Correctional facilities - building, cost escalations, maintenance: briefing by Departments of Correctional Services & Public Works; National Council for Correctional Services selection

Meeting report

Department of Public Works submission

Mr Nchaupe Malebye, DPW Chief Operations Officer, said his department’s responsibility was to provide accommodation services to the DCS. This arrangement was regulated by the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (Act 19 of 2007) (GIAMA), which calls for efficient and effective use of government assets. It also requires the user department to prep were the User Asset Management Plan (UAMP), which must be done three to four years in advance. The DPW often helps the DCS to prep were the UAMP as it was crucial for sourcing funding from Treasury. There  were 241 correctional centres in total which individually comprise 17 035 buildings, of which a total of 472 were leased properties.

As part of client relationship management, the two departments had concluded a memorandum of agreement in November 2006. This provided a framework for service delivery standards (SDS) to be developed. The SDS were said to be a critical component of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) which would be concluded by the end of February 2010. The two departments engaged through monthly bilateral meetings discussing critical matters of mutual interest. Another critical programme under the management of DPW was said to be the Planned Maintenance Implementation Programme (PMIP). In 2008/09, the budget allocation for this programme was R354,491,535. The expenditure recorded for PMIP in that financial year was R358,592,673 (101%). The 2009/2010 financial year however recorded an expenditure of R485,163, 332 (76%) from an allocation of R831,686,611 as at end of December 2009. Another programme implemented at great cost by DCS but under DPW’s budget was identified as the Integrated Security Systems (ISS) project.

Other strategic capital projects mentioned were the Kimberley New Generation Correctional Centre. The occupation of this facility set to happen before end of February 2010 was said to have been constructed at a cost of R830 million. A total of 34 Parole Board offices had been built by the DPW. Other DCS facilities presently in construction phase were the Brandvlei, Van Rhynsdorp, Ceres and the Tzaneen Correctional Centres. The construction of those facilities were said to be progressing well and set to be completed on schedule. The Tzaneen correctional facility had experienced delays caused by a tender issued but later withdrawn. The DPW said it was awaiting an instruction from DCS to proceed with construction of other correctional centres at places such as Parys, Nkandla, Litchtenburg, Standerton, Zeerust and Burgersdorp. Some of the challenges identified by the DPW were overcrowding, budget constraints, human resources inadequacies and shortage of building materials. Overcrowding was identified as the chief cause of deterioration of infrastructure. There was a need to construct more correctional facilities in order to ease the burden of overcrowding. An insufficient capital maintenance budget at the disposal of the DPW and professional capacity constraints also led to delays in implementing its programmes of the department. A suggestion had been made to remove ISS and consumables projects from being funded by the DPW to being directly funded from the DCS budget from April 2010 to reduce the costs.

Department of Correctional Services submission
While introducing the Chief Deputy Commissioner, the Chairperson of the Correctional Services asked why DCS had not yet completed a Service Level Agreement (SLA) four years after the departments had signed a memorandum of understanding. If the SLA was not in place at the time of approving the budget, the Committee would have difficulties in approving the budget.

Mr Teboho Motseki,  Chief Deputy Commissioner: DCS, said while he conceded that the SLA was long overdue, a crisis was inevitable if the Committee stalled the approval the budget. A total budget allocation of R574 million for maintenance was not enough to manage over 200 correctional centres, offices and training facilities around the country. The SLA, currently in a draft form, would be concluded before the end of February 2010. He appealed for a budget increase for the financial year and more dialogue on the SLA. Although he could not put a figure on the levels of backlog, key areas of concern were repairing generators and upgrading kitchen facilities to assist catering for over 160 000 inmates. Security infrastructure was identified as a key component that cost the department a lot of money.

Discussion
Mr Smith (ANC) asked DPW to respond to an accusation he read from a statement issued by the DCS highlighting underspending by the DPW as one of the major problems. As for the SLA not being in place four year after the Memorandum of Agreement, one could not wait to hear what the reasons were leading to that unfortunate situation.

Mr Malebye (ANC) said the statement about underspending by his department was not accurate. He invited the Committee to look at the financial statements particularly from the previous year where it was on record that over 97 percent was spent by the DPW on DCS projects.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said many of the DPW projects were behind schedule. Why was not a single project in line to be completed on time?

In reply to Mr Smith asking if she had a specific facility in mind or if she was speaking in general, she said that she was speaking in general about the delays.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked specifically about the delays in the building of the Kimberley correctional facility. He wanted to know what the cause was and its cost to the taxpayer. There were also problems in Bloemfontein about unusable toilet facilities, water leakages, overcrowding and inmates living under sub-human conditions. DCS blamed DPW, was the blame justified?

Mr Malebye said delays were a result of multiple factors, some which his department could not be blamed for. In Kimberley, the delay was between three to four months, and was caused by factors such as rain, load shedding, labour unrest, shortage of cement and steel due to soccer world cup construction projects. Scope changes which  were very common in construction industry were another factor. The costs of delays were said to have escalated from just over R200m to R830m within a space of two years.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) said based on what she saw during an oversight visit to the Kimberly facility, she was not convinced that the department was being truthful by saying that the facility would be ready for occupation in a few weeks time.

Mr Malebye (ANC) said the full completion and occupation of the new Kimberley correctional facility on 15 February was Indeed a reality. Minor repairs would always exist but would not affect occupation and usability of the facility.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) asked who approved the building plans for the correctional facilities. The Kimberley New Generation Correctional Centre resembled a hotel to her. Such facilities could serve as an incentive to encourage inmates to return upon release. Prisoners should not be treated with soft gloves and when incarcerated must feel that they were in prison and not at a tourist resort.

Mr Malebye (ANC) said his department consulted all relevant stakeholders before approving the building plan. The plan was in line with respecting fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to dignity and not to be subject to inhumane conditions.

Mr Motseki, DCS, said indeed consultations were undertaken specifically with the Kimberley project. The current committee had been briefed about the design and all the details associated with the construction and no objections had been raised. It was a pity that Ms Mdaka had not been a committee member at the time of that briefing.

Mr G Oliphant (ANC) asked whether the DPW had any turnaround time-plan for processing maintenance related projects. It was difficult to comprehend why the department said there was insufficient funding for maintenance and capital budget but when one looked at the pattern of funding, there was money that remained unspent.

Mr Malebye (ANC) said there was an allocation of R20 000 allowance available at the disposal of DCS to address any minor repairs that did not cost much. Under those circumstances the DPW did not need to be notified nor did it get involved in the repairs. However ISS projects tended to take most of the budget, even from other projects, which often destabilised the plans and budgets of those projects. In addition, the Planned Maintenance Implementation Programme had been revitalised and there were now call centres that would respond to maintenance problems in a space of one to two days.

Mr T Magama (ANC) queried the huge disjuncture between what the committee members and the Inspecting Judge of Prisons had observed.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) asked about other construction sites mentioned, saying they needed information on when the construction work began and when it was expected to be completed. It was surprising that the Committee had never visited some of those facilities.

Mr A Fritz (DA) said the question asked by Mr Selfe on costs caused by the delays had not been not properly answered. It was very upsetting that such unnecessary delays and costs could be allowed to happen and no one took full responsibility.

Mr Malebye said in June 2004, the projected costs for the Kimberley correctional facility were R350million. By April 2005 that figure went up to R499m. By July 2006 the estimated costs had risen to R630m before it went to over R800m by the time of completion. A lot of those increases were as a result of many factors shaped by market forces such as a rise in material costs.

Mr Magama said he could not understand why scope changes amounted to such huge margins. According to his understanding any scope change that was above 50 percent indicated that there was no proper planning.

Mr Malebye said the issue of scope change was not uncommon in construction. At times scope changes of over 50 percent might cause costs to go down. However for the matters at hand the scope changes had caused costs to rise and there was nothing anybody could have done.

Mr Oliphant (ANC) asked the two departments to tell the Committee what their relationship was in terms of co-ordinating matters of mutual interest. He said he was getting the feeling that communication channels were not as perfect as he had imagined.

Mr Malebye replied that although challenges existed, communication channels were excellent so far. Both departments had conducted regular meetings with the common intention of improving service delivery to the people of South Africa.

Mr Smith said no matter what justification could be given, the escalation of costs was just unacceptable. Government did not have a limitless budget and could not be allowed to make scope changes “willy-nilly”. The Committee was getting frustrated especially by the answers about irresponsible spending from the two government departments.

Mr S Abram (ANC) expressed his displeasure with the answers given with regard to about delays and costs. He said the issue of cost escalation needed a special meeting to get to the bottom of the problem. It was time to run the public sector like a business - which was to offer service delivery to the people in a cost effective manner.

Ms Ngwenya asked for clarity on the tender issued but later withdrawn in Tzaneen.

Ms Sasa Subban, Acting Deputy Director General: Asset Management, DPW, explained that the tender in Tzaneen had lapsed due to regulatory procedures but would be re-advertised in due course.
 
Mr Selfe said he could not understand how one could find minor maintenance problems such as broken windows yet there was R20 000 floating for the purposes of maintaining such defects. He also needed clarity on why the presentation stated that equipment such as generators needed maintenance and yet generators were rarely used, meaning one would expect them to be in good shape. 

Mr Fritz said he was aw were that the change of scope in Kimberley was so rigorous that at the end, the designers even forgot to put toilets inside the cells of a hospital in a correctional facility! He also suggested the use of solar power instead of generators, saying that would be complementary to environmental management efforts. 

Mr Smith urged both departments to do their best to ensure that the SLA was concluded as soon as possible. He asked the DPW to furnish the Committee with details about costs and estimated time of completion of some of the correctional facilities. A suggestion was made that the Committee meet again to discuss the lessons and challenges learnt from Kimberley. Also to be discussed would be the content of the SLA before it was concluded. An oversight visit to some of the correctional facilities would have to be put in place, as Ms Mdaka had suggested.

Mr Oliphant urged for a speedy conclusion of the SLA. He reminded them that fighting crime and corruption had been identified by the new administration as one of the five key areas of service delivery. The DCS was a key partner in that initiative and DCS could only do so if it got unwavering support from DPW.

National Council for Correctional Services: finalisation of selection of members of public
The Committee unanimously agreed to endorse the eight members of the public recommended by the Minister of Correctional Services for appointment to the serve on the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS).  Their names were as follows:

Dr Kgamadi Joseph Kometsi
Ms Lusanda Reteamane       
Dr Maletse Mako
Ms Busi Ngobeni
Ms Lynn Smit
Dr Mohamed Randera           
Dr Hema Hargovan
Adv Silas Nkununu

The Chairperson thanked members for their patience and co-operation in finalising the nominations. He promised to notify the Minister of the Committee’s decision so that the appointments could be made within the stipulated deadline. 
 
The meeting was adjourned.