Department of Correctional Services Annual Report 2008/09: Parliamentary Research Unit & Auditor-General analysis

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the Committee wanted to know whether or not the Annual Report was a true reflection of the operations of the Department of Correctional Services during the 2008/09 financial year, whether or not the operations of the Department were in line with Government policy (as set out in the White Paper) and conformed to the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and whether the public was getting value for its money from the Department.

Analysis of the 2008/09 Annual Report of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Parliamentary Researcher, presented an analysis of the 2008/09 Annual Report of the Department of Correctional Services (see attached document).

The purpose of the briefing was to assist the Committee to gain a thorough understanding of the Annual Report. The presentation included details of the technical problems that were identified in the Annual Report, a determination of the extent to which the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had aligned its operations with the key priorities of Government (as set out in the State of the Nation Address) and whether the targets that were set by the DCS had been achieved.

Mr Mathabathe said that the 2008/09 Annual Report was not as detailed as the report for the previous year.  As a result, it was difficult to tell with absolute certainty to what extent the DCS had achieved its targets. Three main programmes were identified as the driving force to implement Government policy – repeat-offender programmes, the implementation of the victim’s charter and the overall revamping of the criminal justice cluster.  The successes highlighted included a general decline in incidents of fraud, corruption and maladministration. The Department reported that it had done very well in the area of strengthening security at correctional centres and had introduced programmes aimed at providing training to senior managers on leadership development as well as the training of middle managers on management development. Challenges encountered included overcrowding, which had a negative impact on service delivery and resulted in a high prisoner/warden ratio. The budget cuts had a negative impact on the implementation of the biometric security infrastructure.  Another challenge was the restoration of the credibility of medical parole, which was recently thrown into the spotlight.

The report stated that there were approximately 165 230 inmates at DCS facilities as at March 2009, compared to 165 837 inmates at the end of the previous year. Approximately 49 477 of the total number of inmates were awaiting-trial offenders and 115 753 were sentenced prisoners. Offenders charged with aggressive crimes totalled 63 635, more than 25 752 offenders were incarcerated for economic crimes and 18 368 offenders were guilty of sexual offences.  Compared to the Annual Report for 2007/08, there was a significant decrease in the number of awaiting-trial offenders. Of concern was the number of minors sentenced for crimes. There were 845 child offenders sentenced in 2009, compared to 840 in 2008. Approximately 365 minors were convicted for aggressive offences, 287 for economic crimes and 125 for sexual offences. The total number of female offenders was 2 597, of which 1219 were incarcerated for aggressive offences, 936 for economic crimes and 244 for drug-related offences. The statistics illustrated that our society was becoming more violent as an increasing number of offenders were being incarcerated for aggressive crimes.

With regard to administration, the Department reported that a number of targets were achieved but certain challenges still needed to be addressed. One of the challenges was a slight decrease in the number of women in top management positions. The target to reduce the vacancy rate to 7% was not met, partly as a result of the moratorium placed on the filling of non-critical posts. As at March 2009, the vacancy rate was 10.5%. 68% of posts for psychologists remained vacant, a slight decrease from the vacancy rate of 70% in 2007/08. The target for reducing the number of escapes was achieved. 65 escapes were reported in 2008/09, compared to 79 in the previous year. The target for reducing the number of unnatural deaths in custody was not met. The Department failed to provide statistics on the number of unnatural deaths and the causes of such deaths. The target for the installation of security infrastructure was not met. 66 correctional centres failed to install access security controls, mainly as a result of the non-compliance of the service providers to implement the contract awarded to them. In the 2007/08 financial year, an additional amount of R100 million was made available to the Department for biometric access control equipment but this programme was not finalised during 2008/09.

The social re-integration programme was reported to proceed at a slow pace. The Annual Report revealed that programmes such as the involvement of victims in parole boards and the review of parole policy were not at the desired stage. With regard to facilities, the Department had set targets for the construction of new centres and the upgrading of some of the existing centres to conform to the universally acceptable standards applicable to facilities for the habitation of inmates. To date, no progress report on the construction of four new centres had been issued.

The total budget allocated for the 2008/09 financial year amounted to R12.3 billion.  The Department managed to spend 100% of the amount budgeted for each programme, except for the programmes on social re-integration, security and facilities. There were virements in some of the programmes, coupled with overspending totalling R483 million. The Department requested an additional amount of R310 million from the National Treasury to finance some of the programmes but only R223.7 million was approved, with the proviso that the Department accounted for the utilisation of the additional funding.

Office of Auditor-General on 2008/09 Audit Report for Department of Correctional Services
Mr Solly Jiyana, Senior Manager: Office of the Auditor General, presented an overview of the 2008/09 audit outcomes for the DCS (see attached document).

The report considered different activities of the Department, including administration, security corrections, care, development, social re-integration and facilities. The Auditor-General recommended that the vacancy rate of 10% was lowered in order to improve service delivery. High vacancy rates existed from the lower skilled levels to the higher skilled supervisory levels. The Auditor-General commented on the inadequate training of personnel but did not specify at what level this comment applied to. The Department failed to keep adequate financial records. The Department received a qualified audit report on the management of assets. The assets recorded on the financial systems of the Department were not reconciled with the register of fixed assets. Another area concern was the unauthorised expenditure of R483 million. The Auditor-General commented on instances of non-compliance with applicable legislation, in particular the Public Service Regulations and the Correctional Services Act. Notably, the issue of overcrowding was in contradiction of Section 7 of the Correctional Services Act, which required that prisoners were detained under conditions conducive to the preservation of human dignity.

The Chairperson requested the civil society organisations present at the meeting to make their input regarding the presentation.

 

Input from civil society organisations and the South African Human Rights Commission
The South African Human Rights Commission, represented by Ms Judith Cohen, Head of the SAHRC Parliamentary Programme, said it was most interested in ensuring that the DCS complied with issues of human rights, hence the SAHRC was tasked with the responsibility of promoting and protecting human rights even at correctional facilities. The Commission said it was concerned with issues of overcrowding, lack of proper development and learning programmes that would enhance skills development for inmates and increase their chances of finding employment when they were out of prison.

 

In its submission, the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU), said its concerns about security had been acted upon and had improved over the years. They were however still worried that too much money was being spent on security even at the expense of other programmes such as care, development, rehabilitation and social reintegration of inmates. Under facilities programme, Mr Nkosinathi Mabhida, Deputy President, POPCRU, said there were concerns that overcrowding was still a challenge and the Department was falling short of complying with section 7 of the Correctional Services Act, which required that prisoners be detained under conditions of human dignity. Furthermore, POPCRU said it was their view that overcrowding impacted negatively on staff morale and unethical working behaviour and POPCRU advised that the department should address the matter with swiftness and compassion.

 

The National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offender (NICRO) noted that a lot of what they had to say had already been mentioned in the analysis presentation, however they mentioned a few areas which were worth highlighting. They acknowledged that the relationship they had with DCS was improving and there was now better coordination between them. Also noted in that regard, were the 18 wellness centres that had been set up which were distributing HIV and AIDS Anti-Retroviral Drugs (ARVs). One of their main concerns was the issue of incarcerated mothers with minor children. Their worry was that the conditions present at the facilities were not favourable for the children of those incarcerated mothers and there was a risk that the best interests of the children as entrenched in our law through various pieces of legislation was not given enough attention. NICRO said research was being conducted on the psychological impact that incarceration had on the children of incarcerated mothers. Other concerns of NICRO was the shortage of educational staff to help offenders carry on with their studies if they wished to do so and that the social reintegration programme was not allocated enough money to pursue its mandate. Lastly NICRO said that the DCS Annual Report made no mention of restorative processes that were happening, for instance, the victim offender mediation process, programmes for repeat offenders and victim participation in parole hearings.

Discussion
Mr A Fritz (DA) remarked that the information contained in the Annual Report pointed to maladministration and financial mismanagement at the highest level. He noted that more than R20 million was spent by the Department on paying external auditing firms to assist the Department with its internal audit function.  He wanted to know why the internal audit mechanisms were not used.

Mr Jiyana conceded that the Annual Report indicated financial mismanagement and as a result, a qualified audit report was issued.  However, some improvements had been observed in most of the areas where qualified audit reports had been issued for the previous financial year.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that the Department’s report mentioned that the Audit Committee must have six members. However, the contracts of three of the six members had expired.  He wanted to know when the members would be replaced and whether the Audit Committee a quorum.

Mr Musa Hlongwa, Business Executive, Office of the Auditor-General, was unsure of the exact composition and quorum requirement of the Audit Committee.  He recalled that the quorum requirement would be met if at least two members of the Committee were present.  He felt that the Department’s Audit Committee was doing a good job in its oversight role.

The Chairperson noted that the Department claimed that the training of senior management was going well but the Auditor-General’s report stated that training was inadequate. He wanted to know which report was accurate. The two presentations appeared to contradict each other in respect of the matter of additional funds that were approved by National Treasury.  Mr Mathabathe had mentioned that additional funds were allocated by National Treasury whereas the Auditor-General had said that the National Treasury did not make any additional funds available. He asked the Office of the Auditor-General to provide clarity on the amount of R483 million that was overspent by the Department.

Mr Hlongwa replied that the amounts quoted in the Auditor-General’s presentation were correct.  He undertook to verify the information provided and to contact the Committee if any inconsistencies were found.

Mr J Van der Merwe (IFP) was concerned that the DCS’ mandate according to the Auditor-General’s report was not in line with the mandate stipulated in the Correctional Services Act.  For example, the Act stipulated that the Department must be self-sufficient and should operate in accordance with business principles but this aspect was not taken into account by the Auditor-General.

Mr Hlongwa explained that the Auditor-General was guided by the Department’s mandate, as stated in the Annual Report.  The mandate determined by the Auditor-General did not exclude any other mandate that might be stipulated in legislation.  The Auditor-General accepted that the Department’s mandate was very broad and might include other aspects, which might have been omitted from the report.

Mr Fritz referred to the item in the Annual Report, indicating that the Department carried stock to the value of R800 million. He said that the opportunity cost of such a huge amount invested in stock would amount to R90 million.  He wanted to know why this factor was not included in the analysis and the audit report.  He asked what the reasons were for the Department to carry over so much stock.

Mr Jiyana said the Office of the Auditor-General had not yet audited the stock accounts of the Department but this item would be included in the 2009/10 audit report.

The Chairperson felt that Mr Fritz’ question concerning the R20 million paid by the Department for outsourcing the internal audit function was not adequately answered. He said that an answer to the question was critical as it indicated whether or not the Department gave value for taxpayers’ money.

Mr Jiyana agreed that the question was an important one but was best answered by the management of the Department. He remarked that, in general, Departmental management did not have a good working relationship with the internal auditing team and did not take recommendations seriously.  Such a situation would result in the perception that the internal auditors were not performing their functions.

Mr Van der Merwe said that the Department had reported that one of the vacant positions was that of the Chief Financial Officer, which had been vacant for more than a year. He wanted know why such a critical post could go unfilled for such a long period of time.

Ms Judith Cohen from the Human Rights Commission asked which area in particular was affected by the inadequate training of personnel.

Mr B Fihla (ANC) asked the Parliamentary Researcher to double-check the figures in his presentation. For example, the breakdown of the number of minors convicted of crimes in the different categories did not add up to the total number of children incarcerated.

The Chairperson supported Mr Fihla’s request and asked the Parliamentary Researcher to ensure that the Portfolio Committee was provided with the correct information and was in a position to interact meaningfully with the Department.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters for the briefings and asked the Members to note the issues raised for further discussion with the Department.

The meeting was adjourned