Correctional Services 2010/11 Annual Report: input by Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, Judicial Inspectorate, NICRO, Auditor-General, Parliamentary Researcher
Meeting Summary
The briefing by the Parliamentary Researcher stressed the need for the Department of Correctional Services to align itself with government objectives. Challenges were litigation claims against the DCS; parole policy; underspending to the tune of R728 million; Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) implementation; qualification on assets; staff vacancies, and the 7-Day Establishment with the 2x12 hour shift system linked to it.
The briefing by the Auditor-General emphasised a lack of accurate, credible and validated performance information made available to the DCS leadership. There was lack of alignment with the Public Finance Management Act. Capacity was a challenge with a vacancy rate of 56% among DCS finance professionals. IT systems were run by consultants. It was important for the DCS to own systems for itself. There were problems with the LOGIS system, which had led to duplication. There were internal audit challenges. The DCS had to build capacity.
In discussion, there were remarks and questions about the LOGIS system, expensive IT consultants and the qualification on assets, as well as the DCS lack of alignment with government objectives.
The Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative briefing pointed out a lack of information in the Annual Report about inmate composition. Torture in cells remained a problem, even though the country had ratified the United Nations agreement on torture. There was an absence of mental health care in prisons, with suicide as one result. A policy document about Remand Detainees and overcrowding, had been said to be ‘in the editing phase’ for months on end. It was not available for public scrutiny.
In discussion, there was attention to fraud and closure on the Bosasa matter. There were questions about electric shock equipment used for torture, and the acquisition and use of such items. The Chairperson reiterated a previous call for electronic surveillance in cells, and again called upon stakeholders to engage with the issue. The benefits of surveillance had to prevail against the notion that it constituted a breach of privacy. The matter of inmates being isolated in cells and vulnerable after lockdown, received attention, as did Operation Vala associated with it.
The briefing by the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services raised questions about who controlled Operation Vala, that restricted access to prisons from 15 December to 15 January. Heads of centre were supposed to be in control, but claimed that they were not. Independent Prison Visitors could not visit during that period. The DCS spent too much on the Security programme (34%), and too little on Development (4%) and Social Reintegration (3%). There was a lack of alignment with White Paper objectives. There was a lack of concern in the DCS for the mentally ill, that contributed to the suicide rate.
In discussion, there was a focus on the accommodation and treatment of the mentally ill, and the lack of a mechanism to correct human rights abuses during the Vala period. The role of heads of centres in Operation Vala was interrogated. A member asked if the Inspectorate was in favour of electronic cameras in cells, and the answer was in the affirmative.
The NICRO briefing stressed challenges of performance information. The judiciary was hesitant to consider non-custodial sentencing. There was concern with the calibre of DCS officials, and the suggestion that entry level qualifications be looked at. People of quality had to be recruited. Case management systems were not up to standard. There was a vast gap between DCS plans and delivery on them. Parole committees had to be supervised, as parole officers were too promptly sending parolees back to prison.
In discussion, there was interest shown in community correctional supervision, and the role NICRO could play in it. NICRO was advised to assist the DCS with parole issues. There was a question about DCS readiness to engage with stakeholders.
Meeting report
Introduction by the Chairperson
Mr V Smith (ANC) said to stakeholders that they could empower the Portfolio Committee to engage with the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) on the 12 October. Matters such as overcrowding, unnatural death and assault were discussed every year. And every year there was a qualified audit. There had been a multitude of complaints from inmates.
Mr Smith urged that, with the exception of the Parliamentary Researcher, the Committee be told by stakeholders what the DCS should be doing differently. In matters such as maladministration and fraud, the Committee would voice the concerns of stakeholders. He felt that performance indicators and strategic plans had little to offer. Strategic plans only stated objectives, whilst wasteful expenditure and corruption were not properly addressed. The time had come to look forward.
Briefing by the Parliamentary Researcher
Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Parliamentary Researcher, stated that the DCS had to align itself with Government priorities. Violent crime, murder and sexual assaults were causing a situation were people became imprisoned in their own homes, as the President had put it. The DCS had aimed at reducing reducing the time span for Remand Detainees from 150 to 120 days. There were currently more parolees, and there had been success with Remand Detention Branch policy issues.
Challenges facing the DCS were litigation matters, the implementation of parole policy, and underspending to the tune of R728 million. Other challenges were OSD implementation, audit qualifications based on assets, and inability to fill staff vacancies. The 7-Day Establishment, with the 2x12 shift system linked to it, was causing work absenteeism.
Mr Mathabathe supplied figures on the underspending in the programmes of Security (R152 million); Care (R70 million), and Facilities (R254 million). Funds had been shifted from the Development programme to Administration. Performance bonuses had been increased by R80 million, with white women as the major beneficiaries.
Office of the Auditor-General briefing
Mr Barry Wheeler, AG Corporate Executive, noted challenges in reporting within the DCS itself. There were problems with conveying accurate, credible and validated performance information to the leadership. Concerning performance information, objectives and strategy were not sufficiently aligned with the Public Finance Management Act. The predetermined objectives had to conform to the “SMART” (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound) principle as required by the Treasury Framework with clearer alignment. Individuals had to be held accountable about performance information. Information had to be coordinated and integrated. There had to be an individual who could collate, monitor and review information. Internal auditing had to improve, and information had to be available and accessible. The DCS had to monitor information on a monthly basis, to effectively guide decision-making.
Mr Wheeler continued that capacity was a challenge. There was a vacancy rate of 56% for finance professionals. Income and expenditure statements had to be produced on a monthly basis. It was essential that the DCS be capacitated with financial staff. Internal auditing capacity was needed to produce credible information. Oversight had to be extended to internal control. Human Resources (HR) management was weak. There had to be a focus on critical posts linked to information production. Consequences of errors of commission or omission, were not yet visible. There had to be proper disclosure by supply chain management.
IT systems were being run by consultants. The DCS had to secure IT systems and the intellectual property and licensing linked to it. The LOGIS system was not being operated efficiently. There had been duplication of worksheet schedules. He suggested that audit committees were important, both at national and regional levels. There was as yet not proper compliance and adequate governance. The chairperson of the internal audit committee had to be able to declare the status of internal control. Risk assessment had to be more comprehensive. The DCS had to reach the point were it did not have to wait for the Auditor-General to draw attention to weaknesses.
Mr Solomon Jiyana, AG Senior Manager, added that the DCS had received a qualified audit opinion because of a lack of mature financial management. There was a high vacancy level for all the DCS programmes, at all skills levels. Financial leadership had to take on oversight responsibilities. HR management had improved since 2009, but plans were not being implemented. The IT structure could not support DCS core business. Information was not being submitted on time. He agreed that risk management had to improve. There were vacancies for critical financial posts, as well as for social work and psychology professionals.
Mr Jiyana continued that the DCS had been unable to reflect the true movement of assets. LOGIS duplications had contributed to that. Reasons for DCS underspending included the inability to fill vacancies, and non-compliance and late payments with regard to contract issues. Internal audit challenges had to be addressed. The Department was under-resourced, especially at the regional level. There was evidence of subsistence and travel money fraud, and collusion with tender suppliers.
Discussion
The Chairperson deemed it necessary that the heads of the Departmental Investigations Unit (DIU), the legal division, the internal audit division, the audit committee and the IT division appear before the Portfolio Committee on the following Thursday.
Mr J Selfe (DA) remarked that the LOGIS system was only two years old, and had not performed well. He asked if it was a bad system, or a badly operated one. There were expensive consultants in the IT department who were former DCS officials. They would resign and then continue as consultants for another three to five years. He asked about a plan to rectify that matter.
Mr Wheeler responded that the AG had asked why the issue had not been resolved earlier. Staff had been trained to operate the system, but there was still no adequate evidence for financial statements. However, the asset recording system had been improved, and was currently sound. The LOGIS system was not commonly used for interdepartmental transfers. Other departments, unlike the DCS, only used it for internal transfers. The DCS had claimed in the beginning that the system worked well, but there had since been duplication of additions and disposals. Balances were accurate, but totals were wrong. The DCS had been unable to identify all transactions. The system had been corrected nationwide for internal use. The DCS could be pro-active by asking regions to capture information separately.
Mr Wheeler continued with regard to IT consultants, that it was indeed former members who designed systems. There were questions about who owned the licencing, and whether such consultants could take the intellectual property with them when they finally left. Overuse of consultants was due to a lack of internal expertise. The problem with consultants was also that they could hardly be expected to carry DCS interests at heart.
Mr Selfe referred to the statement by Mr Wheeler that internal auditing had to improve in the DCS. The previous Annual Report had caused concern. There had been a qualification on movable assets. Issues such as unauthorised expenditure; lack of internal controls; performance management and the variation between planned and reported targets, had continued from the previous year into the current one. Things were looking slightly better, but at the systemic level the DCS was not listening to the Auditor-General or the Portfolio Committee.
Mr Wheeler replied that matters had improved under the new leadership, and that there had been attitude change. The AG was seeing monitoring of the Action Plan.
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that regardless of what appeared in the Annual Report, the same song was still being sung year after year. The DCS always presented nice reports, but failed to deliver what the Committee wanted.
The Chairperson asked for examples of the non-alignment with government objectives, to be given to the Committee by the end of the following day. There were staff debts of R21 million, that were older than three years. He asked what needed to be done. It was unacceptable. R944 000 had been paid to employers, which had not been declared. The DCS would be asked about that.
Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) submission
Ms Clare Ballard, CSPRI Researcher, noted that information on inmate composition had been extensive in the previous DCS Annual Report, but not in the current one. Such information was essential to identify crime patterns and vulnerable groups. There was an absence of information about Remand Detainee facilities.
Previous Annual Reports had supplied information on the length of incarceration periods, which was also currently lacking. Information was required about children in remand detention. The CSPRI had surveyed the situation and had found that there were indeed children held in prisons. Rates of incarceration had decreased, but there were still many who were held remanded in prisons. It was not clear how long Remand Detainees were being held.
Torture in cells remained a problem. South Africa had ratified the United Nations Convention on Torture. Torture in cells had increased. The DCS had to explain its statement that there had previously been underreporting on the issue. There had been publicity about the use of electric shock equipment. The question was why it had been available at all in a non-riot situation. There was DCS apathy toward torturers, and it had not responded to the order of the UN Committee on Torture. The DCS had no clear policy to train officials on that Convention. There had been claims against the DCS for pain and suffering, and unlawful detention.
There had been a slight increase in unnatural deaths. Most had been suicides. Mental health care was sometimes completely absent in prisons. There was an absence of social workers and psychologists. Some prisons had fully equipped gyms but no mental health care facilities.
The DCS had to respond to allegations around BOSASA. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) report had to be made public.
The issue of Remand Detainees and overcrowding had been raised with the Minister. There was a policy document that had not been made public, hence the matter could not be engaged with. The document had been said to be ‘in an editing process’ for months on end. It was essential that Remand Detainees be separated from sentenced inmates. There had to be Remand Detention sections in all facilities.
The Bail Protocol had been made available to magistrates, but could not be scrutinised. Ms Ballard called on the Portfolio Committee to engage with the issue.
Discussion
Ms Ngwenya remarked with reference to torture, that what had happened at St Albans was a long story about which no answers had been forthcoming. Questions about unnatural death also remained unanswered.
Mr L Max (DA) asked when there would be closure on the BOSASA issue. He asked about prosecution and evidence, and whether the case had been closed.
Mr Selfe referred to the presence of electric shock equipment. He asked if such equipment would be classified as specialised military equipment in reports to the AG.
Mr Wheeler responded that special defence accounts covered the DCS, the SAPS and paramilitary units. It usually applied to equipment such as sniper rifles. The AG was not aware of equipment used for torture.
The Chairperson asked what could be done differently with regard to that issue. The use of terms such as ‘specialised military equipment’ could cause consternation.
Mr Wheeler replied that the Defence budget used the term ‘specialised military equipment’. The wording in the budget could be changed. Acquisition of such equipment was made in a group for the state to get better tenders.
The Chairperson noted that firearms were registered for the SAPS. There was no problem if only pistols and guns were being referred to. But once the term “military” was used, it caused questions, because it could cover torture instruments.
Mr Selfe added that there had to be a register of such assets.
Ms Ballard responded that information was needed about the use of such assets. Besides guns and pistols, there were also items such as shields and mechanical restraint equipment that could be used inappropriately. There were strict procedures. The process had to be monitored.
The Chairperson noted that the issue of electronic surveillance of cells had been discussed a month before. It was currently impossible to monitor cells to prevent violence after lockup. He had then called for a public debate on the matter. There had to be pro-active prevention. People did not know about what had happened at St Albans. There had to be a pronouncement on the matter. Information was needed in order to engage with the DCS and the Minister, or else abuse of inmates after lockdown at night would simply continue. The Committee held that the benefits of surveillance had to prevail against the notion that it constituted a breach of privacy.
Ms Ballard responded that there were incidents after lockdown among children in prisons. After lockdown, no help could be rendered to those who asked. The situation was worsened by the lack of officials on patrol, due to the shift system.
The Chairperson noted that with regard to Sondolo IT, the Committee would ask about progress made with matters it had raised, from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Chairperson asked the Judicial Inspectorate to answer the question of how things could be done differently, in its briefing.
Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) briefing
Mr Adam Carelse, JICS Director, referred to Operation Vala, as a security operational strategy. The operation required restricted access to prisons over the festive season. The question was who were leading that operation. Heads of centre were supposed to be in control, but in follow up inspections, heads had claimed that they were not in charge. The DCS had reported a 19% increase in assaults during Vala, usually in December. Independent Prison Visitors (IPVs) were not able to visit during that period, and monitoring became impossible.
Mr Carelse noted that the DCS did not currently distinguish between assaults of staff member-on-inmate, and inmate-on-inmate, which made it hard to see human rights improvement.
Ms Carmen Low-Shang, JICS Policy and Research Manager, pointed out that the Security programme had received 34% of the budget, whereas the figures for the important Development and Social Reintegration programmes were a mere 4% and 3%, respectively. That indicated little progress made with the White Paper vision. There had been a decrease in the number of inmates involved in workshops and agriculture. That indicated a lack of alignment with White Paper rehabilitation and reintegration objectives.
With regard to unnatural death, Ms Low Shang questioned if a system to track potential suicides could be implemented. There had to be a framework to refer the mentally ill for special care. The mentally ill were detained with the rest, and were at risk and vulnerable to abuse. The DCS claimed that ordinary inmates watched over them. There had to be an end to that.
Discussion
The Chairperson said that mental illness was hard to define. Ideally the mentally ill did not belong in prisons. He asked if suicidal tendencies could also be classed as a mental disorder. He agreed with the parliamentary researcher that there had to be a framework to deal with the mentally disturbed.
Ms Ballard responded that mental illness could range from mild depression to schizophrenia. Psychological services were a response to mental illness. If depression was not treated, it could develop into suicidal tendencies.
Mr Selfe noted that with regard to mental health, the Act stipulated who could go to a prison and who not. Centres equipped to accommodate the mentally ill, like Valkenberg, were full. It was a matter for the Department of Health to deal with. He asked for clarity about Independent Visitors not being allowed to visit over Christmas.
Ms Ballard replied that there was a lack of bed space in Valkenberg because legislation did not compel the provision of that for the mentally ill. She suggested that the DCS make better use of their own officials. The Department of Health could not recruit mental health professionals. The DCS could also create bed space in their own facilities. What was more sorely needed than bed space was regular appointments with psychologists.
Mr Carelse explained that heads of centres said that there was a skeleton staff on duty from 15 December to 15 January.
In reply to Mr Selfe asking if this meant that if there were human rights abuses, there was no mechanism to correct it, Mr Carelse said this was indeed the case. The seriousness of a complaint could not be confirmed.
Mr Selfe remarked that heads of centres seemed to be implying that Vala was a separate operation. If that were the case, he asked if that could be considered sound.
Mr Carelse responded that there had been alleged torture in Pretoria three months before, reportedly by a security team. Heads of centres claimed that specialised support teams were responsible, and that they could not be held accountable.
Ms Ngwenya referred to human rights violations by gangs after lockdown, as a challenge. Cameras in cells might prevent killing. She asked stakeholders for their views on the matter of surveillance in cells viewed as a violation of privacy. Everything happened at night. Even staff members were in danger.
Mr Carelse responded that there were sections in Pollsmoor where there was no lighting after hours. That had to be attended to first. There was no emergency mechanism for inmates to alert staff after hours. JICS had discussed the matter of surveillance cameras, and were in favour of it, even if it did constitute an invasion of privacy. If it could curb gang activity, assaults and rapes, it was justifiable.
The Chairperson said that the Committee would not rest until that battle had been won.
NICRO submission
Ms Venessa Padayachee, NICRO National Manager: Advocacy and Lobbying, said that the DCS core mandate was to prevent recidivism. Performance information was a challenge. There was lack of compliance with the PFMA and Treasury regulations. Management was a challenge.
With regard to overcrowding, she noted that NICRO was in favour of non-custodial sentencing, but the judiciary was hesitant. The DCS failed to say what the Minister had done for non-custodial sentencing and sentence conversion.
Lack of discipline was a problem, as was corruption and low morale. Underspending and fruitless and wasteful expenditure had increased. The DCS could do more to avoid assaults. The Justice cluster had to report on overcrowding. There were people in prisons who ought not to be there.
Ms Padayachee continued that credit had to be given to officials who tried to deliver on the core mandate. But a large number were not that way inclined. Misconduct included failure to carry out lawful orders; absence; intoxication; possession of alcohol or illegal drugs, and misconduct towards other members. Entry level qualifications had to be looked at. There was a need for people of high integrity, qualified for specialised fields. Recruitment had become a crucial issue.
Case management systems were not well managed, and internal controls had to be reviewed. Performance management could improve, there was a huge gap between plans and delivery on them.
There was a lack of staff and high staff turnover rates. Health issues were core issues in custody. The mentally ill were sometimes slow, and therefore vulnerable. The Department of Health could not cope with it.
The DCS had not found a way to evaluate the impact of programmes. It was not possible to measure change and see if programmes worked.
There had to be supervision of parole committees. Parole officials were sending people back to prisons without adequate reason. Targets for babies in prisons with mothers had not been achieved.
DCS partnership with external service providers had improved. Operation Vala had only caused a 5% reduction of violence. Only 50% of sentence plan targets had been reached. There had been no improvement in involving inmates in production workshops and agriculture.
There was a discrepancy between DCS underspending and the need for more funds. The DCS had to give targets for managing and minimising contingent liabilities.
Discussion
Mr Mathabathe expressed concern that the DCS had stated in a public document that ‘stakeholders and the Committee had been engaged’ with about White Paper objectives, when that had in fact not been done. Mr Abram (ANC) had in the past commented on the lack of integrity of DCS documents. There was a high vacancy rate for scarce skills vis a vis under-expenditure due to positions not filled. Monies were returned each year, which could be used to attract professionals.
Mr Mathabathe continued that the calibre of DCS officials caused concern. Absence from work had increased since the introduction of the 2x12 hour shift system. The question was what was being done to correct the behaviour of officials guilty of misconduct. Mere suspension was not the answer. Human resources awareness programmes were needed, and wellness programmes. He asked what informed the sharp increase in performance awards. Funds had to be taken from other programmes, due to the loss of state vehicles.
Ms Ngwenya remarked that she agreed with NICRO about the need to consider community correctional supervision. NICRO had to assist the DCS with parolees. She asked if it were problems within centres or outside, that led to inmates breaking parole regulations. NICRO had to work with community correctional supervision. She asked if parole was working or not, and if not, what else could be considered. Inmates had to wait for long periods, due to poor management of the system.
Mr Max asked to what extent stakeholder inputs were considered by the DCS, or whether it was just a matter of compliance with the rules of Parliament. He asked if the Committee was the only platform where the DCS and stakeholders interacted, or whether stakeholders were invited to engage.
The Chairperson asked Mr Wheeler about contingent liability. The question was whether the amount of R986 million was really a contingent liability. That situation could not continue indefinitely. Advice was needed. It was a scary thought, if it was due to one individual. He predicted that the DCS would state that it was one person and say no more about it.
Mr Wheeler responded that professional auditing standards had to apply. It had to be ensured that it was indeed a contingent liability. He added that the DCS were taking the Auditor-General more seriously. The quarterly meeting with the Minister had been positive. The Chief Financial Officer was aware of the problems. Corrective suggestions had been heard out by the DCS.
Ms Padayachee said with regard to parole violations, that rehabilitation had to be multi-faceted. Unlawfulness had to be addressed. Parolees needed dignity. There were parole officers who took matters in their own hands. There had been a complaint that a parolee had been sent back to prison, even though he had secured a job. Some parole officers intimidated parolees. For social integration to occur, there had to be a memorandum of agreement. Violations had to be addressed, instead of just sending a parolee back to prison. NICRO would engage with the DCS about the matter.
The Chairperson thanked all and suggested a future move away from simply looking at the Annual Report and going through the motions.
The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
Documents
- NICRO submission on DCS 2010/11 Annual Report
- Judicial Inspectorate Correctional Services on DCS 2010/11 Annual Report
- Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative submission on DCS 2010/11 Annual Report
- Auditor-General: Audit Outcomes 2010/11 Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
- Parliament Research Unit: summary & analysis of Correctional Services 2010/11 Annual Report
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.