Department of Correctional Services 2008/09 Annual Report

Meeting report

Opening remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson said that he would allow the Department 45 minutes for the briefing. The Committee did not wish to be overloaded with information. Thereafter Members would pose questions to the Department. The Department was accountable to Parliament. Every aspect of the Annual Report would be scrutinised by the Committee. He wished it to be on record that the Committee derived its mandate from the Constitution and therefore had authority over the Department. On the other hand, the Department’s mandate was derived from current legislation. The Members felt that the Department was specifically undermining the Committee and that the Department was under the impression that it had some sort of a protector elsewhere. The Chairperson advised the Department to rather keep quiet and say nothing than attempt to mislead the Members of the Committee. The time had come to draw the line and the buck stopped with the Department. The Minister would appear before the Committee on the 11th and 18th November 2009. The same message would be imparted to the Minister as well.

The Department was allocated a budget of R12.3 billion. The Committee wanted to know what the Department had done with the funds provided. The performance of the Minister and Deputy Minister would be measured by the success of the rehabilitation and the re-skilling of prisoners. The aim of rehabilitation was to reduce repeat-offending. The Committee wanted to know what the specific programmes for rehabilitation were. Every crime was different, for example, the rehabilitation of rapists differed from other types of crime. He referred to page 15 of the Annual Report and said that each programme of the Department had measurable objectives and targets. If targets were not met, the Committee wanted to know what the reasons were. He said that if the Department was unable to implement Government policy, the leadership should do the honourable thing and resign. The Committee was taking a hard stance because it was under pressure. The Department had to be called to account as the buck stopped with them.

Presentation by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) on the 2008/09 Annual Report
The delegation from the Department of Correctional Services included Ms J Schreiner (Acting National Commissioner), Dr J Coetzee (Deputy Commissioner: Operations), Mr M Ngubo (Deputy Commissioner: Supply Chain Management), Mr Teboho Motseki (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corrections), Ms Nandi Mareka (Deputy Commissioner: Finance and Management Accounting), Mr Jack Shilubane (Deputy Commissioner: GITO), Mr Rabelani Tshimemela (Director: Management Accounting), Mr Alfred Tsetsane (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corporate Services), Mr Phiko Mbambo (Deputy Commissioner: Executive Management) and Mr Ntobeko Mketshane (Deputy Commissioner: Personal Development). Mr Rob Theunissen (member of the Audit Committee), Mr Cor Haak (Director, National Treasury) and Mr Eric Phiri (Assistant Director, National Treasury) also attended the meeting.

In her introductory remarks, Ms Schreiner reported that the Department was in the process of improving its plans. The Department acknowledged that it had received a qualified Audit Report for the 2008/09 financial year and was in the process of addressing the issues that had been identified. The Department was working closely with the Office of the Auditor-General. The aim was to enhance the Department’s accountability to Parliament. A monitoring and evaluation project had been put in place. A number of challenges had been identified. Data integrity was identified as one of the challenges. The 2008/09 regulatory framework was being refined. Overcrowding in prisons was a challenge and affected service delivery.  Certain policies were under review. Steps were being taken to minimise the amount of overtime worked by employees of the DCS. Human resources were a challenge and a seven-day working week had been implemented. Management training was taking place. The moratorium on new appointments had affected the Department’s vacancy rate. The anti-corruption strategy within the Department had been intensified. Improvements were being made on the Remand Detention Project. Progress had been made in the managing of facilities. Significant progress had been made in offender development but certain challenges remained. The Department continued to face ongoing challenges but on the positive side, the planning processes were continuously improved.

Dr Coetzee briefed the Committee on the Department’s seven strategic programmes (see attached document).  The detailed presentation included statistical data, the achievements and challenges of the Department’s Security, Corrections, Care, Development, Social Re-integration, Facilities and Administration Programmes.

Ms Mareka briefed the Committee on the financial performance of the Department for the 2008/09 financial year. The Department had over-spent its budget by an amount of R483.8 million. The over-expenditure was mainly as a result of overtime paid and budget shortfalls realised on stores items. The presentation included the matters raised in the report of the Auditor-General.  Qualifications were given on moveable tangible capital assets and moveable tangible minor assets. Emphasis was placed on the overspending by the Department and on non-compliance with legislation, regulation and regulatory information.  The progress made by the Department in addressing the Auditor-General’s findings was summarised.

Discussion
The Chairperson referred to page 49 of the Annual Report, which stated that X-ray scanners were not installed at 66 centres because of non-compliance by service providers. He asked for an explanation, the details of the service provider concerned and whether or not he had been blacklisted. He referred to the statistic in the presentation stating that 3.5 persons out of 10 000 had died of unnatural deaths at Correctional Services facilities. The Committee required the actual number of unnatural deaths. He asked if officials were culpable for such deaths what action had been taken against them.

Mr Motseki said that the service provider appointed to install the X-ray scanners had lacked the capacity to deliver and had requested three extensions. The X-ray scanners were imported from the United States of America and the service provider had asked the Department for an advance in order to import the equipment. The Department had consequently cancelled the contracts and had sought legal advice on the matter. The details of the service provider had been forwarded to the National Treasury for blacklisting. He did not have the actual numbers of unnatural deaths at hand and undertook to provide the information to the Committee in due course.

The Chairperson was not satisfied with the response and said that the same question had been posed to the Minister in the House. He found it unacceptable that the Department did not know how many unnatural deaths had occurred at Correctional Services centres. The unnatural death of a person in custody was a human rights issue. The Committee would not tolerate excuses but would allow the Department the opportunity to obtain the statistical data. He pointed out that officials from the Department had provided the Committee with data at a previous meeting.

Mr Z Madasa (ANC) said that the Minister of Finance had commented that in order to deal with corruption, strategies needed to be put in place that resulted in a change of behaviour. Reference was made to a case where certain members of the South African Police Services (SAPS) were found to be dealing in narcotics. The crime problem was within Government itself and officials were guilty of criminal behaviour. The challenge was to change the behaviour of persons involved in corruption. He referred to the cancelled X-ray scanner contracts and asked why the Department had not realised that the service provider lacked the capacity to fulfil his obligations. Surely the capacity of the service provider should have been checked before the tender was awarded to him. He wanted to know if the lack of the X-ray scanners compromised security. He expressed concern over the statistics for assaults on inmates, escapes by inmates and unnatural deaths of inmates. Inmates should be in a safe and secure environment and ideally, the number of incidents reported should be zero.

Ms Schreiner said that changing the behaviour of people was a challenge for the Department. Part of the Department’s strategy was to investigate allegations of corruption and to take action against the perpetrators. Another way of tackling the problem was prevention. The DCS had introduced training on ethics and campaigns to reinforce the code of conduct and to foster an organisational culture.  A whistle-blowing hotline was introduced. The culture would change as more action was taken against perpetrators found guilty of corruption. She pointed out that corruption in the criminal justice system occurred in other countries as well. The management style within the criminal justice system needed to be tight.

Mr Motseki advised that the X-ray scanners were mainly used as a preventative tool to detect the movement of contraband in correctional services facilities. Inmates were subjected to physical searches. He agreed that ideally the number of incidents should be zero but this was not realistic at the moment. The number of incidents involving escapes, assaults and unnatural deaths were decreasing but the Department needed to improve the systems.  He advised that the tender for the X-ray scanner contract was issued immediately before the global financial meltdown. The procurement process as well as the supplier in the USA required that guarantees were furnished by the service provider. The Department could not foresee any difficulty between the service provider and his supplier. The service provider was being sued for losses suffered by the Department.

The Chairperson asked if any funds had been paid over to the service provider concerned.

Mr Motseki confirmed that no payments were made to the service provider.

Ms Schreiner stated that the Department was not comfortable with the number of escapes and assaults by prisoners and was committed to a zero tolerance policy on such transgressions. Service delivery in terms of the White Paper was a major challenge but progress was nevertheless being made.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) was aware that there were vacancies for psychologists in the Department but the Annual Report stated that the vacancy rate was zero. She asked for clarity on the issue of the vacant posts for psychologists reported on pages 147 and 155 of the Annual Report.  She wanted to know what problems were experienced with the implementation of the seven-day working week and if the system had been implemented at all the centres.  She wanted to know if the programmes that involved inmates had any impact on the inmates. She asked why inmates were so violent and had such low morale.

Ms Schreiner explained that there was a general shortage of scarce skills throughout the country. She said that the crime statistics reflected the high rate of violent crime in the country and pointed out that violent behaviour was brought into prisons by the inmates.

Mr Tsetsane advised that the seven-day working week was reinstated with effect from 1 July 2009 across the entire Department. However, staff levels were low but the moratorium on new appointments was still in place and vacancies cannot be filled. There were some challenges as a result of the different shift systems.

Mr Mketshane explained that many psychologists had resigned and others had completed their community service. The Department had increased the level of psychologists from level 7 to level 10.

Ms Schreiner said that the Annual Report contained a typographical error concerning the number of vacant posts and would be corrected.

The Chairperson referred to page 51 of the Annual Report where it stated that 146 000 inmates were involved in work opportunities and asked for further information on this aspect.

Mr Mareka explained that inmates’ work opportunities lasted for more than one day. There were different jobs and inmates fell into different work categories. The total number of available work opportunities exceeded the number of inmates. Certain inmates were involved in lengthy programmes, for example agriculture, cleaning and the building of churches.

Mr A Fritz (DA) asked why the Department outsourced cleaning services when prisoners could be used for this purposed.  He remarked that health services did not appear to have a high priority in prisons. He wanted to know why so much was spent on entertainment and questioned the priorities of the Department. He recalled that there had recently been an outbreak of measles at a prison in Johannesburg. He asked how many of the educators employed in prisons were employed on a permanent basis.

Ms Schreiner said that the salary levels of professionals employed by the Department were not particularly attractive.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) asked when personal tracking devices would be implemented and when would the installation of video cameras be finalised. She referred to the broiler production tender put out in November 2008 and asked when production would commence.

Mr Mketsane replied that the tender was advertised three times but a bidder could not be secured until November 2008.

Mr Shilubane explained that the video camera project involved the Departments of Justice and Public Works as well. The Department of Public Works was unable to assist with the upgrading of facilities in time. The plan was to complete the project by 2010 and the video cameras would be installed in 22 centres.  Personal tracking devices were being tested in Pretoria and the project would commence in 2010.

Ms Nyanda referred to the Department’s 58 construction projects that were under way.  Twelve were on tender and fourteen were at the planning stage.  She asked for further information on these projects.  She noted that in the previous financial year, an additional R100 million was made available to the DCS and wanted to know how the funds were utilised.

Mr Motseki replied that the Department had an agreement with the Department of Public Works to carry out the upgrading of DCS facilities, including renovations and the construction of new facilities. The various projects were at different stages of completion. He undertook to provide a breakdown of the projects to the Committee.  He advised that the National Treasury had made the amount of R100 million available over a three-year period for the provision of security infrastructure. The funds had been applied to the specific projects for which the funding had been made available.
 
Ms Mareka added that some of the funding was utilised for the payment of security staff compensation.

Ms Nyanda asked why the renovations at the prison in Nelspruit had not been carried out. The prison had many leaks.

Mr Motseki replied that leaks were a maintenance issue. The budget for the maintenance of prisons was the responsibility of the Department of Public Works and the DCS was not responsible for the maintenance of the buildings.

Ms Mdaka asked why the information on construction projects had not been included in the annual report.

Ms Schreiner replied that page 69 of the Annual Report did indicate the 58 projects. Page 17 made reference to the progress on the projects. Page 18 and 19 provided detail on four projects.  She conceded that the Annual Report could be more user-friendly.

Mr Madasa said that Annual Report made reference to difficulties that existed between the Department and the Department of Public Works. The recommendation had been made that the two Departments should resolve their differences and he wanted to know what progress had been made on this issue.

Mr Motseki replied that the recommendation included the finalisation of the service level agreement between the DCS and the Department of Public Works. The Department anticipated that the service level agreement would be finalised by November 2009.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) said that many issues concerning prisons were outstanding. For example, there was a shortage of water at the Kokstad prison. Previously, there had been a pilot project between the DCS, the Department of Justice and SAPS that made provision for a senior member of SAPS to assess whether or not a person should go to court in an attempt to limit the incarceration of persons who had committed minor offences. The project had been implemented in Port Elizabeth and in Kimberley but had subsequently fizzled out.  He suggested that the project was revived and extended to the rest of the country. The integration of the Criminal Justice System was much better today than what it had been in the past. The Committee had determined that the C-Max prison was not fulfilling the role of a maximum security prison all that well. There was too much activity around the prison, it was not well-positioned and it was not very secure. He suggested that the Kokstad prison was utilised as a maximum security prison. He asked what progress had been made concerning the construction of four new-generation prisons. He remarked that unit management could easily be implemented at the new-generation prisons and was very effective in the rehabilitation of prisoners. He asked what progress had been made with the unit management project. He asked if it was more financially viable to concentrate rehabilitation on young offenders rather than on prisoners serving life sentences.

Mr Motseki advised that 65% of the inmates undergoing rehabilitation were the youth. He referred to page 51 of the Annual Report and confirmed that unit management was being implemented in 91 facilities throughout the country.  The remaining facilities were not excluded but the system was being implemented in incremental phases.  He recalled that the previous Committee had suggested that Kokstad was managed by the regional authorities rather than at the national level. The prisoner population at Kokstad had increased and staff had to be increased accordingly.

Ms Schreiner replied to the questions on the procurement of new facilities and said that the qualification process had been completed. Bids had been received but there were delays in obtaining the Minister’s support. She undertook to forward a report on the matter to the Committee in due course.

Mr Motseki referred to the matter concerning the pre-detention assessment of awaiting-trial prisoners and reported that a recommendation had been adopted by Parliament and had been signed by three Ministers. The recommendation was in the process of being implemented under the auspices of the Department of Justice.

The Chairperson referred to page 72 of the Annual Report and said that the Department had claimed that there were no adjustments when in fact there had been adjustments. He referred to point 10 on page 88 and said that one of the reasons for the qualified audit report was the lack of supporting documentation. Page 84 of the Annual Report referred to a statement made by the Select Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) that the Auditor-General could not find supporting documents. He said that the absence of supporting documents could indicate that there was corruption. There needed to be proof of how funds had been spent. The Department had had a problem with the lack of supporting documents for the last ten years. He noted that 350 officials had been implicated in fraud amounting to R6 million and wanted to know why the officials concerned had merely received warnings. A crime had been committed yet the perpetrators continued to be employed by the Department. He asked why no criminal charges had been laid against the officials concerned.  He felt that the Department allowed employees to work overtime without verifying the need for overtime work.  He recently became aware that the Department had claimed back money that had been overpaid and wondered where the recovered funds had been deposited. The internal audit function of the Department should have highlighted these issues and he asked whether the internal audit was reliable.  He asked why an amount of R20 million was spent by the Department on outsourcing its internal auditing functions.

Mr Theunissen stated that Members’ concerns about corruption in the DCS were shared by the Audit Committee and he was relieved that the matter was being addressed.  The Department did not have the required capacity to perform the entire internal audit function and had entered into a partnership with the private auditing firms SAB&T and KPMG. In terms of the agreement, a transfer of skills had to take place but whether the requirement was properly implemented was debatable. The contract had commenced in October 2008 and was for a term of three years. He felt that the co-source model applied in this case was the correct model to be used. He explained that the Audit Committee was only an advisory body to the Department.  The Audit Committee was comfortable with the internal audit but felt that it could be better.

Mr Tsetsane replied that limitations were applicable to the claiming of overtime.  The Department was in the process of introducing control mechanisms and was engaged in negotiations to acquire the necessary system.  However, there were budgetary constraints.

Ms Mareka advised that the recovered overtime moneys would be credited to the overtime account. Funds recovered for expenses incurred during the previous financial year were refunded to the State.  She conceded that the matter of the supporting documentation was of concern but gave the assurance that inroads were being made to minimise the problem.

Ms Schreiner said that the matter of the fraud amounting to R6 million was being investigated by the DSO and the Department. The fraud involved the medical aid fund and criminal charges had been laid against the main perpetrators.  Written warnings were issued to the “small fry” officials involved.

The Chairperson asked what the nature of the offences was for those officials that had received written warnings.

Ms Mdaka wanted to know what other offences had been committed by employees who were issued with final warnings. She asked for details of the contracts awarded to previously disadvantaged persons. She requested further information on the six instances of irregular expenditure reported by the Auditor-General.

Ms Mareka confirmed that 743 contracts had been awarded historically disadvantaged individuals and undertook to forward details to the Committee.  She said that there were 5 cases of irregular expenditure and the details were provided on page 134 of the Annual Report.

Mr Fritz referred to the bodily injury liability claims laid against the Department. He asked what the reason was for the ten-fold increase in the claims over the past year and what steps had been taken against officials in terms of recouping the payouts that the Department had to make as a result of their actions.

Mr Shilubane advised that the information on the claims against the Department would be forwarded to the Committee.

The Chairperson commented that the question from Mr Fritz was more about whether the Department had a policy in place to recoup the funds paid out for claims if an official was found to have been negligent.

Mr Madasa asked if the Department had a policy in place do deal with cases of misconduct by employees.  He wanted to know which offences warranted dismissal of the employee concerned.

Mr Tsetsane confirmed that a disciplinary policy was in place and undertook to make a copy of the policy available to the Committee.

Ms Phaliso noted that the Annual Report contained many discrepancies and suggested that better quality control was exercised in future.

Mr Tsetsane agreed that the Department would improve on the integrity of the information provided in the Annual Report. He explained that a final written warning was a serious sanction that was not necessarily preceded by other disciplinary warnings. The type of disciplinary action taken depended on the gravity of the offence committed by the employee.

Ms Nyanda asked why the Department had requested additional funds from the National Treasury.

Mr Tsetsane advised that additional funds had been requested for the payment of overtime. The additional funding was requested in terms of Clause 9 of Resolution 1 of 2007.

Ms Mareka pointed out that the request for additional funding for overtime had not been granted by the National Treasury and the Department had to implement other measures to cut costs, for example by imposing a moratorium on the appointment of staff to the vacant posts.

The Chairperson agreed with Ms Phaliso’s comment concerning the discrepancies and inaccuracies in the Annual Report.  He thanked the representatives from the Department and the Members of the Committee for the robust interaction during the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.