Department of Correctional Services Administrative and Financial Performance for 1st quarter 2011

Correctional Services

12 October 2011
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee was briefed by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) on it Administrative and Financial Performance during the first quarter of 2011/12. The presentation looked at progress made on performance indicators per budget programme, proposed action plan, and the way forward.

DCS was in a process of addressing the performance information weaknesses identified by the Auditor-General. Progress against performance indicators were looked at for the ten DCS programmes: Operations and Management Support, Corporate Services, Finance, Central Services, Security, Corrections, Care, Development, Social Integration and Facilities.

The indicators covered areas such as reduction of overcrowding, conditions of detention, the improvement of DCS facilities, effective leadership and management, involvement of offenders in corrections programmes, Correctional Services image and branding, development and care programmes, protection of human rights of inmates, particularly of special categories of inmates, effective security and partnerships with external service providers for delivery of rehabilitation. It looked at a professionalised Correctional Services and Corrections Academy. DCS explained its efforts towards standardisation and management of DCS performance indicators, the efficient spending of public funds, effective people management and having an appropriate organisational structure.

The Committee raised questions about the delays in the building of facilities and Parole Board delays which led to overcrowding in prison facilities; the structural problems with Case Management Committees; offenders not receiving prerelease programmes before release; stigmatisation after release; and proper training of probation officers who needed to be flexible and not vindictive about parole violations.

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted that on the 11 October the Portfolio Committee had met with stakeholders and had asked the stakeholders to focus not on diagnosing the problems but what they thought the Committee should tell the department to do differently. There were a few areas that the Chairperson wanted to raise with the department as part of a summary of what the stakeholders indicated and which the Committee agreed with.

The first thing that came out very clearly was that the Department should find a way of expending its energy in hiring more professionals: medics, psychiatrists, psychologists, and retaining them. Secondly, the Department should address the vacancy rate in the financial department. The Department performance plan for 2011/12 stated that it would be filling vacancies by the second quarter. Thirdly they needed to tighten up the monitoring of the Department’s monthly budget variances and the reasons thereof.

The Department should also ensure that Operation Vala did not negatively impact on the oversight of operations in the facilities. The stakeholders agreed on comprehensive training of officials on anti-torture principles including the non-use of equipment. They agreed there was a need to reduce the reliance on and employment of consultants in the Department. Rather take those costs and invest them in staff so that there was retention of memory in the Department. They agreed with the Auditor-General that there might be a need for the establishment of a compliance office, a structure that would focus on whether the Department was complying with policy focusing mainly on the AG’s report and looking at whether the DCS was deviating from its action plan. The final issue was the need for stability of leadership in the Department.

Those were some of the suggestions and if Department officials wanted to give some more input or disagreed with those suggestions, they had the opportunity to raise such issues in that meeting. The suggestions would be part of their Budget Review and Recommendation Report.

DCS 1st Quarterly Report 2011/12 presentation
Mr Tom Moyane, DCS National Commissioner, said he would comment on the suggestions at end of the presentation. He noted that he had promised at the 12 October meeting that they were ready to make a presentation on DCS shift system but they received information yesterday that they would not be in a position to do a presentation because DCS was deadlocked with organised labour on the issue of the shift system. As soon as they were able to resolve the deadlock, DCS would present on the shift patterns. His colleagues would present the performance information and financial report for the first quarter.

Progress on Performance Indicators per Budget
Ms Jennifer Schreiner, DCS Chief Deputy Commissioner: Operations and Management Support, noted they were in the process of addressing the weaknesses identified by the AG in relation to performance information. They had used that information in their first internal quarterly performance review meeting and had identified a number of those anomalies identified by the AG were still present in first quarter report. They would ensure in the second quarter and going forward they improved on those. The Committee would see instances in which the performance report when the indicators did not speak directly to the target. They hoped when they brought the second quarterly report in November those issues would be addressed.

Ms Schreiner went through the ten programmes providing the performance indicators, the 1st quarter target and the actual performance (see document for those details). Some of these were:

Operations and Management Support programme
▪ The target had been 2% of personnel being vetted in the first quarter but no vetting took place. The explanation was that in the first quarter they had submitted the vetting forms, and done a large number of personnel suitability checks and pre-screening which was not the actual vetting. The actual vetting was completed by National Intelligence Agency (NIA). What they were reporting on was whether the vetting had been completed.
▪ On the functioning of the Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO) she noted that the EPMO was functioning in terms of the war room where project tracking was taking place on a weekly basis and ensured they shared and built on best practices and consolidated the governance practices within the department. Significant progress in terms of its functioning was that the governance issues were in process of being addressed in that quarter.

Corporate Services
▪ The filling of finance posts in the first quarter their target was to fill level 14 and 15 which were Chief Director and DDG level vacancies. They had filled 5 posts on level 14 and 1 post on level 15, and appointments were pending for 4 of the level 14 posts at the end of the first quarter.
▪ In terms of implementation of the appropriate work shift system the focus for the quarter under review was to develop shift models and averaging agreements and negotiations were in process to accept proposed shift systems.
▪ On the percentage of person days lost due to suspensions, the first quarter target was to reduce those by 2.5%. The fourth quarter report had been submitted to the Office of the National Commissioner on the 30 May 2011 and planned inspections had been postponed.
▪ With regard to a functional Corrections Academy, the focus for the quarter was on benchmarking with academies in the public service and private sector / parastatals. Desktop benchmarking had commenced.
▪ On number of officials trained per skills programme, the quarterly focus was the approval and development of the Workplace Skills Plan (WSP) which had to be submitted to Safety and Security, Sector Education and Training Authority (SASSETA). The actual performance was SASSETA had introduced a new web-based WSP submitted before end of July 2011 which fell outside of the first quarterly reporting. The tentative WSP was awaiting the National Learning Committee held in July 2011 prior to the submission to SASSETA.
▪ On a functional professional body for corrections, the first quarterly target was the appointment of a service provider to develop a business case for a Professional Council on Corrections. The actual performance was a new submission had been done to obtain capacity through the project management office.
▪ Intitutionalise diversity management: the focus was to develop a Diversity Management Framework. Funds had been requested and they were awaiting response to be able to take that work forward.

Finance programme
▪ Percentage of allocated budget spent: the focus for first quarter was on variance analysis reporting between spending plans and the actual expenditure. Actual performance: No unauthorised expenditure in the department, and an under expenditure of 11.06% at the end of the first quarter.
▪ The target for value of contracts awarded to Historically Disadvantaged Individual service providers was 80%. The Department slightly under performed with 76.48% of contracts awarded to HDI service providers.
▪ Audit qualifications: The updated implementation plan was submitted on a monthly basis to the National Treasury, Internal Audit and Audit Steering Committee (ASC). Monthly monitoring of identified corrective measures was performed by the Internal Audit and feedback given to the Audit Committee and ASC.
▪ Appropriate allocation of budget for delivery on White Paper: The target was a Draft Chart of Management Accounts but no Draft Chart had been compiled in the first quarter.

Central Services programme
▪ Percentage of finalised litigation cases successfully defended by Correctional Services: 80% of cases were in favor of the DCS, 10 were finalised and 77 were pending in the first quarter.
▪ The percentage of officials charged with fraud, corruption and serious maladministration and found guilty of at least one count: The target of 84% with exceeded with a 96.49% success rate with 57 officials charged, 55 found guilty, 2 acquitted and 6 were dismissed.
▪ On the creation of a peering point to enable interoperability with JCPS cluster: The Draft Integration Audit Strategy had been initiated to ensure operability within the other criminal justice departments.
 and the Integrated Justice System (IJS).
▪ On new network, consolidated servers and automated security policies: The target for the first quarter was planning and design. The design for the new network meant that there would be secured connectivity with high Quality of Service (QOS) which was the actual performance against the planning and design target.
▪ On the percentage of people rating Correctional Services as performing well, the target for the first quarter was to negotiate to buy into the Government Communications Information System (GCIS) survey of Government. Actual performance: Memorandum requesting participation of DCS in tracker research, detailing questions and costs involved was developed and would be submitted to management for approval.
▪ Integrated Communication and Marketing Strategy (ICMS) approved and executed: The target was approval of the Internal Communication Strategy for officials and offenders. The Internal Communication Strategy had been drafted but it had to be amended to include Internal Communication Strategy of transformation agenda.
▪ On the number of stakeholders accredited with service level agreements in partnership with DCS: The target was finalisation of the Stakeholder Relations Management Strategic Framework but there was no actual performance in that area because of resource constraints for the first quarter.
▪ In terms of formalised regional, continental and international partnerships: The actual performance did not report directly against the quarterly targets which was an issue that would be amended going forward. But the department had engagements with Botswana in relation to SA/Mozambique/Botswana Steering Committee, and Mozambique had volunteered to host the first meeting of that. The African Correctional Services Association (ACSA) Secretariat capacity and structure design was not completed. DCS had interacted with Lesotho Commissioner to look at unblocking the process to re-establish a Joint Committee of SA/Lesotho and the same for a Joint Committee of SA/Zambia. The target was also to have draft MOU with City of New York but the process had not gone swiftly as they had anticipated. Going forward, they would ensure that the reporting against those targets was clearly defined.

Security programme
▪ The target for inmates assaulted in correctional and remand detention facilities for the first quarter was 0.62% and the actual performance was 0.71% alleged assaults on inmates. For gang related violent incidents, the target was not achieved. The target for unnatural deaths was 0.008% but the actual performance was 0.006% in the first quarter.
▪ Escapes: The target was 0.009% (15) and actual performance was 0.005% (8) escapes.
▪ The implementation of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) for inmate tracking using photographs and fingerprints was being rolled out by DCS and its application would be reported on in the second quarter.

Corrections programme
▪ Overcrowding in correctional and remand facilities: The target was to maintain the level of overcrowding at 36%. The performance was 34% but the statistics were uncertified and therefore subject to change.
▪ The percentage of corrections programmes provided by external service providers: Database available on all correctional programmes.
▪ Framework for operational classification system for remand detainees: Draft discussion document had been developed.
▪ Percentage of eligible offenders with work opportunities: Target was 41% and performance had been increased to 59% in the first quarter.

Care programme
▪ Inmates tested for HIV. Target for first quarter was 7000 but 12% had been achieved (19876/160085).
▪ Inmates diagnosed with mental illness and placed under treatment: Target was 70% and 89% achieved.
▪ Care programmes provided by external service providers: Target was 63% (45/72); 173 provided.

Social Integration programme
▪ Parolees without violations per year: Target was 0.57% ; performance had increased to 68.7%.
▪ Eligible cases considered by the Parole Board: Target was 90%; performance reduced to 77.3%.

Facilities programme
▪ Number of new bed spaces created: Target was to establish the Interdepartmental Evaluation Committee but the actual performance of that indicator was 0% in the first quarter.
▪ Upgrading of existing facilities: Target was 7.67%; 98% work completed at Brandvlei Prison Facility.

Ms Schreiner concluded by noting that the DCS had received an adverse opinion on the Audit of Performance Information (AOPI) for the year 2010/11. While showing some improvements in the management of Performance Information in the first quarter of 2011/12, there were still a few areas of concern which included consistency in reporting, reported information not reliable and incomplete and late submissions that impacted on evaluation of performance. These areas were the basis for the adverse opinion. The adherence to reporting requirements and due date was critical because it would assist in the identification of red flags and timely intervention.

In terms of the way forward she noted that the Department had developed an action plan on the audit of performance information. The monthly submission dates had been revised following concerns from the regions, and monthly meetings had been scheduled with policy coordinators to deal with best practices and challenges.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) noted that his first concern was about the building programme and the Interdepartmental Evaluation Committee which dealt with the Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). There was 0% actual progress. He asked what was going on because the bids were expiring at the end of the month, and if there was a decision to discontinue the bids there would be very serious consequences in terms of the credibility of the department and the state in general. But what was worse was taking a decision of that nature was being silent on taking decisions and, whatever one said about PPPs, they at least build on time.

Mr Selfe referred to the percentage of eligible cases considered by the Parole Board where the target was 90% and the performance 77.3%. There were obvious implications for overcrowding there. When they had considered overcrowding as a Committee, the department would put that particular area as delays of Parole Boards. He asked what action plans were in place to up the 77.3% to 100%.

In terms of offenders participating in programmes, Mr Selfe asked for clarity with regard to prerelease programme because as far as he understood it, prerelease programmes were meant for inmates sentenced to 24 months more. He noted that the targets themselves were very low and the implication of not reaching those targets was that a substantial number of offenders would get onto the streets without having any prerelease programme offered to them. And that had obvious implications for re-offending and the chances of not re-offending would be better if inmates had done prerelease programmes. He suggested therefore that the targets which tended to be based on last years targets were actually very low when one looked at both in involvement of correction programmes and involvement with work opportunities. He requested the department to clarify what it meant by work opportunities. He suggested that in order to deal with overcrowding there should be an interstate transfer of offenders, and he was pleased to hear that the department had created a structure to deal with that very directly and individually. But he would like to know where the department was at with the protocol of interstate transfer, what the next step was and when that protocol would be in place.

The Commissioner responded in terms of interstate transfer of inmates that it was a big concern of the department for a number of years. They had felt that it was part of the safety valve in releasing a number of people who might have not committed serious crimes and who were sitting in their facilities. The protocols had been written and the Department of International Affairs and Cooperation was part of that because it had to do with policy and as far as the Constitution of the country was concerned. The Justice Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster had also participated in the process. Currently, the process was in negotiation with the countries concerned as to the types of crimes and categories of inmates. It was a very thorny issue because some inmates with certain types of categories of crime in their home countries would have qualified for a different type of sentence.

The Department could assure the Committee that the first phase had been completed. It would be dependent on what was called “the Bilateral Discussions” that would take place in the JCPS discussions. There would be a meeting with Botswana next week and from then it would be taken state by state. It would not be a blanket decision because there were countries which might not be in a position to transfer inmates. That was a matter that would be dealt with according to agreements that were reached as they needed to be very careful which ones qualified. They would be guided from a political perspective by the leadership of the country as to which one they might release. A case in point was Mathe. The case was very sensitive. They needed to avoid a situation where he could come back to South Africa to cause more harm. It was a very delicate balance. Finally all stakeholders in the JCPS cluster welcomed the process.

With regard to the matter of PPPs, the Commissioner responded that the matter had been discussed in a joint session with the Portfolio Committee and SCOPA. The department was aware of the financial implications. There was a delicate balance in terms of not reporting whether they were going on or discontinuing. It was a matter that needed to be taken on by the department together with the policy directives that came from the Ministry. But certainly there were pros and cons. They had taken note of Mr Selfe’s concern because some of the department projects were taking too long to complete. The agreements would be coming to an end by the end of October and the department would pronounce its position.

Ms Ntsiki Jolingana, Chief Director: Communications, DCS, responded about the non-performance of Parole Boards, that the problem the department was experiencing with the Parole Boards was that they knew for a fact that the Parole Boards were entirely dependent on Case Management Committees (CMCs). The CMCs prepared the profile for the Parole Boards so that the Parole Boards could be able to take a decision. Therefore, they had a structural issue with CMCs. They did not have permanent structures and they had tried as a department to establish interim structures that would assist. She noted that the other problem, besides having interim structures in the CMCs, was the fact that while the Parole Boards were trying to place offenders on parole, there were no support systems and that was their major problem. They had been trying to involve families to accept the offenders which was a problematic area. Society did not accept offenders. But she was hopeful of the drive by the Minister to hold community imbizos to assist the department in this.

The Chairperson noted that they had discovered the structural problems of the CMCs in Leeuwkop Prison and had raised the issue with the department. He requested the departmental delegates to come a year later and tell the Committee what it was that they had been doing. The Committee had told the stakeholders not to diagnose the problem for the Committee but tell them what the department should be doing to fix the problem. The Chairperson stressed that the department should come back and tell the Committee what it was that it was doing, but to say that the CMCs were not functioning was papering over the cracks because that had been discovered a year ago. He was using Leeuwkop as an example because they were there a year ago and had picked up the structural problems of the CMCs.

He said noted another issue noted by stakeholders was that the departments unnecessarily brought people back for parole violations. Mr Selfe had stated that the department should jack up its parole system so that they could release the pressure of prison overcrowding. The department needed to educate probation officers not to be vindictive but rather flexible, especially when a parolee had reported to have gone looking for work.

The Commissioner appreciated the comments about the weaknesses of the CMCs and the need not to take vindictive positions. What was needed from the department as a matter of urgency was the training and a road map that would give standardisation and understanding of the needs of parolees and probationers. They had to take cognisance of the fact that there might be mitigating reasons for people not being at home as they were supposed to be. There was a lack of understanding of the nuances by the department when dealing with such cases. They should take that criticism positively and not take on a Gestapo approach. They needed to be mindful that they did not wanted parolees to re-offend.

The Commissioner said the other issue they needed to report on was that they had started producing and issuing pamphlets which would be distributed across the whole country for all inmates to know their rights and responsibilities, especially when they were eligible for parole and how one qualified for it. And that should be extended to the community. At the same time they as officers did not understand the issues of parole. Therefore, it was an educational learning process from both sides: offender and department officers They had translated the pamphlet on parole into different languages.

Ms Sharon Kunene, DCS Director: Correction, said that the prerelease programme was offered to those offenders preparing to be released. It might be for those that were sentenced to 24 months or less and also for those that had been given a date for parole and preparing to go out. Part of it included giving inmates day parole to see how they adjusted but it focused mainly on reintegration back to society.

Mr Selfe thanked the department for the response but his question was about the number of inmates that did not received a prerelease programme before they were released and the implications that might have for re-offending. He also had asked what was meant by ‘work opportunity’ because the Committee was under the impression that all offenders worked all the time.

Mr Lucky Mthethwa, DCS Director: Corrections Administration, responded that work opportunities as indicated in the report talked about jobs and work done by offenders basically to avoid idleness within the correctional facilities and to prepare them for life outside so as to be able to sustain themselves and their families. They varied in terms of their skills because there were cookers, cleaners, plumbers, etc. When the report indicated 41%, which represented 37 379, that was the target set based on the baseline of previous performance. It had already been alluded to that they had a shift system pattern problem. This was being addressed by the department with an understanding that by next week, progress would be reported on. The shift system was really having a negative impact because at the moment they did not have enough members to take those offenders out. During the first quarter there was an improvement and they promised that they would improve, with the understanding that the shift patterns would up the performance.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked for clarity on the 98% achieved at Brandvlei Prison for upgraded facilities which to her indicated no progress. She asked when the Parole Boards offices would be completed because this was not reported in the presentation. With regard to the pamphlets she requested that the pamphlets also be extended to the Parliamentary Community Offices (PCOs). She asked if the stipend was for inmates who laboured in prisons because some of them were complaining of not getting it. She noted that after release most offenders experienced stigmatisation from their communities in terms of employment.

The Commissioner responded that the department was looking at increasing the gratuity for inmates when they did offender labour but that process needed to be approved by National Treasury. They were aware that it was very minimal and the inmates could not afford to buy the things with it. The question of stigma was a much bigger issue. The state had to expunge some of the criminal records. But they should also ask themselves as a department what they had done to create linkages with certain outside organisation to employ inmates once they were released. It was something the department needed to look so that inmates could quickly be part of the community. With regard to the facilities, they needed to come back and interrogate the Regional Commissioners about the reasons for the delays. The imbizos created a platform for communicating roles and responsibilities and how the parole system worked. From international best practice, as inmates enter a facility, they received a booklet that indicated their role and responsibilities and how they should behave. The same should apply here, to explain in one’s own language where possible, what parole was, how one qualified, and what measures they should take. The Commissioner thanked the Committee and hoped they would have more engagements of such a nature in future.

The Chairperson thanked the Commissioner and his colleagues for the presentation and hoped they would come back to answer some of the questions raised by Members.

The meeting was adjourned.



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.

Share this page: