noted that no one had unpacked Mr Abram’s question about a gang management strategy.

Mr L Max (DA) said that he had suggested in 2010 that code enforcement be centralized, as Mr Mokoena had suggested earlier in the meeting. Transgressions had to be ring fenced.  Fairness was the yardstick in labour law, but there also had to be fairness towards the employer.

Mr Max remarked that an unqualified audit should be the norm. The AG could oversee. If the DCS continued on the same course, there would be the same recommendations every year. The same issues had come up over the preceding three years. If there were no compliance consequences, the role of the AG became academic.

Mr Max noted that Mr Moyane had said that the 122 targets set, had turned out to be too many. He asked if Mr Moyane had been there when the targets were set. If so, the question was why they had not been achieved. Negligence and bad management could be to blame. He asked why top officials had blatantly ignored Treasury regulations for service delivery. He asked how it was possible for irregular expenditure to have escalated to R240 million. Fruitless and wasteful expenditure had gone up from R68 000 to R71 million. There had to be regular meetings of sections in the Department. There had to be monitoring and questions had to be asked.

Mr Max asked how the situation with regard to procurement of contracts had developed.

Mr Max suggested that a staffing model was needed. The unions had pointed out that the DCS could not staff the seven-day establishment. The staffing model had to be used to recruit people. The growth of the inmate population could be predicted.

Mr Max told Mr Moyane that his leadership had been criticized during the audit process. Compliance was a problem. The audit plan had not been implemented.  The Department had not stuck with its own policies. The annual report could cause Mr Moyane to be removed. Problems were not insurmountable. There had to be clear guidelines as to the consequences for people. The R16 billion DCS budget was taxpayers’ money.

Mr Moyane responded that it was important to think soberly and “out of the box.”  The audit qualification had to be contextualized. The Department had at no point decided to willfully disregard regulations. He admitted that he had been part and parcel of establishing the 122 targets. The DCS was willing to do what it took to achieve an unqualified audit. He said that there was indeed a staffing model.  Models would have to be expanded. It was not as easy as it seemed. He was not the only one who had failed to achieve an unqualified audit over the last 17 years. Yet he would not abdicate his responsibility. The DCS team could take the Department to an unqualified audit.

The Chairperson asked about consequences for missing targets, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, and the allegation that Treasury regulations had been ignored.

Mr Moyane responded that he had not ignored Treasury regulations. Management would decide together where they had gone wrong as regards expenditure. There had been appointments for internal control and compliance. The DCS had stopped ignoring IT challenges.  The DCS had been qualified on assets for three years, but it had intervened about assets. Areas of weakness had been registered. The Department would come back with a programme to deal with critical issues.

The Chairperson asked if that could be done by 28 November.

Mr Moyane agreed to that date.

Mr Max asked how many of the DCS team had received performance bonuses, from the Annual Report.

Mr Moyane replied that no one had received performance bonuses.

Mr Selfe advised that re-capitalisation should take the route of effective services on time, so that there would not be a repeat performance of the delays at Brandvlei.

Mr Selfe referred to access control, as mentioned on page 48 of the AR. The DCS was committed to not privatising core functions. The current maintenance contract had expired.  An external service provider would be appointed to assist the DCS with procurement of a security specialist and service provider for maintenance and upgrading of access control.

Mr Magagula protested that the opposition had a document which the ruling party did not have.

The Chairperson asked Mr Selfe which document was being referred to.

Mr Selfe replied that it was “Annual Report Reporting” by the DCS, of which every member had a copy.  He asked with regard to the current management contract who the contractor was; how long the contract was and when it would end; the monthly value of the contract; deliverables, and why skills had not been transferred.  He asked who the external service provider was, and  the value of the contract.  He asked if the DCS had decided to outsource the security control system.

The Chairperson added a question about the MOU with the IDT.

Mr Moyane replied that there would be a response in writing. The MOU with the IDT would be made available.  Re-capitalisation would be based on the ability to deliver in time. There would be clear guidance for future centres. The security component would not be outsourced.  Brandvlei was a painful example. The DPW had been no help. It was possible to have delivery time frames.

Mr Selfe reminded the Commissioner that access control was an important part of the security function.

The Chairperson remarked that the awarding of a contract was a managerial function. If something went wrong, there had to be consequences.

The Chairperson noted that no performance bonuses had been awarded, but there were costs of R21 000 related to it. He asked who it had been given to.  Fruitless expenditure was defined as avoidable, and made in vain.  R5,5 million had gone to accommodation fees cancelled, air tickets not approved, and so on.  On 28 November, the DCS would had to give an indication of how the R5 million would be recovered from the guilty parties.  It had to be established who made the payments, and what was recoverable.

The chairperson adjourned the meeting.

Share this page: