Department of Correctional Services Annual Report and Financial Statements 2009/10: discussion; meeting with the Auditor General: feedback from Portfolio Committee
Meeting Summary
The Department of Correctional Services was not asked to make any presentation. The Portfolio Committee had met with the Auditor General the day before. The Auditor General had reported that it was not required to state an opinion on performance in the current year, but if it had been, the Department would have received an adverse opinion on performance. Against the background of qualified audits received over the preceding years, and the commitment of the current Committee to clean audits before the end of its term, the Auditor General's statements caused grave concern. Commencing with the Chairperson’s introduction, the matter became the central focus of the meeting. As often before during the term of the urrent Committee, the Department was taken to task for its inability to to supply extensive and reliable information. The Chairperson pointed out that Department's headquarters could not rely on the regions for independent assessment. Regions could not measure themselves. The Department supplied incomplete, unverifiable and sometimes misleading information. Its Annual Report had stated that Treasury wanted a reduction of staff, which the Treasury denied in a letter to the Chairperson.
In discussion, there were questions about the successful down-management of overtime. A Democratic
An African National Congress Member was severely critical of the lack of response to requests for information on the 2008 audit of outsourced catering services. The same Member again complained, as in previous meetings, that the intimidation of a witness in a rhino poaching case by untraceable prison visitors, was not being responded to by the Department. There were questions about the vacancy rate for psychologists in the Department; the status of video arraignment centres planned for 22 facilities, and how well internal auditing was resourced.
The management of the Department's vehicle fleet was discussed, with special reference to insurance, and investigations of accidents. Members commented on the lack of consequences and sanctions for officials who did not comply with directives. The Commissioner was again told that he had to act or be held even criminally liable if losses were incurred.
The Chairperson invited members to provide advice to the Department. The general feeling was that there was confidence in the National Commissioner and his management team, although much depended on the ability of the Commissioner to act. It was accepted that he had not inherited a clean slate, but it was also expected of him to be tough in cleaning things up, if need be. The senior management team was advised to assist the Commissioner in his efforts to achieve a turnaround for the Department.
Meeting report
The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) was not asked to make any presentation. After an introduction by the Chairperson, discussion ensued directly.
Introduction by the Chairperson
The Chairperson noted that the Portfolio Committee (PC) had met with the Auditor General (AG) the day before. For 2009/10 the AG was not required to state an opinion on performance. But if it had been required, there would have been an adverse audit opinion, the worst qualification pssible. The PC had stated at the beginning of its term that there had to be a move from a perrenial qualified audit to a clean audit.The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) would have earned an adverse opinion on the grounds of performance indicators not captured and not submitted, and if at all it had amounted to loose pieces of paper. Supporting documents for sentence plans were not available. He had been taken aback. There should rightly be a database. It should be possible to punch in an offender’s name, and then have access to data on the charges against an offender, and a sentence plan. Sentence plans were still being kept manually. Every year the Administration Programme budget had to provide for information technology (IT) costs. Such funding had to provide value.
The Chairperson continued that it seemed as if headquarters were unable to enforce instructions. Regions ignored directives, and there was no follow-up. It had become inappropriate to ask regions if targets had been met. Regions could not measure themselves. There had to be independent assessment for the Annual Report (AR). If the AG stated that performance warranted an adverse opinion, it meant that no sense could be made of DCS submissions. Departure from compliance was pervasive. Mere qualification was not adequate to express the confusion that the AG had encountered. Members like Mr Abram had long insisted that the DCS bring verifiable information to the table. The DCS organogram was based on a member count of 45 000 for the DCS. The Department had stated that the Treasury wanted that reduced to 40 000. Yet he had received a letter from Ms Rachel Majura, from the Treasury, which noted that the Treasury had not expressed a need for staff reduction. A letter to the Department had instructed it to review the member/inmate ratio; staff allocation, and staff deployment.
The PC would support the Department in its request for 45 000 staff members, but the implications of the seven day establishment had to be properly understood. There had been a resolution to cut down on overtime spending. The current year had seen a reduction in funding for that, compared to 2007/08 and 2008/09. The question was whether there could be an improvement over the figures of 2005/06 and 2006/07. It had to be decided how well figures were being managed down.
Discussion
Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner, DCS, said that the Department was willing to accept that it had provided misleading information. The reality was that the issue of supporting documents had to be addressed. There were IT concerns. IT had to be upscaled with the AG's support. Regarding the effectiveness of Headquarters to enforce directives, he referred to ineptness of leaders discussed in previous engagements. The DCS had to be strong on the ground. There had to be monitoring and evaluation, and internal audits extended to the regions. Human Resources had to provide a benchmark for downscaling overtime. He had recently been introduced to an effective IT system that could be utilised in the Department.
Ms Nandi Mareka, Deputy Commissioner, FMA, noted with regard to overtime that the DCS had agreed with unions and stakeholders not to compensate Saturdays with overtime, but to grant that day as time off. Only Sundays and public holidays would qualify for overtime. There had been engagement with the Public Service Commission to down-manage overtime. Fluctuation in the
Ms Jenny Schreiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Offender Management Services, added that there had to be clarity against performance indicators. Targets had to be confirmed. The DCS had to look at collection tools. Collection tools had to be replicated at management area level and cascaded to regions. There would be a meeting the following week to review the Strategic Plan. A new framework by Treasury around the Strategic Plan would render assistance. As regarded the development of an information system, she stated that the Department could not wait until a developed IT system was available. Document collection was already taking place. There would be a midyear review of 5 year targets, according to the Management Information Systems Plan (MISP), and a review of HR development. Work had begun to drill into that. DCS was not sufficiently active at ground level. The audit opinion gave detail the DCS needed to work on.
Mr L Max (DA) asked the Commissioner how it had been possible to cite an instruction to reduce staff in the Annual Report, when the Treasury had in fact not issued such an instruction. Regarding personnel problems, he noted that the DCS had complained of staff shortages, and yet the current document showed no evidence of appointments made. He asked who had blocked appointments. He referred to underspending and non-reporting by regions. Page 61 of the Annual Report pointed to a failure by management areas to address inspection shortcomings. Page 66 showed that targets had not been met because of non-reporting by regions. He asked how non-compliance could be addressed. The National Commissioner had assumed his position in May. He asked about the Commissioner’s assessment of substance in top management. It seemed that top management knew what to do but outcomes were lacking. He asked the Commissioner to comment on how things had become the way they were, and what he needed to focus on.
Mr Moyane responded that when he started out, he could see challenges, especially lack of accountability. There was capacity, but it was thwarted by lack of compliance. The AG had founds that necessary actions had not been taken, and that Headquarters were unable to instruct. There was a lethargic office bound leadership, and that had led to mediocrity. He wished to repeat what he had noted before, namely that the DCS depended too much on junior staff. There was a lot of information, but it had not been captured. There was a lack of accountability, quality and depth. Managers were reluctant to move more than 100 kilometres away from their bases. Rustenburg was only 200 kilometres away from HQ, and yet had provided no information. Quality leadership was needed. He said that Ms Mareka had just presented an example of well collated information, and had set an example.
Mr Moyane continued that a lazy and lackadaisical approach was prevalent. Leaders had to be at the coalface. Regional leaders did not visit centres. There were regional fiefdoms. There had to be a change of mindset to effect a paradigm shift. Managers sat in offices and waited for reports, when they had to be at the coalface. There had to be visibility on the ground. Finance problems would be dealt with through the appointment of 407 interns. There had to be high level involvement in asset management. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Finance team had to lend support to regional managers. The DCS was committed to better research. He himself travelled and visited centres. That culture had to be inculcated. The information was there, but it had to be provided and collated. The misleading information about staffing instructions from Treasury had been compiled before his term in office. He could be accountable if his team assisted him.
The Chairperson reminded Mr Moyane that his signature appended whatever information was released by the DCS. He told him that he had people under him who could land him in serious trouble. The Chairperson said that he had previously been a Member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). Ms Linda Mti had appeared before that Committee within three days of assuming office. It had been accepted that he could not be held responsible yet. The same had applied to Ms Xoliswa Sibeko. There could be no mercy for new or old. It may have been the fault of those that collated reports. Yet when the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) kicked in, the buck stopped with the National Commissioner. He was saying this in front of the Commissioner’s managers, on purpose. The Committee could influence matters for the better. But there had to be stability, and the Department and Committee had to work as a team. The quality of work up to 2010 had not been good.
Mr S Abram (ANC) asked what had prevented the DCS from making the 2008 audit on catering services available to the PC. The PC had to approve the budget. That caused frustration. The DCS response on the matter seemed to have been made just for the sake of making a response. He found the response trivial. He referred to contradictions in figures about funding for video postponement technology. As in previous meetings, he referred to the matter of Mr Deon van Deventer, the witness in a rhino poaching case who had been intimidated by visitors in prison. There seemed to be easy access to inmates. He asked why it was not standard procedure to have an official present at visits. The target for vacancy rates for psychologists had not been met. Departmental reports guided non-governmental organisations (NGOs). If inaccurate, there was an overt misleading of the public. He asked if the DCS did proofreading at all, to ensure the reliability of information. The AR mentioned that security targets had not been met, due to regions not submitting reports. The Department had to say what had been done to people who failed to perform.
Ms Schreiner replied that the number of video arraignment centres targetted had been 22 from the beginning.
The Chairperson said that there had to be time frames for completion in every case. The Minister of Justice had stated that there would be fewer escapes if video arraignment could be done without inmates leaving centres.
Mr Moyane responded with regard to the intimidated witness Mr Van Deventer, that Mr Modise was making enquiries, and that investigating officers were visiting the facility. There were records, and the Head of Centre had to assist in disclosing the identity of the visitors. There would be a report on the matter by the following Monday morning.
Mr Moyane responded that he took data interrogation seriously. He again admitted that it had not been taken seriously enough in the past. There had to be a change in culture and mindset.
Ms Linda Bond, Deputy Commissioner, Human Resource Development, replied that the appointment of psychologists had been affected by the Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD). Posts had to be created and abolished in all occupations, and that had caused data integrity problems. Officials had to be moved from old to new salary structures.
Ms Subashini Moodley, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Development and Care, responded that the question about the catering audit had been responded to the previous week. The report would be made available to the PC after it had been submitted to the Executive Management Committee of the Department. She apologised for the brevity of the response. A feasbility study had not been done, because of insufficient funds in the previous year. The would be a report in June or July. The service provider would report.
Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked about efforts to make sure that internal auditing was well resourced. The AG had claimed that it was underresourced. She welcomed drastic measures to improve asset management.
Mr Moyane replied that advertisements for internal auditors would be published that week or the next. There had been a meeting with the Human Resources team. He said that the Service Level Agreement with the Department of Public Works (DPW) had been studied. There were a number of clauses that binded the DCS. He had handed the document to a legal team. There would be finality by the end of that year. The DPW had drawn up the document to suit its own interests. There were escape clauses and punitive clauses.
Ms Phaliso proposed that another joint meeting with the DCS and DPW and the respective Portfolio Committees, be held.
The Chairperson said that such a meeting had indeed been planned.
Mr M Cele (ANC) referred to AG remarks about assets. An adjustment had been made to the opening balance of the previous year, for which no documents existed. He asked how long the Department was going to hold that R29 million. He asked about losses to the Department in the form of cars lost or damaged. He said that the Committee was under the impression that some acts by officials were deliberate. In one instance R9 million had been lost, and nothing had been done to those responsible. He asked about vehicle insurance.
Ms M Nyanda (ANC) asked with regard to the Van Deventer matter, if anybody could visit inmates, or only family.
Mr M Ngubo, Deputy Commissioner, SLM, said that an action plan had been drawn up with Treasury, to also determine the opening balance. The previous IT system did not work, but there had been a change to Logis. Regarding accidents, he said that the management of the fleet posed problems of supervision and returns from regions. Each accident investigated was followed by a clear report on who had been accountable. There were weaknesses in investigation. There was a lack of substance in reports for write-offs. Reports had been delayed for 3 years, in some instances. The DCS managed the fleet according to the benchmark of another department that had outsourced its fleet.
The Chairperson reminded Mr Ngubo that Mr Cele had asked about insurance. Where he lived, he saw DCS cars every day. If such vehicles were not insured and were involved in accidents, there could be serious problems of exposure. There were cars on the road 24 hours per day. In real life, an ombudsman was notified about insurance problems within 30 days. The Department had waited three years in some cases, as Mr Ngubo had indicated. That had to change.
Mr Ngubo responded that anything longer than 30 days was indeed viewed as non-compliance by the Department.
The Chairperson said that the PC wished to know how many vehicles were insured. Insurance claims older than 30 days pointed to a failure to comply with the Department's own policy.
Mr Ngubo replied that only 2 vehicles in the Ministry were insured, others not.
The Chairperson asked what would happen if someone drove into a Porsche. If such a claim were paid, would it be from the R9 million referred to? He asked where that would be reflected as an expense.
Mr Ngubo replied that it would be referred to the State Attorney.
The Chairperson asked what had happened in cases where the DCS had been at fault in accidents.
Mr Ngubo replied that it had been reflected as a third party claim against the Department.
Ms M Mdaka (ANC) asked what had been done about officials involved. She asked what reasons had been given for delayed investigations.
Mr Ngubo answered that reasons were usually unacceptable.
The Chairperson remarked that the PC was seeing a failure to manage. It had to be fixed. The PC had said to Dr Mbuli, Director of Legal Services, that if losses were incurred due to contesting a claim the DCS had been advised not to contest, he would be a party to wasteful expenditure, and would be asked to resign. The Commissioner had to act or even face being held criminally liable. The Portfolio Committee wanted an unqualified audit opinion during its term. It had targets that it was fully resolved to reach. The DCS would have to be tough on people who failed to perform, or face being dealt with harshly. There had been enough dancing on eggs and diplomacy. Maturity had to come in. Henceforth everybody would be held accountable.
Mr Abram asked if there were not a manual that those entrusted with expensive equipment had to sign. It had to be possible to deal harshly with people who transgressed, and action could not be taken against a person if he had not signed into certain conditions. There had to be sanctions attached to transgression.
The Chairperson emphasised that the PC was not going to micro-manage the Department. He told the Commissioner that if things like unreliable figures and lack of performance were to persist, the PC would ask for his removal. The PC gave incentives to the Department, and it had to act. The PFMA granted power to the Portfolio Committee. If reporting did not improve, people would be removed. The PC was putting pressure on the National Commissioner and senior managers, and expected them to put pressure on other officials, or suffer dire consequences. It had been said the day before that if the South African Police Services (SAPS) erred with remand detention; the Department would be held responsible. He assured the Commissioner that the Portfolio Committee was prepared to be tough. He then invited Members to give advice to the Department.
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) thanked the Department for trying. The PC had no fight with the Department, but the Department had to help the Committee. Correct information had to be supplied. She appealed to the Commissioner that he was father to the Department, and hence the one who had to be the first to hear complaints. The PC was looking forward to better reports in future.
Mr Max opined that the Department was still being run like a spaza shop, but the Commissioner was at least committed to address problems. He told the Commissioner that he had to manage people who had been appointed before his term, and that he had to be prepared to face resistance. He saw a lack of commitment, supervision, discipline, and pride. If the Commissioner failed to manage people, he would have to go. The Portfolio Committee would empower him, but the onus would be on him and his team. The CFO had referred to a turnaround plan. The PC wanted a copy of that. It had to be worked out who would be doing what, and by when. The PC would decide whom to call in.
Ms Phaliso felt that it was as yet too early to tell the Commissioner that he would be removed, if things did not improve. He did not inherit a clean slate. She recommended that the DCS study what the AG had to say. It would not do to be a sweetheart in the DCS. The Commissioner was facing a tough call. There was criminality in the Department, which was why vetting had become so important. She said that it would not do to have 26s (the notorious prison gang) looking after other wolves. There were officials who were wolves in sheep’s clothing. She implored the Department to get serious. The PC did not like getting what she termed cooked information.
Ms Nyanda advised the Department to be committed, and to follow in the footsteps of the new leader. Duties had to be dealt with hands on.
Mr Moyane responded that he was humbled by the serenity and candour of the Committee. He said that he had never had any doubts about the challenges of the position he had been appointed to. The Committee was urging the Department to be excellent. One swallow did not make a summer. There was depth, but it had to be harnessed. Resources from the team had to be forthcoming. There had to be a turnaround. He would do his best. He believed in his team. It would be his team that would grant him increased options. He said that the DCS would not fail Government. He thanked the Chairperson for confidence expressed. The DCS was committed to achieve a clean audit in 2011/12.The AG remarks were achievable. He thanked the PC for moral support. The turnaround journey had just started; he asked that the PC not tire of the Department. He thanked the PC for interventions in DCS core business. Issues were properly understood. Branch managers had to account, and then the Department could return with quality information.
The Chairperson affirmed that the Portfolio Committee indeed had confidence in the DCS, and asked that the DCS not fail it. There were 165 000 people who could be helped to integrate better into society. One could multiply such benefits by five, if one considered the families of inmates also. He said that for him it was an endgame, and he was determined not to fail. There was a chance to change the lives of South Africans. Problems should not be insurmountable. The Portfolio Committee was not a watchdog. It was rather a matter of walking a path with the DCS.
The meeting was adjourned.
Documents
- Department of Correctional Services. Code Enforcement Status 2009/10
- Department of Correctional Services. Audit Findings Action Plan Monitoring tool Part 2
- Department of Correctional Services. Audit Findings Action Plan Monitoring tool Part 1
- Department of Correctional Services. Response to issues raised by Portfolio Committee
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.