Department of Correctional Services 3rd quarter 2011 performance report

Meeting report

Chairperson’s introductory comment and report on offender escape
The Chairperson asked the National Commissioner of Correctional Services to report on the escape of an offender, which had received media attention.

Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner of Correctional Services, responded that this was not actually an escape, but arose from negligence on the part of an official. The offender had been placed at Johannesburg Correctional Centre in December 2010, following charges laid against him for rape. It was assumed that only one charge was involved, but in fact there were multiple charges. He had been taken to Court, to appear in a case involving an escape back, in 2008, was monitored and was apparently lawfully released, with the Head of the Centre filling out the necessary documentation. However, subsequently it transpired that an official admitted that he had been negligent in the matter, and there were currently investigations into gross negligence and dereliction of duty, of the highest order. Although the official could not be suspended  immediately, the legal officials would continue with a legal process. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department) CS was determined to create compliance and to clean up instances of such conduct. The fugiitive was arrested, with the help of the South African Police Service (SAPS).

The Chairperson noted that he had received a call from the Gauteng MEC for Safety, and the Premier in Gauteng had said that DCS had failed. If there was a perception that a serial rapist was on the loose, this could justifiably create a backlash.

The Chairperson noted that he did not wish to be seen as “ambushing” the National Commissioner but the Committee expected accountability. In the previous week this Committee had objected to what it saw as contempt of the Committee processes, when senior officials had been absent from an important discussion with the unions. Officials who had been present had only been able to say that the 7-day establishment and Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) agreements had been entered into before they had joined the DCS.

Mr Moyane responded that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) was building a culture of speaking straight. It was lamentable that DCS officials had been unable to respond to certain questions the week before, although he noted that their remarks were probably trying to put the issues into context and admit openly to the challenges.

Department of Correctional Services 3^rd quarter 2011 Expenditure (to end December 2011)
Ms Nandi Mareka, Deputy Commissioner: Financial and Management Services, DCS, tabled and took the Committee through a presentation on the DCS expenditure in the programmes of Administration, Security,Corrections, Care, Development, Social Reintegration, and Facilities

Underspending had occurred in the Security Programme. Instead of the budgeted expenditure of R4.136 billion, the actual spending had been R3.981 billion. Posts had not yet been filled, and there was low spending on capital assets. There was overspending in the Corrections programme, due to transfers and more posts being filled. There was underspending in the Care programme, due to lower compensation of employees and the low movement of store items. There had been underspending in the Development and Social Reintegration programmes. Underspending in the Facilities programme had been caused by lower billing from the Department of Public Works than anticipated.

Ms Mareka then reported on the line items for spending on compensation of employees (underspending), goods and services (overspending), transfers and subsidies (overspending), and payments for capital assets (underspending). (See attached presentation for full details)

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) said that he had concerns about meanings of words under the heading of “Care” and asked if these could be explained in plain language. He asked what had caused the variations.

Ms Mareka replied that there was an internal charges programme. Inmate rations were bought in bulk and stored. Relevant programmes, like the Care Programme, were then debited. There would be no claims against bulk stock until it was used. At the end of the year there was a check to see how much ration stock was still available. The store manager had to account. The DCS could account for actual consumption. She stressed that the clearance was done in arrears. Logistics officials had left and migrated to other official positions, because of the OSD.

Mr Selfe remarked that issues around classes of employees were being dealt with at a slow rate.

Ms Mareka responded that all relevant OSDs were implemented. Phase 1 consisted of payment, and Phase 2 was the recognition of experience. OSD for psychologists and social workers had been implemented.

Mr Selfe said that the Committee had, in the past, been critical about budget allocation in the DCS. It was felt that it did not reflect White Paper priorities. There was too little money for Care, Development and Social Reintegration. Not only were insufficient funds allocated in the first place, but spending patterns were a problem. Most underspending occurred within those programmes.

Ms Mareka agreed that spending capacity was a challenge in those programmes. Funds had been allocated for psychologists, social workers and artisans, but high vacancy levels prevented spending.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked what the 3% pay progression meant, and how the figure had been arrived at. She asked about overspending.

Ms Mareka responded that the 3% was the figure agreed on by the DCS and organised labour. Before OSD, good performance was rewarded with a 1% pay progression, but it was then decided to pay 3% every two years.

Ms Mareka addressed the overspending and said that early retirement, resignation or death, all of which involved the necessary to spend, could not be predicted. Money had to be made available. When members left unexpectedly, paying their gratuity could lead to overspending.

Mr L Max (DA) asked when critical issues around advertised posts in Administration and Security would be addressed.

Ms Mareka answered that advertised posts were monitored, as was the recruitment strategy. The problem was that people sometimes resigned even before they were appointed formally, saying they had found something else. There was “recycling” of staff between government departments. There was a high turnover. She conceded that the time lapse between advertising and filling of posts was a challenge.

The Chairperson observed that more was budgeted for people who had resigned from the Facilities programme, than elsewhere. He said that he did not understand why, as the Facilities programme was essentially to do with bricks and mortar, as pointed out by a report from National Treasury. He asked Ms Mareka to come back with an answer as to why an area that was essentially not staffed with many people could get so much money for leave and gratuity.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee had been told, in the previous week, that the DCS was faced with the possibility of being unsuccessful in an arbitration case, and that it faced a contingent liability. The unions had advised that the DCS should not dispute the overtime issue. He asked where R1 billion would be found, if indeed the DCS was obliged to pay.

The Chairperson referred to a National Treasury document about facilities, concerning planning of new centres. R972 million had been allocated, with only R369 million spent. Facilities at Van Rhynsdorp and Brandvlei were taking far too long to build. Developers cited causes like builders holidays and inclement weather. He commented that the R1 billion funding might as well be taken from the DCS, and given to the Department of Basic Education.

Mr Moyane responded that 90% of the blame for overcrowding could be placed at the feet of the Department of Public Works (DPW), because there were numerous unoccupied facilities. The DCS would consider creating project management teams to follow building progress, but at the end of the day, the DPW was the biggest constraint. The DPW was seemingly unable to plan according to schedules, and he agreed that, as stated in a recent meeting, reasons for slow progress could include issues such as contaminated soil. As had been openly admitted, the DPW was in a state of crisis. However, this admission did not help the DCS, which was now bearing the brunt of criticism for the escalation of the costs at Kimberley. There had been a recent decision that the DCS should not confine itself only to using the DPW, to assist in trying to address issues of underspending (amounting to R720 million) on facilities in the previous year. An independent contractor had been directly approached to attend to fencing. The DPW had also not assisted with the DCS’s move of headquarters.

Mr Selfe remarked that he had some sympathy with the DCS, in view of the position of the DPW. However, it seemed that the DCS had a policy of not engaging in public/private partnerships for building. He agreed that the general feeling was that such partnerships were not to be encouraged when it came to care of inmates, but he pointed out that the DCS could certainly attend to building in cooperation with the private sector. The Minister of Finance had declared that if government departments were willing to engage in such partnerships, they could do so. He asked if the DCS was willing to do this.

Mr Moyane replied that the DCS was not opposed to entering into partnerships with the private sector for construction. The DCS would consider any appropriate models that would create jobs and infrastructure. He agreed that in principle custodial responsibility would remain with the DCS. The best partnership model would be one that would permit the use of offender labour. Everything was currently premised on DPW delivery, and that Department was unfortunately able to occupy that core position.

The Chairperson referred to a DCS spending pattern where money could not be used due to vacancies. National Treasury said that there was a 58% vacancy rate among financial officials and clerks. There was a 75% vacancy rate in Human Resources (HR). He shared the concerns of Mr Selfe that there was a lack of people actually in place to attend to the administration. There was one out of four posts filled in HR, and one of two in Finance. He asked how the DCS expected to turn itself, with these kinds of vacancy rates\.

Ms Mareka responded that the figures came from Vulundlela records, and their accuracy could be called into question.

The Chairperson made it quite clear that he was displeased with this remark, and noted that Ms Mareka’s comment tempted him to dismiss the DCS. He had raised objections, in the previous week, to comments from the Department that figures still needed to be ‘cleaned up’, and he said that it would have been better for her not to have made this remark. The Portfolio Committee was in a similar position to the Executive, and was quite prepared to take up the matter with the Eecutive. If DCS was saying that the figures were not correct, then it was expected to have corrected figures available on the next day.

The Chairperson expressed concern with the operating costs that ran to R61 million. National Treasury was concerned about overseas travel and entertainment.

Mr Siphiwe Sokhela, Chief Financial Officer, DCS, responded that there were 41 911 funded posts and 6 000 unfunded posts. The DCS lacked capacity to spend. As Mr Moyane had noted, the DCS had turned to private companies to do fencing. The DPW could not be relied on to spend. During the budget process, some funds that were earmarked for Correctional Services activities went to the DPW budget. The DCS had asked for, and had received, R253 million from National Treasury, but it had not been spent. Whatever the DPW did not spend had to be sent back. There had been interaction with the Portfolio Committee on Public Works about how the two departments could best work together to spend these amounts.

Report on Third quarter performance 2011
Mr Zachariah Modise, Chief Deputy Commissioner, DCS, reported on the indicators for the different programmes, citing instances of under-achievement.

Under the Administration programme, there had been underachievement in regard to the filling of posts, and the implementation of an appropriate shift system. Another challenge was the percentage of the allocated budget spent.

There was underachievment on the targets for reducing assault and unnatural death. There was also under-performance on the targets for access control under the Security programme. The Corrections progrmme showed under achievement in respect of the rationalisation of correctional centres. Under the Care programme, there was underachievement with regard to the percentage of HIV positive inmates eligible for retroviral treatment. Under the Development programme, there was under performance in relation to the percentage of offenders who were involved in skills development programmes. The Social Reintegration programme had not achieved its targets for the percentage of cases to be considered by the Parole Board, and non custodial sentences being awarded for offenders with sentences of 24 months and less. Under the Facilities programme, the under performance was related to the upgrading of existing facilities, and the targets for Head Office and new office space had not been realised.

Discussion
The Chairperson remarked that the Committee was more than worried (in fact, “petrified”) about the  state of Information Technology (IT) in the DCS. The matter had been raised in a budget speech, and the Department had confirmed those concerns. It appeared that officials in DCS could not even e-mail each other. He reminded the Committee and presenters that Correctional Centres (CCs) could be seen as  a hospital, an hotel, a school and a safeguarding facility, all rolled into one, and it was impossible to operate them without IT. The most recent internal audit had noted that the DCS was under-resourced. It was unable to include risks in the audit plan. He asked the Audit Committee if it had interacted with the Department, and what their view was of this situation.

Adv M Madumise, Audit Committee member, replied that the Audit Committee had met with the DCS. There had been appointment of an audit consortium to create internal audit capacity. The DCS stated that it now had a Head of Auditing in place, to provide leadership. The DCS had a team of twenty officials, who were being provided with direction. An audit coverage plan was being developed, to look at IT risks.

Adv Madumise noted that a first report on audit plans would be received from the DCS on 29 March. IT was a critical area. Although the DCS had appointed a new Head, it was not yet possible to comment on progress, and the work done could only be seen on 29 March. The DCS had asked that a risk workshop be held for members of the team.

He stressed that the DCS had to understand the implications of regulatory requirements. Change was possible, and risks could be rectified on a daily basis. The risk workshop would include the Audit Committee and DCS top management.

Mr Rob Theunissen, Audit Committee member, said that the Audit Committee was not simply in place for show, and it was difficult to fulfill oversight functions. He had been appointed as Audit Committee Chairperson, and had asked for a meeting with the Minister. The response was slow, with that meeting taking place only at the end of the previous year. The Audit Committee met four or five times a year. There were some unfortunate lapses, such as agenda papers only being made available the night before a meeting, and acrimonious meetings with the DCS, who obfuscated issues. Management had declared that it took the Audit Committee seriously, but in practice the relationship was still difficult. The Audit Committee had only three members, and the DCS had asked the Minister to appoint more. There was a lack of openness and transparency. When the Audit Committee requested a Special Investigations Unit report from the DCS, the latter had objected that this implied that it was not being trusted.

Mr Theunissen continued that risk management was technically sound, but line management was not taking the matter seriously. People were not being held to account. The chief Audit Executive had met with the AC, but was not introduced. The previous Head of the function had been suspended. There were delays after the audit service provider contract ended. There were also budget concerns. He commented that the remark about IT was correct and he had been unable to e-mail the DCS. The IT technology was unable to deliver on DCS initiatives. There was furthermore a lack of skills and budget for skills. He commented that it was unfortunate that the news about the DCS mostly appeared as negative media reports.

A delegate from the Office of the Auditor-General (AG) agreed that there were weaknesses around IT, and the accounting system for fixed assets, which had caused a qualified audit opinion the previous year. There had been interventions, but the effect of these was not yet visible.

The Chairperson asked the internal audit division of the DCS how it saw its role. The Committee did not want to see consultants running the Department, so there should be plans to get skills into the DCS. He said that he did not want to hear the DCS returning again the following year to say that it had been unable to appoint suitable people. There was a good supply of BComm graduates who could be employed. He repeated that if that task had to fall to him, he was positive that he could perform on it.

Mr Dlamini Vukani, Head of Internal Audit, DCS, replied that unfunded posts were a challenge. He had engaged with Corporate Services in DCS on this issue. The Internal Audit unit only had 20 people, and could absorb more skills. The Auditing Consortium had been contracted until 2014. He noted that the DCS had been unable to fill vacancies in the Internal Audit unit, but agreed with the comments on IT expressed by the Chairperson of the Audit Committee. Internal Audit was busy with drafting reports, and it hoped to be able to meet and conquer its challenges.  A progress report would be available after the meeting with the Audit Committee on 29 March.

Ms Mthabiseng Mosupye, Chief Deputy Commissioner: GITO, DCS, said that there had been engagement with State Information Technology Agency (SITA) around migration issues. 60% of the consultants had left, by October 2011 and currently there was no need to use consultants to manage the unit. Junior developers and technicians were needed. Posts would be advertised.

The Chairperson noted that Internal Audit and GITO had to meet with the Committee on 16 May. He cautioned that the Committee wanted to know what the situation was, as it would not like to be faced with surprises when the Annual Report was presented, and urged that there should be full disclosure of any crisis.

Mr Selfe referred to the remarks about of overtime and risk on page 2 of the presentation. In relation to the implementation of work shifts, he wanted to know about the avenues open to the DCS for the appointment of an arbitrator. There had to be a complete answer about the risk.

Ms Pumla Mathibela, Head:  Human Resources Management, DCS,  replied that the overtime claims were indeed a risk. If these were successfully claimed, it would, at current estimates, cost R1,3 billion, running back to July 2009, but the cost was increasing at R5 million per month. The DCS had to see how this could be paid on a monthly basis if it had to do so.

Mr Modise added that there were negotiations under way about back-pay on overtime. The DCS had originally signed the agreement to implement OSD. The DCS had to ensure that the Department of Public Service and Administration became involved. The DCS was faced with having to implement OSD without funds.

Mr Selfe remarked that a Halfway House facility, which was due to have been completed, had not opened as expected in February, and asked for a progress report.

Mr Modise replied that the Halfway House had actually opened, on 24 February. There were six residents with house parents.

Mr Selfe asked about electronic control issues, noting that access control had been incorrectly fixed, and handed back to the Department. He also asked about electronic inmate tracking devices.

Mr Modise reported that only 30% of electronic turnstiles were functional. There had been underachievement on the maintenance contract. The problem was related to turnstile software. The DCS, GITO and SITA had to cooperate to issue a new tender to operate turnstiles and access systems. Independent Development Trust (IDT) would assist in fast tracking the process.

Mr Selfe asked if the turnstile contract would be extended.

Mr Modise replied that there had been no standing contractor. Specifics for inmate tracking inside centres had to be completed. He said that those serving life sentences, who were released early in terms of the Van Wyk and Van Vuuren ruling, would be electronically tagged. Supervision and monitoring would improve before the end of the year.

Mr Selfe agreed with remarks by Mr Theunissen of the Audit committee that it was usual to hear of the DCS through the media, and pointed out that DCS in fact had two programmes aimed at getting positive news coverage. He advised that DCS should get matters right, and then rely on and publicise that to obtain good news coverage.

Mr Selfe noted that too few officials were vetted officials, and as a result, escapes had risen, as well as assaults. Vacancy levels had also increased, despite efforts to fill them. The rate of pay increases for staff was slow, and production workshops were not attended. At present, there was no “good news” story to be told about the current trends. He asked if the DCS had engaged with these issues,  and whether there was any sense of urgency.

Mr Modise responded that officials were vetted when appointed to higher positions. When a new member joined, testing for suitability would be done. Heads of Centres and Chief and Deputy Directors were subject to vetting by the National Intelligence Agency. He noted that the Department had been able to bring down the rate of escapes and unnatural death. He conceded that the high profile escape of one inmate received attention, but the small things that the DCS was doing right went unnoticed.

The Chairperson remarked that it was not sufficient for vetting to be done only when people moved into higher positions. Vetting was needed at all levels, where the officials were based. Cell phones and dagga were being brought into prisons, so it was “on the shopfloor”, or at operational level, that the real mischief was occurring. He did not agree that a person should not be vetted until appointed to a high rank. The DCS had to know the details of the men and women actually attending to the shift.

Mr L Max (DA) asked about the relationship between Internal Audit and the Audit Consortium. He wondered who was driving the process. Different companies seemed to be involved. In the previous year, the Audit Committee had been scathing about the DCS, and he wondered if the situation had now improved. Mr Theunissen had indicated that there were still problems. Minutes and agendas were not delivered on time. An official had been suspended. It seemed that there was mistrust between parties, and he asked how that could be addressed.

Adv Madumise replied that the Audit Committee had been frustrated with the treatment it received. It had been hard to convince the DCS that the Audit Committee was central to the whole Department, that it should not be regarded as a nuisance, but was actually meant to assist.  Information asked for from the DCS had not been received, and no one seemed willing to take responsibility. The DCS had feared the costs of appointing the Audit Consortium, although it lacked the skills, internally, that were needed. New auditors were needed for the next three years. The Audit Committee was responsible for making appointments, yet at one point had been left out of the loop for making appointments. The Audit Committee had asked for another look at the tender amount on the contract. The Audit Committee understood its role, was patient with the DCS, and had tried to nudge and probe. The Audit Committee was assisted by the Head of Internal Audit. The Audit Committee had insisted, at a previous meeting, that it wanted a direct link with the National Commissioner. He reiterated that the DCS had to understand the role that the Audit Committee played, and that it was also necessary for that Committee to play a proactive and upfront role. If documents were not made available on time, the Audit Committee would not sit.

The Chairperson noted that the Audit Committee was in place to fulfil the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), and should not be regarded as a nuisance. He pointed out that Parliament could play a stronger role in this regard and make its own decisions on the points raised. The  Auditing Consortium would be paid R26 million between 18 October 2011 and March 2014, but the question was what that money would be buying. The amount could not be paid again.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked when the DCS would report about the filling of vacant posts.

Ms Mathibela replied that the vacancy rate at the end of December for the financial establishment was 4,5%. An intake of 800 learners would be absorbed, which would bring the vacancy rate down to 3%.

Ms Ngwenya asked about an appropriate shift system.

Ms Mathibela responded that the DCS and the unions had agreed on an ideal shift system. The unions had wanted a new system, but the overtime issue had caused a deadlock.

Ms Ngwenya asked what exactly the problems were around ensuring enough staff on duty over weekends, in terms of the 7-day establishment.

Mr Modise responded that the 2x12 hour shift system could only be implemented effectively if the DCS had 60 000 members. The DCS had been reduced to 41 000 members. The arbitration issues would also look at the shortage of staff on the ground. If that was resolved, then the 7-day establishment and the OSD could be implemented. The DCS formerly had a five day establishment, but Saturday and Sunday were now regarded as normal working days. The DCS and the unions had agreed on a 45 hour working week. It was a struggle to find a shift pattern that was acceptable to organized labour.

Ms Ngwenya asked for clarity on what was meant by “interventions” in the Care programme.

Ms Ngwenya asked about a uniform for Remand Detainees.

Mr Modise answered that the production of Remand Detainee uniforms was in an advanced stage. Uniforms would first be issued at Leeukop and Mpumalanga, in small numbers, and then this would be extended to the Free State, Northern Cape and Gauteng. No additional budget would be needed. DCS savings were used for material. This took the form of a yellow uniform with “Remand Detainee” printed on it. The DCS would report on a rollout plan to issue them at all centres.

Ms Ngwenya asked about medical parole.

Mr Modise responded that there were challenges around the Medical Advisory Board. Doctors were complaining that stipends paid were not adequate. All cases were considered.

Mr Barry Wheeler, Corporate Executive, Auditor-General South Africa, commented, in regard to vetting, that HR management had to be tightened. The history of new officials should be investigated when they entered the DCS. He felt that the relationship between the DCS and the Audit Committee was difficult and he agreed that the relationship between the Department and Internal Audit was critical. This was one way to bring expertise to the Department and promote accountability, whilst also providing for evaluation and monitoring of responses to risks. It could provide oversight to the internal control environment. A good Internal Audit and a good Audit Committee could enhance performance, financing and compliance, as they should be able to predict, by 31 March, what the audit outcome could be. There was no reason why only to conduct checks at the end of the year, and there had to be adequate interaction with the Executive. He suggested two meetings per year.

Mr Moyane agreed that a harmonious relationship with the Audit Committee was desirable. The Audit Committee was not perceived as a nuisance. It could engender professionalism. The DCS wanted a clean audit, and the Audit Committee was confident that this was possible. However, the DCS had to improve on performance information. The GITO unit was in place, as were systems, and necessary data. He appreciated the comment that the Audit Committee should be able to predict the audit outcomes.

Mr Moyane expressed his thanks to the DCS officials for their collective wisdom, and to the Committee for asking sharp and focused questions.

The meeting was adjour