Department of Correctional Services 3rd Quarter 2010/11 performance report

Meeting report

Chairperson’s Opening Remarks
The Chairperson stated that the Committee and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) were scheduled to discuss the progress that had been made on the recommendations on the budgetary review report and the turnaround strategy, but the DCS had indicated that this was not ready. He said that the Committee would look at the administration of finances of DCS for the three quarters of the financial year 2010/11, up to December 2010.

Ms Nontsikelelo Jolingana, Chief Deputy National Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, thanked the Committee for its willingness to change the agenda. She noted the National Commissioner’s apology.

She went on to outline an unfortunate incident at one of the DCS training colleges, where one of the learners had been shot and killed during a shooting exercise. An investigation was being done into this.

She also noted that the National Commissioner had convened a four day strategic session in order to look again at the turnaround strategies for the DCS.

The Chairperson noted that he had made an unannounced visit to Leeuwkop where he had been made aware of a number of issues. The first issue was that there were five vacancies on the Leeuwkop Parole Board. Furthermore there was no Chairperson, only an Acting Chairperson of that Board. This was problematic since Leeuwkop was the centre that had the most concerns on parole. In addition he said that there were four Case Management Committee (CMC) department head positions, yet three of those were vacant. This raised questions as to where the Parole Board would get its information, and he asked for comment.

Mr Zacharia Modise, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corrections, Department of Correctional Services, stated that the DCS was in the process of filling the positions at the Leeuwkop Parole Board and the Case Management Committee (CMC). He said that the DCS had taken a decision to make all contracts uniform. In addition, he said that the problem of the CMC was not only at Leeuwkop but this was a countrywide problem. He further stated that the concerns that the Committee had raised would be addressed.

Mr Modise added that Corporate Services had issued a circular to have interim contracts until permanent people were appointed. .

The Chairperson reiterated that the entire senior management had stated that one of the staff who made up a quorum had his contract ending on 28 February. He stated that Leeuwkop was not aware of such a circular.

The Chairperson requested the DCS to cover the issue of vacancies. He noted that there was a 14% vacancy rate, but the DCS had spent 75% of its budget on salaries. He asked how this had happened. He also noted that there was a perennial problem of underspending on facilities. The Chairperson added that the Committee would not accept underspending. He went on to ask what transfers and subsidies represented. The DCS was also asked to explain why overseas travel spending amounted to 170% of budget, and why R24 million had been spent on consultancy fees.

Mr Siphiwe Sokhela, Chief Financial Officer, DCS, stated that the DCS spending was 65.5% of budget at the end of December 2010, as opposed to the target of 74.2%, which meant that R1.333 billion or 8.64% had been underspent. The factors that had contributed to underspending were compensation for employees, where the advertised posts were in the process of being filled. Under goods and services, underspending was a result of SITA accounts where invoices had not yet been processed. In respect of consultants, invoices were still being processed, and for contractors, service level agreements had not yet been signed. Invoices on vehicles were also still being received and being processed for payments. Under the Security Programme the actual spending was R3.675 billion as opposed to R3.999 billion, and this was mainly due to underspending for the compensations of employees.

Mr Sokhela noted that where there were instances of overspending, these were due to transfers and subsidies, and these would be adjusted in line with the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and National Treasury(NT) Regulations. He further added that Transfers and Subsidies were the termination of services. He stated that it was an estimation based on historical information.

There was underspending under the Care Programme, which was mainly due to the low movement of stores items, broadly as a result of the clearance of internal charges in line with the request and consumption of items. There was also underspending under the Development Programme, which was mainly in respect of Goods and Services, where there had been low spending on workshop materials and farming materials. Underspending was further seen under the Social Re-integration and Facilities Programme, mainly due to lower than budgeted spending on compensation of employees, because of delays in the reallocation of posts from the Security to Social Reintegrations programmes, in line with the White Paper on Correctional Services. There was also low spending of funds allocated for capital work projects, due to the low and late billing from the Department of Public Works (DPW).

There was underspending in Compensation of Employees and Payment for Capital Assets as a result of the vacancies which the DCS was in the process of filling. Again, he cited low spending of funds allocated for capital works projects, due to the low and late billing from the DPW, and vehicles that were still being received. There was, however, actual spending of R44 million against the revised budget spending plan of 19 million, which was mainly due to the leave gratuity payments made to the employees as a result of the termination of services.

The Chairperson asked for an explanation of “Transfers and Subsidies”.

Mr Sokhela responded that it was the money that was paid as a result of service termination to employees who left the DCS.

The Chairperson noted that there was overspending of R44 million against the revised budget spending plan of 19 million. He asked how the DCS had budgeted so terribly wrong. He added that there was a serious problem with both the management and accounts in DCS.

Mr Sokhela responded that in May 2010 the Chief Financial Officer and the National Commissioner went through a budgeting exercise, in order to make sure that everything was budgeted for correctly. He added that the bulk of the spending had happened within the first quarter, but added that there were a number of terminations that had taken place. He accepted that the costing and projection was not done properly on Transfers and Subsidies.

The Chairperson stressed that departments and ministers would come before the Committee to ask for money, which was then approved. He asked who had authorised the use of the extra money. He added that the use of extra unauthorised money was undermining the authority of Parliament and the Committee. He asked from which Programme the extra money had come, because the DCS did not have any extra money.

Mr L Max (DA) asked whether the anticipated resignations had taken place and how many there were. He noted that there was underspending on all programmes of the DCS, with the exception of Transfers and Subsidies. He also asked how many vacancies there were, and at what level, and in which provinces, as also why there was a delay in filling vacancies. He emphasised that there was a lack of service delivery due to underspending.

Mr Sokhela stated that he would give a written response to this question.

Ms Jolingana stated that in government service, the employees were allowed to retire at the age of 65 years. However, there were people who were employed under the Transkei decree, which stated that such people could apply for early retirement at the age of 50, and retirement at the age of 55, and this caused a mass exodus of such people from the DCS. She added that there was no figure of the number of people who had left. She further added that payments in respect of offender gratuities came from the Transfers and Subsidies category, so the more that offender labour was increased, the more that the DCS would have to pay out.

The Chairperson noted that the DCS had stated, on page 4, that there was underspending on the Development Programme, mainly under goods and services, because of the low spending on workshop materials and farming materials. He asked which inmates were working, in light of the report on underspending on tools of trade.

He stressed that the DCS must present a written report, within a week, on how much money had gone towards the Transkei decree and why the transfers were so high.

The Chairperson asked the DCS why it could not provide the number of vacancies at that stage.

Ms Jolingana responded that the numbers would be indicated in percentage terms.

The Chairperson stated that it was unacceptable not to have the figure because he had the number of vacancies that were in the DCS.

Ms Jolingana stated that the percentage nationally was 14%.

The Chairperson stated that there were 46 909 funded posts, of which 40 457 were filled. He added that he had received these figures from the National Treasury. He further added that there were about 6 000 vacant posts, broken down into 5 655 custodial personnel, 164educationalists, 5 medical practitioners, 19 pharmacists, 308 nurses,1  psychologist and 35 vacancies for senior managers. In addition he stressed that the fact that the DCS appeared before the Committee without the figures for the vacancy rate showed that the DCS had not prepared when they came before the Committee.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked how many vehicles had been received, for what purpose they were bought and for which region.

Mr James Smalberger, Regional Commissioner: Western Cape, DCS, responded that there were 352 vehicles for the Western Cape. However, he later corrected this figure to 339.

The Chairperson asked for what purpose had the vehicles been bought.

Mr Smalberger responded the vehicles were for all purposes. He added that some vehicles were bought to transfer offenders to and from court, others were needed for agricultural purposes and others for community correction officers. There were also vehicles for staff and buses to transfer children to and from farms to school, and there were also some ambulances to take offenders to hospitals.

Ms Jolingana stated that all regions submitted their needs for vehicles and so each province was receiving vehicles based on their provincial submission.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee did not want the rand value of the vehicles but did want to know where the vehicles were. He added that the answer was supposed to be given in writing.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) stressed that the very same problem had arisen the previous year. She said that the budget would not be approved if details could not be provided. Ms Nyanda also asked why R1.1 billion had not been spent.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) asked how many vehicles had been involved in accidents, and how many had been written off, and what action was taken against officials who had driven the vehicles recklessly.

Mr Sokhela responded that a huge portion of the money that had been underspent was as a result of the vacancy rate. He stated that the DCS was trying not to be in the same position in the following year. He stated that Mr Magagula’s question would be responded to in writing.

The Chairperson asked the spending of DCS would be by the end of the financial year.

Mr Sokhela responded that he would come back to the Committee with the full analysis.

The Chairperson said that he had never heard of late billing, although he was aware of late payments. He found it an indictment that South African citizens could be going hungry while government departments were not billing each other. He added that the financial management of the DCS left a lot to be desired.

Ms Nyanda asked what improved experience the DCS staff had brought from their overseas trips.

The Chairperson asked why there was overspending on overseas travel. He said that the time had to come where people who were at senior levels and who broke the law would be held accountable.

Dr Jennifer Schreiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner: OMS, Department of Correctional Services, responded that there were ministerial responsibilities that could not be pre-planned. She further said that there were initiatives that also came during the year.

Mr Max asked how many of the costs were initiated by the DCS and how many came from invitations, and whether value for money had been achieved.

The Chairperson asked what constituted overseas travel and how much had been planned.

The Chairperson noted that the DCS had a suspense account. In terms of Treasury Regulations the account was supposed to be cleared every month. He noted that the DCS suspense account had R2.2 million. He asked why DCS had not cleared the account and when it was going to be cleared.

Mr Sokhela responded that the DCS was not only focusing on clearing the suspense account, but a committee had been formed to look at the suspense account on a month-to-month basis. He stated that there was no supporting documentation to make sure that the account was cleared. In addition he stated that the DCS was using an old system which was depreciating, and for this was moving to a new system. He would be hesitant to make any promises that the account would be cleared, but DCS was making an intervention. Furthermore, he said that the problem was not on the suspense account but it was much bigger than that.

The Chairperson stated that the National Commissioner had noted a lack of accountability within the DCS during the meeting on 20 October 2011, and that head quarters were unable to issue instructions. In addition he stated that none of the excuses that had been raised were new, and none of the solutions were difficult to implement.

Mr Max noted that an outside service provider had been hired to deal with asset management. He asked whether the asset manager was transferring skills to insiders within the DCS.

Mr Sokhela stated that as DCS did not have professional service providers, but only interns. It did not have a fully fledged asset management directorate.

Dr Schreiner stated that there was no target set for the number of audit qualifications and matters of emphasis because the report had not been released by the Auditor-General (AG). She added that no targets were set for the number of person days lost due to leave against the total number of annual working days, and the number of grievances handled within 30 days.

The Chairperson requested that if the DCS was missing a target it should also indicate whether there were corrective steps.

Dr Schreiner stressed that a target of 70% had been set for the percentage of litigation cases won by the DCS, measured against the total number of cases finalised against it. Here, the DCS had achieved 69.7%. In terms the number of officials found guilty of fraud, corruption and serious maladministration, a target of 90% guilty finding was set. 24 officials had been charged, 19 had been found guilty and 5 were found not guilty. In terms of the number of assaults in Correctional Centres and Remand Detention facilities, a target of less than 18.5 assaults per 10 000 inmates had been set. There were 1 133 alleged assaults per 10 000 inmates. This target had not been met, mainly due to the large number of allegations of assaults of inmates against their fellow inmates.

She continued that the DCS had set itself a target of 100% installed and functioning access security turnstiles, in Correctional Centres and remand detention facilities. However, only 15 out of 80 electronic access systems were functional, and currently electronic access control systems were installed in 33%, which was 80 out of 240 centres. In addition, a target of less than one inmate per 10 000 inmates was set for the number of escapes. That target had not been achieved, due to one mass escape of 41 inmates at Harrismith Correctional Centre. The DCS had set a target of 38% overcrowding, to maintain the level of overcrowding, and the DCS was successful in this regard. No target had been set for offenders completing pre-release programmes calculated against the total number of offenders with approved parole dates. Again no target had been set for the percentage of offenders participating in care programmes as against the total offender population who were eligible for care programmes in terms of their sentence plans.

A target of 8% had been set for offenders on medical treatment for communicable diseases, excluding HIV and AIDS, hypertension and diabetes against the total offender population. Only 7% had been achieved. In addition a target of 10 721 had been set for offenders who had registered for Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) programmes against the total number of offenders eligible for ABET, and 12 709 had been achieved. 80% was the target that was set for offenders becoming involved in sports, recreation, arts and culture programmes, calculated against the total offender population, and the DCS had achieved 81.5%.

Ms Ngwenya noted that there were officials who had been found guilty of corruption. She asked how many officials had been arrested on serious charges, and to which Correctional Centre they were sent. She asked why a target was not set for offenders participating in correctional programmes.

Mr Modise responded that the DCS had initiated a new 2x12 hour shift which impacted on the programmes of offenders, which was the reason no target was set.

Ms Ngwenya stated that the DCS was supposed to give a full report on why no target was set for offenders.
Mr Max asked whether, in regard to code enforcement, the figures related to only national competency or regional competency. If it was national only, then he wished to know why. He asked what the future plans were to address the discrepancy between centre base and non centre base. He also asked why the target of escapes was not achieved.

Ms Schreiner responded to Mr Max’s question that code enforcement was a national structure because of the importance of the type of cases that were to be investigated.

Mr Pelmos Mashabela, Director: Human Resources Support, DCS,  responded that centre base covered the core business, and non-centre base were support structures, which was the reason they were treated differently.

The Chairperson noted that there were salary discrepancies and there were also migrations. He asked what the consequences were, and how the DCS was dealing with the consequences.

Mr Mashabela stated that people were given choices whether they wanted to move from centre base to non centre base.

Mr Robert Van Anraad, Deputy Commissioner: Facilities, Department of Correctional Services, added that people at centre levels worked 45 hours a week instead of 40 hours a week, which accounted for the salary discrepancy. He stated that people were only allowed to migrate if they could be able to render services on the same level.

Mr Modise pointed out that 41 offenders in the Free State escaped at one time, and this was the reason why DCS failed to meet the target for the number of escapees.

Mr Magagula noted that there was no target set out on page 11. He asked how far the DCS had gone in terms of its strategy plan.

Dr Schreiner responded that further information would be submitted in writing.

Ms Nyanda noted that there were 36 people who were found guilty. She asked where they were, and what their offences were.

Mr M Cele (ANC) asked why the target on page 5 was not 100%.

Dr Schreiner stated that the target had been set to try and improve delivery.

The Chairperson noted that offenders qualified for parole but the DCS would not release then because of its inability to monitor them, as the legislation required that parolees must have an address.

Mr Modise responded that when inmates were released they would be taken to their place of residence. He stressed that the task team that had been instructed by the Minister had completed its report on addressing the issue of offenders who were supposed to have been released long ago. He stated that foreigners could be released, on conditions, but he did agree that some officials refused to release foreigners, just because they were foreigners. He also noted that the success rate was very low.

The Chairperson asked why a large number of centres did not have electronic access, and who was responsible.

Mr Modise stressed that access control was under contract from two contractors. He stated that other centres had faced the serious challenge of software. He further added that the DCS did not have the capacity to make other access points operational,

The Chairperson stated that the issue of access points had been raised for a very long time and this was one of the considerations to be taken into account when the Committee considered the budget.

Ms Ngwenya asked why the DCS was continuing to install such electronic access. She asked whether this was not fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

The Chairperson asked whether the DCS was satisfied that the skills development programme was benefiting people when they left. He also noted that 4 000 out of 60 000 offenders were working, and this raised the question of what the other 56 000 were doing. He stated that if the issue was not resolved then the DCS would not receive money that it requested.

Ms Jolingana stated that information about the question on skills would be provided at a later stage. Furthermore she stated that some of the training was accredited and linked to FETs.

Mr Modise agreed that the DCS was underperforming in taking offenders to work, and could do better. He added that the situation had been made worse by the 2x12 hour shift.

Ms Nyanda asked how many DCS personnel had been vetted, since the presentation was silent on this point.
.
Ms Ngwenya asked whether service providers were paid on time and what were the time frames.

Ms Ngwenya asked what the matters of emphasis arising from the audit certificate were.

Ms Ngwenya asked, in regard to assaults on inmates, who the perpetrators were. If they were officials, then she wanted to know how many criminal charges were laid.

Ms Ngwenya enquired how the DCS had managed to reduce overcrowding.

The Chairperson asked what the estimated completion date of Brandvlei was.

Mr Van Anraad responded that the estimated date of the completion was the date of which the actual construction would be completed, and the target was the third-quarter of 2010. He stated that the reason for not achieving the target was that there was water seepage on a hillside, requiring the construction of a special channel.

The Chairperson asked whether there were cost implications as a result of the delay.

Mr Van Anraad responded that the financial costs were well in control.

The Chairperson asked when people would be expected to move into Brandvlei.

Mr Van Anraad responded that he could not give a specific date since that was a migration plan for Western Cape.

The Chairperson asked what the estimated completion date was for Brandvlei.

Mr Van Anraad responded that Brandvlei would be completed by May 2011.

The Chairperson stated that Members would be visiting Brandvlei after the meeting to verify what had been said.

Ms Jolingana stated that the DCS was aware of the concerns that the Committee had raised and that the DCS would try to address the concerns.

The meeting was adjourned.