Department of Correctional Services on its 2009/10 Annual Report

Meeting report

Introduction by Chairperson and National Commissioner
The Chairperson drew attention to the new responsibilities of Portfolio Committees in the line of oversight. Performance had to be monitored. The Departmental Strategic Plan had been debated late in the previous year. The Committee would ask if the Department had lived up to the Strategic Plan, and whether budgets had been utilised according to advice.

Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner, noted that the Department had received a qualified audit opinion for the preceding nine years. Challenges were currently being faced. There had been strategic interventions to create an accountable environment. The major challenge faced related to asset management.

Department of Correctional Services briefing on Annual Report – Finance inputs
Mr Siphiwe Sokhela, Chief Financial Officer, stated that he wished to correct media reports about irregular expenditure. There had been underspending to the amount of R147 million, which came to 1% underspending. Underspending on the Security Programme had come to R71 million, and was due to savings made through conversion to the GEMS medical aid scheme for members; appointments not made at the New Kimberley Correctional Centre; and the non-finalisation of payment for the occupational specific dispensation for pharmacists, Medical practitioners, psychologists and educators.

Qualifications received from the Auditor General related to capital assets. Adjustments to the opening balance of the previous year, had lacked supporting documents. There were problems with the evaluation, classification and verification of assets. A team had been sent to the regions. High level audits would be done on a monthly basis from then on. Interventions included interns to be appointed to verify full compliance with prescripts. Problems would be resolved on the move. There had been a meeting on 15 May between the Auditor General, the Minister, and himself. Risks were identified as asset management, finance management and compliance. Action plans were drawn up. The annual statement would be dealt with on a monthly basis.

Discussion
The Chairperson referred to page 114 of the Annual Report. One of the reasons for underspending had been the rollover for Public/Private Partnership (PPP) facilities. It was unacceptable to roll over funds and shortchange programmes in the process. He asked if the rollover funds would be used the following year. There had been a net decrease of R60 million for Security. The rationale was that posts at the Kimberley facility had not been filled. The Department had complained the day before that Treasury would not help. The Corrections programme had increased by R91 million, and Care had decreased by R25 million. The Development programme had been reduced by R18 million on account of a shortfall in agriculture. Funds had been moved. Financial statements for the previous year indicated a decrease of R76 million for Care. Funds had been shifted because of a lack of animal production. There had been agricultural stock worth R80 million, yet other programmes had been deprived. Facilities had increased by R22 million, as it had done the year before.

The Chairperson continued that the Department was not planning properly. It was bad planning to take money from the Care and Development programmes. A rollover for Facilities had been requested. There would be fiscal dumping at the end of the year. The budget was skewed away from Care and Development. Planning was inadequate. He asked what was meant by Goods and Services. Everything seemed to be hidden under those categories. PPPs were costing R728 million per year. There was a 25 year contract. He asked if it would not be better to build and own those facilities. He could not understand the PPP rationale.

Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner, replied that the R22 million rollover referred to on page 114, would be used. R12 million went towards a transactional adviser for a review of the PPPs.

Ms Nandi Mareka, Deputy Commissioner on Financial and Management Accounting, responded that originally there had not been OSD allocation during 2008/9 for educators, officials, pharmacists and medical personnel. There had been the implementation of a signed resolution and engagement with Treasury. It was decided to rearrange the budget and shift funds around to implement the OSD. There had been a previous moratorium on the filling of posts. Virements had been resorted to close gaps caused by cost pressure. Food for inmates had to be procured. Savings had been made when members migrated from Medcor to GEMS medical aid scheme. Expenditure on medical benefits were lower than anticipated. In the Development programme, there had been the cost pressures of regions. Inflation on animal products and fertiliser had been very high. The DCS was allowed 5%, but many such products were way above that.

Ms Mareka noted that the performance of different programmes were monitored on a monthly basis. Programmes were not deprived. The DCS could not harbour money for programmes that did not perform.

The Chairperson asked how it could be ensured that the budget spoke to the White Paper. Mere chopping and changing would not do. He asked about the PPP facilities. R700 million was paid annually, whilst the DCS could build and own a facility for R800 million.

Mr Robert Van Anraad, Deputy Commissioner: Facilities, replied that PPP had to maintain facilities. The DCS budget was only for major upgrades, with the Department of Public Works.

The Chairperson reiterated that PPP was beyond comprehension. R700 million had to be paid for 25 years.

Mr Moyane agreed that PPP was debatable. The Minister and a collective had met with bidders in August for a review. The PPP projects did not address the concerns of Parliament. The Minister wanted a policy review. He noted that the DCS was not in charge of core business at PPP facilities, and it wanted full control of that. He agreed that the cost of PPP was exorbitant. He advised that the Portfolio Committee engage with the Minister about the matter. The DCS did not have the freedom to visit at PPP centres to review programmes.

Mr Musa Hlongwa, Business Executive: Office of the Auditor General, said that PPP risks and opportunities included that they were a highlighted finance option for larger structures. Assets handled by PPP were neither risk free nor high risk.

Mr S Abram (ANC) said he got the impression that financial management lacked leadership. Effective organisational structure that extended to the regions, was lacking. The DCS was a nationwide organisation, not just the centre in Pretoria. There had to be competent finance leadership in places were expenditure took place. Risks were not being addressed. Regarding inflation adjustment, he said that inflation had not been exorbitant over the preceding years. Five to seven per cent could be accommodated. If the Department was self-sufficient with rations, it could save money. He advised that the Department go the route of optimum self-sufficiency. There were a 160 000 idle warm bodies. Even fewer offenders than before were now involved in production. The question was how to get people interested in work. South Africa had just staged a Football World Cup, but only 1 745 offenders out of 160 000 were working. That was lower than the 2005 baseline. It had been said that there was a lack of suitable offenders for work. He remained convinced that offenders had skills to offer. A mechanical workshop at Pretoria centre had been closed down, because an official had brought in a car to be worked on, against regulations. Leadership with integrity was needed.

The Chairperson opined that the point had been reached where Parliament had to start making pronouncements, and stop asking questions.

Mr Abram referred to the 2008 task team for the audit of catering services providers. He asked if the DCS had received value for money by outsourcing services. He asked about the audit of DCS products utilised.

Mr Moyane responded that finance leadership was being cascaded into the regions. The internal audit could not only be handled by Headquarters, control had to be extended to the regions. Such a situation did not as yet exist. All disciplines had to be implemented at regional level. The opinion received from the Auditor General had been because things had been left to chance. There had to be regional asset verification. Top leadership had to recruit requisite skills for the regions. Internal control and asset management were receiving attention.

Mr Sokhela added that the previous DCS structure had not accommodated asset management, the vacancy rate for finance managers stood at 80%. The DCS would recruit and employ. Regions were visited to train managers. Finance information had to be monitored on a monthly basis.

Mr L Max (DA) referred to vacancies. DCS had to identify which directorates were delivering fast or slow. Funding had to be distributed equitably and spent. Matters referred to by the Auditor-General on pages 130 to 133 of the Annual Report, related to proper leadership. A university degree was no guarantee of leadership. The DCS had to draw up a proper plan. It had to be able to tell Parliament who was responsible for what. He asked about the Internal Inspectorate, and correction of behaviour.

Ms Jenny Schreiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Offender Management Services, replied that there was an inspectorate with national and regional capacity, for a compliance plan. Core business was inspected. The inspectorate reported to the accounting officer. There was an internal audit on regions.

Mr Sokhela added that an action plan had been given to the Auditor-General to monitor the department on a monthly basis. A due date for delivery would be given.

Mr Max asked for a copy for the Committee.

Ms Screiner noted the DCS response to the adverse opinion was cited on page 21 of the presentation document.

Mr M Cele (ANC) asked who were included in the exact number of those convicted.

Ms Schreiner replied that 105 were guilty, and 97 not guilty.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked about construction and renovation at Ceres, Brandvlei and Van Rhynsdorp.

Mr Van Anraad answered that Ceres was 61% complete, Van Rhynsdorp 79%, and Brandvlei 97% complete.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) asked about the R71 million underspending on the Security programme. She asked about the status of vetting, and time frames for that.

Ms Mareka answered that underspending on Security was due to under-compensation of employees. Funds allocated to for posts at the Kimberley Centre, had not been spent. A group of students at a new level, had not yet been paid.

Mr Moyane responded that vetting was as yet low. He had had a meeting with National Intelligence, and there would be a team on site on the week starting 25 October. Vetting was a long process. Senior management would be first in line.

Ms M Mdaka felt that both the Annual Report and the Strategic Plan were not clear in the measuring of programmes, especially Care. There had to be information on targets reached, and money spent.

Ms Subashini Moodley, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Development and Care, replied that there were five community psychologists, of whom two were at Drakenstein, and one at George. Advertisements had been placed for psychologists. There was interest in Umtata. There were discrepancies in offender access to psychologists. New psychologists were being trained. There were no managers for psychologists, which meant that there could not be measurable targets. There was a move towards performance indicators. Care and Development were not up to par. There had to be systems to produce targets.                                                                 

Ms Moodley continued that the feasibility study on catering had not been included in the Annual Report. Optimal offender use was accepted as a challenge. In workshops, there were eight inmates to an artisan. OSD for artisans had created difficulties. Artisans had to be dealt with nationally. Internal controls were needed. There were 21 farms, with no new ones added since 1983. Innovation was needed. Inmates did not like agricultural work. A scientific study was needed of how many inmates could work. Regarding qualified offenders, she noted that categories had changed. There were more maximum offenders. Taking them into the fields posed a security risk. Working within the two-shift system had led to the solution of taking morning and afternoon teams out to work.

Mr Max referred to the R2,5 million recovered from officials who had defrauded a medical aid scheme. He asked if they had been dismissed and/or disciplined.

Ms Screiner replied that the fraud had occurred over a number of years. There had been a joint DCS/Scorpions investigation. Disciplinary steps had been taken against 702 officials. Disciplinary sanctions required that officials return the money or face consequences.

Ms Nyanda referred to the 2800 cellphones confiscated. She asked how the cellphones entered facilities.

Mr Manelisi Wolela Acting Deputy Commissioner: Communicatons answered that cellphones were a challenge. There were search equipment and x-ray scanners at control points to prevent smuggling by officials and offenders alike. There were unannounced searches by the SAPS for cellphones. Officials, inmates and service providers were searched, to ensure that no cellphone calls were made from centres.

Ms Mdaka referred to the case of the Rustenburg Head of Centre who had pleaded guilty to a sexual harassment charge. Management had provided minutes for his disciplinary hearing. She asked what had been done to comfort plaintiffs. He was still living on the premises, and they had to see him every day.

Ms Linda Bond, Deputy Commissioner, Human Resource Development, responded that the authority was allowed to provide minutes of disciplinary hearings. He still resided on the premises because he could not be evicted while an appeal process was still under way.

The Chairperson remarked that the usual procedure was to suspend such a person to prevent him from intimidating witnesses. If need be, he could be taken to Pretoria for the sake of justice.

Ms Phaliso asked what had happened to money for Closed Circuit Television (CCTV).

The Chairperson asked about the car brought in for service at the Pretoria workshop, and what had happened.

Mr Moyane replied that he would personally investigate the matter, and report back within a week.

Mr Abram remarked that 45 inmates working at the workshop now had to sit idle because of the incident.

Ms Phaliso opined that steps taken against the Rustenburg Head of Centre for sexual harassment were inadequate. He had to be removed until the case had been resolved. He could not be there.

Ms Mdaka added that the Head of Centre had pleaded guilty. She asked what he was appealing against, and whether it was against demotion.

Mr Moyane replied that it was a sensitive matter, and that he would take it up with the Corporate Services unit.

The Chairperson drew attention to Ms Phaliso’s question about video cameras.

Mr Wolele replied that the DCS would provide labour, and Justice would provide the budget, to modify video arraignment.

Mr Abram noted that in August 2009, there had been six video remand centres in seven facilities. A later report mentioned 1 in 12 for video postponement.

Mr Wolele explained that video arraignment technology had been installed at Pretoria and six other sites. It would be extended to 22 facilities by November.

Mr Abram returned to the matter of the intimidation of a witness in a rhino poaching case, by prison visitors. (He had referred to the matter at the meeting the day before). Authorities could not trace the identity of the visitors. People were getting into prisons under false pretences. He had asked about the matter on the previous day, and did not receive a satisfactory answer.

Mr Abram continued that no legislation or new plan or budget could cause transformation, if there were not competent officials with integrity. The DCS had to find officials who had qualities. Cellphones found in prisons created the impression amongst the public that DCS was a ‘mickey mouse’ institution. It had been said that many offenders were too dangerous to take out to work. But surely a Maximum facility could also have a facility inside for skills development. Work had to be based on rehabilitation. The fear that long term offenders would escape, was the fault of those responsible for Corrections.

Mr Abram turned to the issue of PPPs. He said that it made sound economic sense to buy one’s own house, and not pay off someone else’s bond. The PPPs were not owned by the DCS. They were a long term money-making plan for outside agencies, and could place generations to come in debt for perpetuity. There had to be workable plans around facilities owned by the state.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) commended the Department for trying, but more could be done. She referred to HIV challenges on page 80 of the Annual Report. She asked why there was no HIV budget in the Eastern Cape.

Ms Moodley replied that the HIV Directorate was still young. Government had only instructed increased resources for HIV during 2003/4. There was a correctly established HIV Directorate with 6 HIV regional coordinators. Nursing staff still had to do HIV work in addition to other duties. Nurses had to be trained to run tests. There were not enough HIV coordinators. Nursing staff were being trained to provide ARVs. Structures had to be reviewed and revisited. Nurses trained for HIV were often poached. Officials were needed on the ground. The aim was to provide ARV everywhere in the future. In the Eastern Cape, the Department of Health provided funding.

Ms Phaliso asked about two officials merely reprimanded for approving bids. Corruption had to be deterred.

Mr Molete Ngubo, Deputy Director, Supply Chain Management, replied that most logistical officials worked in sections. They were given two weeks training in procurement.

The Chairperson stated that when laws were made, they had to be followed. An amount of R500 000 was not an emergency. There were laws governing supply chain management. There were constant allegations that officials had business on the outside.

Mr Sokhela responded that there was no excuse for that. The deal had to be challenged at a high level and taken through to the bottom. It had become an emergency because of lack of planning.

Ms Nyanda asked about the budget for agriculture.

Mr Sokhela replied that there had been an application on 17 August to re-allocate the unspent budget. The budget was sufficient for the time being.

The Chairperson reminded the Department of questions about rhino poachers and work opportunities for maximum security offenders.

Mr Moyane said that the rhino poaching matter would be looked into.

Ms Mdaka asked about assistance to offenders to get bursaries, and financial aid. She asked about feasibility studies.

Ms Phaliso asked about recruitment programmes to employ professionals.

The Chairperson noted that certain questions still needed attention. Time had run out for discussion in the current meeting. Those included the intimidation of the rhino poaching witness; classified maximum security offenders and work, and education assistance.

The Chairperson suggested, as he had done before during the term of the current Committee, that the term Centres of Expertise be used, rather than Centres of Excellence. The Rustenburg Centre stood as an example of a failed Centre of Excellence. Centres of Expertise would be based on the principle that such centres would specialise in the development of skills like baking, plumbing and others. The public could then be told that if an offender wanted to develop baking skills, he would be sent to Boksburg, for example, or to Rustenburg to learn plumbing. That would be a shift away from keeping offenders near families, but many ordinary people got sent away from families to boarding schools and the like.

The Chairperson continued that the budget split bugbear, as he phrased it, would have to be addressed at a following meeting. Only 3% of the budget went to Development and Reintegration. The Department had to shift funds and identify challenges, and had to come up with time frames. It was the last chance to sell the DCS to the Committee. After that, the Committee would be making the decisions.

Mr Abram asked for a copy of the catering audit to be made available.

Mr Max asked to make a brief closing comment. He said that as a new member, he had hope for the Department. He was convinced that there was substance among the DCS top management. He encouraged the National Commissioner, saying that his appointment had come at a fortunate time for him. Things could only get better in the Department. He said that the Chairperson and the Portfolio Committee could be harsh in its criticism, but in the end, it would be to the benefit of all.

Mr Moyane thanked him for the contribution.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.