Department of Correctional Services Strategic Plan 2012

Meeting report

Opening comment by Chairperson and National Commissioner of Correctional Services
The Chairperson stated that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had one main task, to implement government policy. Whatever it requested and was allocated had to serve a Constitutional requirement, and comply with the Correctional Services Act. Priorities like job creation, transparency, accountability and anti-corruption had to be reflected in the budget. He noted that the Portfolio Committee now had the right to propose amendments to budgets and, for instance, to raise its concerns to the Minister of Finance about matters such as budgets for use of consultants.

Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner of Correctional Services, agreed on the need to put government objectives first. The Strategic Plan of the Department of Correctional Services had been prepared in line with the White Paper on Corrections. The DCS had sought to address job creation, transparency, accountability and anti-corruption. There was a need to interact with stakeholders.

The Chairperson then outlined what had been said during the briefing by the Network on Reducing Reoffending (NRR) on the previous day. A community corrections official had contacted Young in Prison to say that a parolee had to come to the office, to clarify that he had not absconded. The official stated that there would not be problems, seeing that Young in Prison had told DCS that the parolee was working and reporting to that organisation weekly. However, the parolee was summarily arrested, when he reached his work venue, and was, even worse, taken to Pollsmoor Medium B section, whereas he had previously been in the juvenile section. The Chairperson asked if that kind of conduct by officials was in line with the Constitution and the Corrections White Paper. It seemed that the parolee had been tricked into arrest. The matter had to be resolved. He also requested the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) an opportunity to respond, seeing that it had reportedly been involved in the matter.

Mr Umesh Raga, National Manager, Legal Services, JICS, noted that the JICS had e-mailed a report on that morning to the Committee Secretary. He proceeded to set out a chronology of events. He noted that the Committee secretary had called the Chief Executive of JICS on 30 March, to enquire about allegations that the arrested parolee had been raped in prison, following his claim, to the organisation Young in Prison, that he had been raped as part of his initiation and needed R300 for protection money. The JICS sent a member to visit the parolee on that Friday, but, due to some confusion about his identity, he was only tracked down by the following Tuesday. Mr Madiga and Ms Mzilala, Independent Corrections Services Visitors, then managed to talk to the parolee. He told them that his allegations of rape had been false, and he had wanted to obtain money from Young in Prison. Ms Mzilala reported that he had looked fearful. He had told National Institute for Crime and Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO) that he could trust no one. Mr Madiga compiled a report and sent a copy to Young in Prison, noting the  miscommunication and contradictions. Young in Prison was invited to the JICS office. There was subsequent communication with the Parole Board to learn how the parolee had breached parole conditions, and community corrections officials in Mitchells Plain were contacted. There was no reply from the Parole Board. When someone was arrested, with the possibility of a criminal charge being laid, there had to be a hearing, and this had apparently had not happened.

The Chairperson asked for an answer as to what had happened from the Western Cape Regional Commissioner.

Mr Moyane said that a definitive answer would be given, but that all investigations done had to be reported in writing, so as not to miss the context and tone. He requested that stakeholders consult with the DCS, when raising issues. Somebody would be held accountable. He had copies of reports by the JICS and Western Cape Regional Commissioner, Mr James Smalberger. The DCS was prepared to give a full account on this matter.

Mr Smalberger set out to provide a summary, which would present both sides of the matter. Prisoner Peziza was born on 16 November 1988, and was sentenced in July 2009. He was placed in Pollsmoor Medium A. He had been sentenced to four years for robbery. He was placed out under community correction on 8 August 2010. He would be on parole until 1 July 2013. The parole conditions required of him to do sixteen hours of community service per month. He was under house arrest and forbidden to threaten anyone. He had free time on Tuesdays. He had to make one visit to the office per month.

Mr Peziza fell behind in doing his community service between January 2010 and February 2011. He was visited at home on 26 February 2011, and also on 24 July 2011, but was not at home. He was called in on 2 August and received a warning. He was visited on 29 October and was again not at home. On 9 November 2011 he was arrested for being outside his magisterial district. He would have been incarcerated, but the Head of Community Corrections intervened to give him another chance.

The parolee was again visited on 4 February 2012, and was not at home. He was visited on 13 February, and was not at home. The Community Corrections official had been told that he no longer stayed there. On 19 February he failed to start with community service. On 27 February 2012, a warrant for his arrest was issued and given to the absconding unit. Further attempts were made to visit, but he was again not at home on 12 March, 13 March and 31 March.

Information was received on 28 March that he now worked at an NGO, and Young in Prison was called. Officials told Young in Prison that there was a list of parole violations against Mr Peziza, and that he would be arrested. Young in Prison was told that it would be embarrassing if he were to be arrested at work, but that NGO was not told, as alleged, that Mr Peziza would not be arrested. He was brought to the community corrections office on 29 March, and a warrant was served. He appeared before the parole board on 12 April, and it was agreed that he was to be incarcerated again, in view of the long list of transgressions and violations. At the time of this arrest, he was 23 years old, and therefore could not be sent back to the juvenile section. The reasons for incarceration had been communicated to Young in Prison by the Head of Community Corrections.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Smalberger and requested that NGOs must be careful to be factually correct whenever they made presentations. The matter was being taken seriously. The NGO report did not conform to what Mr Smalberger was saying. The NGO should have been aware that the Committee would investigate, to get both sides of the matter.

Discussion
Mr V Magagula (ANC) agreed that it was not proper for NGOs to distort facts.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) felt that everyone should speak with one voice. She suggested that the NGO should have gone to the National Commissioner first. Public servants had to cooperate with NGOs in the country’s interest. Much work needed to be done around parole. She referred to the example of her neighbour, whose child was out on parole, yet that child’s mother did not understand that parole did not mean that the sentence had been completed. NGOs could assist with an understanding of parole conditions, but in the present matter the NGO had only apparently given attention to the fact that the parolee was working, but had ignored the other parole requirements.

Mr J Selfe (DA) thanked the DCS for the explanation. He commented that there were alleged to have been 317 assaults for 10 000 inmates in correctional centres, so it was understandable that inmates could not feel safe. The parolee claimed to need R300 to safeguard himself. There were many complaints of rape in facilities.

Mr P Mnguni (COPE) remarked that the role of members was to oversee and intervene, but when NGOs did not proceed correctly, the Portfolio Committee (PC) was in a very difficult position. The DCS had an open door policy. It would have been correct for Young in Prison to have spoken to the DCS first, and if there had been no response, to then approach the Committee, which could take the matter further.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) said that the statements by the DCS and the NGO had to be weighed up. The full truth probably lay in between. The DCS had the right to incarcerate, and was looking for the parolee. The NGO report had not been more than 70% factual. There was a lack of protocol to guide engagement between NGOs and the Department.

The Chairperson advised that the DCS should discuss the matter fully with Young in Prison and then approach the PC. Matters brought to the Committee Secretary would be dealt with, but in future NGOs would be asked if they had spoken to the DCS first.

Discussion on budgetary issues
Mr S Abram (ANC) expressed concern about the reduction of DCS programmes from seven to five and noted that he expected the rationale behind this. Core functions such as care and social reintegration programmes were not getting enough priority. The allocations for these programmes showed a steady decline for the following years. There was a move away from Constitutional prescriptions.

Mr Abram noted that government correctional facilities were preferred because they were cheaper, but currently the R313 per day per inmate for DCS facilities compared favourably with the R399 per day per inmate for the Public Private Partnership (PPP) facilities. However, inmates at the PPP facilities were being kept busy. Outsourcing of security functions was not a good thing, but the PPP facilities were performing better.

Mr Selfe remarked that in order to see if the budget was aligned to the Correctional Services Act, it was important to look at the central element of rehabilitation. It was good that the DCS Annual Performance Plan carried an undertaking to measure the monitoring of repeat offending, but indicators were difficult to compare with previous years.

Mr Selfe asked how an enhanced African agenda would fit in with the DCS core mandate. If it was not to depopulate local correctional centres, the PC had to be told why there was engagement with a country like South Sudan.

Mr Moyane responded that the DCS responded in the Continent, as government was doing. The DCS was the African Secretariat in a regional body, and had relations with Lesotho and Mozambique. There had been a conference of Southern African National Commissioners the previous year. There was international benchmarking and transfers of inmates. The DCS had been asked to participate in the inter-ministerial committee in Ethiopia. Problems of incarceration on the continent had to be understood. There were bilateral relations also with the UK, USA and West Africa.

Mr Selfe said that he did not understand the figures related to full-time schools in correctional centres. He was quite sure that the grievances related to the 273 people suspended for longer than 30 days could not be dealt with within 30 days, as claimed.

Mr Magagula asked how the Department would provide services to the mentally ill, disabled, and those with special needs. The Annual Performance Plan had the target of filling 97% of vacant posts. There had to be a detailed plan, with a time frame, of how that would be done.

Mr Magagula noted that for 2011/12, a target of 9% had been set for vetting, but there was none for 2012/13. He asked for an explanation, and a vetting plan for 2012/13.

The Chairperson also asked why programmes had been reduced. There was a concern that the Department was hiding matters, and he asked for an assurance that this was not in fact so.

Dr Jenny Schreiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Operations, DCS, replied that the National Treasury (NT) had been critical of the budget programme structure. The changes had been guided by the National Treasury. For the 2010 Medium Term Expenditure Framework, National Treasury had called for alignment of budget programme structures, so the new budget programme must not to be seen as an attempt to hide funds. Historical monies would be accounted for.

The Chairperson referred to the Constitutional requirement that resources be moved from incarceration to rehabilitation. Mr Abram had already noted that rehabilitation would be receiving less over the following three years. If the requirements of the Act were not achievable, the DCS had to say so.

Dr Schreiner replied that the bulk of employees were classified under security. The figures for custodial and rehabilitation officials were not disaggregated. There were officials classified under custodial for budget purposes, but in practice they also did rehabilitation work. Development was people-driven and it was not possible to measure what had been bought, as with the procurement of security technology, in the same way as something like goods and services purchases were measured. Adjustments were made every year in May and June.

The Chairperson asked about the migration policy, and whether people on the ground were still shown as being at Head Office. It seemed that money did not follow human beings, when they migrated to other posts. He also asked why it was said that migration was hard to achieve, and asked for a time frame.

Dr Schreiner responded that Corporate Services could provide a map in three months. There were people who had opted for migration to centres, who could not yet be released. Corporate Services had to develop a plan for migration from security to rehabilitation. It had to be determined who had to have security, or administrative or financial staff. There would be a Corporate Services plan with timelines.

The Chairperson remarked that there would be a change when salaries followed people.

The Chairperson addressed the question of value for money, when the DCS facilities were compared to the PPP facilities. The Committee had previously said that it did not like the idea of PPP facilities, but it seemed that the DCS was also becoming expensive.

Mr Moyane responded that it was not a case of lack of value for money. Calculations had been made that showed that it was much cheaper for the DCS to build its own facilities.

Mr Selfe objected that it should not take five years to build one centre.

Mr Moyane replied that building times would be shortened.

The Chairperson noted that the matter would be raised in the public debate on 16 May. DCS and PPP facilities could not be compared in terms of services rendered. In his words: “they work and we sleep”. He asked for a concrete plan to ensure that inmates were kept busy, and asked that this be provided by no later than 3 May. He also requested feedback on variations in full time school figures.

Ms Pumla Mathibela, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corporate Services, DCS, responded that the Department focused on a target for the year. Schools could not be registered on a quarterly basis. There were quarterly figures for own reporting. More schools could be opened during the academic year. The needs were debated on a quarterly basis. The target for the year was to have eleven schools.

The Chairperson also referred to the grievance period of 30 days, on page 20 of the Annual Performance Plan, as raised by Mr Selfe. The PC knew that there were people who had been suspended for long periods. The question was whether those targets were realistic, achievable and affordable. It would not be sufficient to say that the Civil Rights Union POPCRU had delayed proceedings. He asked if the resolution of disputes could be done in 30 days.

Dr Schreiner responded that there was a distinction between grievances and disciplinary actions. Grievances were complaints that had to be raised with a supervisor. The challenge was to deal with those in a short period. Suspensions related to investigations were disciplinary actions.

The Chairperson asked how grievances were measured.

Ms Schreiner replied that the baseline would be the information on the indicator from the current year.
 
Mr L Max (DA) remarked that labour issues were covered by labour law. He asked if the procedures were in line with the labour law.

The Chairperson remarked that the Strategic Plan could not be adopted if some things were not measurable.

Ms Mathibela replied that grievance procedures were aligned to the Labour Relations Act. There were operational plans and monthly targets. The DCS had a monitoring tool.

The Chairperson asked if 30 days were enough to deal with what had happened at Rustenburg, where the Head of Centre had sexually assaulted two people, and had then fired them to protect himself.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked what would happen if procedures were not carried through.

Ms Mathibela responded that policy dictated a certain time frame. If these figures were not met, the DCS had to ask why there was non-compliance with the policy. The DCS issued non-compliance certificates.

Mr Zachariah Modise, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corrections, DCS, responded that grievances raised with a superior had to be dealt with in 30 days. That was the first level. The second level was area level, whilst level 3 was regional, and finally, the matters could be referred to national level. The 30 day period related to grievances at work level 1.

The Chairperson asked about DCS’s ability to satisfy the needs and requirements of the mentally ill, the disabled and other vulnerable groupings.

Mr Modise replied that the position of juveniles and females had received attention. There were facilities for young offenders. In respect of the disabled, the correctional centres would be upgraded through installing ramps. There were centres for mothers with babies, and for first time offenders. The mentally ill were taken into consideration when more beds were acquired.

Ms Mathibela added that in some small centres there was sometimes no space to separate offenders. There was a commitment, in the Annual Performance Plan, to improve diagnosis of the mentally ill, and improve treatment given to them. However, there was a shortage of psychologists. The Department of Health helped out with what the DCS could not do.

The Chairperson referred to vacancy targets, noting the vacancy rate of 1 898. At an average salary of R10 000 per month, that came to R230 million available, and the question was what happened to that money if it was not being spent. He reminded Members that any money not spent had to be returned to National Treasury.

Mr Siphiwe Sokhela, Chief Financial Officer, DCS, replied that there was unauthorised expenditure dating back to 2008/09. The DCS had appealed to Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) whether this could not be funded by transferring money from other items in the budget. This unauthorised expenditure of R480 million could be funded through vacancy funds.

The Chairperson remarked that this meant, if effect, that the money intended to be used to fill vacancies would be used to pay the previous year’s “overdraft”. He asked about human resource strategy.

Ms Mathibela replied that recruitment and retention strategies were being revised. There were challenges around the migration from Head Office to Centre-based staff.

The Chairperson asked why the target for filling vacancies was 97%, and not 100%. If the Committee were to approve the 97% target, it was essentially agreeing to putting people out of work. There were finance vacancies that could not be justified, in terms of the scarce skills argument. There were many finance graduates who were not yet employed.

Mr Abram referred to the possible absorption of qualifying South African National Defence Force (SANDF) personnel. He asked if they had skills, and whether this was a once-off matter.

Mr Moyane replied that it was a once-off matter. There had been exploratory discussions with the SANDF, which indicated that such members would not have to be retrained. They constituted a captive market. Some of them were artisans and professional people. The DCS wanted 300 people.

The Chairperson referred to the fact that only 3 000 out of 41 000 staff had been vetted. He asked if there was a plan to improve this. The DCS had noted in the past that some people resisted vetting, but it had to be done, as clearly those with links to gangs, or other affiliations, should not be permitted to look after inmates. The question was what kind of people were actually guarding prisoners, and whilst it was all very well to claim that the National Commissioner and senior officials had been vetted, the checks also were needed for staff on the ground.

Mr Moyane replied that vetting and security clearance were put together, at the same level. Vetting was done by National Intelligence Agency. Those who guarded inmates needed high security clearance. Officials had to have this security clearance to enter training college. Vetting was compulsory for certain senior management categories. Not everyone had been vetted at top level. The previous Head of National Intelligence Agency had admitted that the Agency had problems itself. The South African Police Service (SAPS) could perform security clearance at the low levels.

The Chairperson referred to targets on victim participation in parole hearings.

Mr Modise replied that targets were set out on page 40 of the Annual Performance Plan (APP). There was funding from the Cluster to establish video links with victims.

The Chairperson noted that the PC had written to the National Committee on Correctional Services (NCCS) about the relative weight of the victim’s views, in terms of parole. Some victims never forgave. The PC had asked if victims could stall the parole procedure.

Mr Max asked what was meant by the reduction of gang violence, on page 23 of the APP.

Mr Max also asked about body scanning.

Mr Modise replied that body scanning would be installed at hotspots like Pollsmoor, especially where there was gang activity.

Mr Ndlovu asked how much was spent on consultants, and about lease payments.

Mr M Cele (ANC)asked for details about the R45 million for Remand Detainees. He quipped that the target of 54 escapes, although down from 60, seemed to indicate that the DCS was planning for escapes.
 
The Chairperson remarked that the budget for reintegration was low. He asked if the budget for halfway houses referred only to the costs of providing building materials, or more than that.

Mr Modise replied that halfway houses were run in partnership with NGOs, in terms of a policy decision. There would be halfway houses established in every region in the current year. These were intended for young offenders without support systems. With regard to budgeting, he noted that training of officials had to be overhauled, as it was currently mostly security training. Pre-release programmes had to be strengthened, to take into account the difficulties of post-release stigma, family feuds and peer pressure. The community corrections function had to be overhauled. Officials mostly had a policing function in community corrections.

The Chairperson remarked that NGOs received money from the DCS. He asked what the DCS contributed for halfway houses.

Mr Sokhela replied that he had spoken to National Treasury about halfway houses, and whether these could be accommodated.

Mr Abram remarked that he had seen pictures of one halfway house and that it could not have cost millions. He therefore felt that the figure of R748 million was excessive, for six halfway houses.

The Chairperson asked for a halfway house funding model. He noted that this should be in writing, and would be raised at the budget debate.

Mr Modise replied that the DCS had not paid for the land and house for the pilot Halfway House at Naturena. A large chunk of the budget for that had come from business donations. This was an old building that had been revamped.

The Chairperson asked about a benchmark for dealing with suspensions. The DCS could not have officials suspended for years on end.

Mr Moyane replied that there had been an audit of suspensions, that categorised them, and that indicated the current status of each case. He noted that the time of suspension would increase when there were ongoing investigations.

The Chairperson also asked what was meant by reducing gang activity by 10%.

Mr Modise replied that the security programme was based on the reality that gangs existed and were operating in the centres, but that DCS intended to try to reduce their activity, along with assaults and unnatural deaths. Assaults mostly occurred between gangs. The DCS had to intervene in gang fights. Gangs could not be eliminated altogether. There was a national and regional gang structure. Gangs in the Western Cape were different from those in Gauteng and KZN. It was aimed to reduce gang activity through strategies such as isolating gang leaders. Idleness also contributed to gang activity. There had to be work provided, and offender participation in programmes. The Department did have a plan.

Mr Max suggested that Chris Malgas, a DCS member, should talk to the PC about gangs. He had varied experience of the matter.

The Chairperson asked the National Commissioner to explain why it was said that no relocation of Head Office was forthcoming, and yet R3 million had been allocated for it.

Mr Moyane replied that it was a contingency measure, as the DCS did not want to be caught in a situation where it had no budget. Some components of the DCS might have to be relocated. Other agencies of state had to assist. The Department of Public Works was not up to the task.

The Chairperson remarked that he could not understand the figures for transfers and subsidies. It looked like a “slush fund”. He asked why municipalities were referred to, in respect of leases, and then as a line item. He asked about the R1 billion for leasing from Department of Public Works (DPW).

Ms Nandi Mareka, Deputy Commissioner: Financial and Management Services, DCS, replied that there were earmarked funds from the National Treasury kept with the DPW, for accommodation. It was also for staff accommodation, offices, and the PPP index fee.

The Chairperson advised that costs to PPP centres should be expressed in figures. The Minister of Finance had declared that costs of government leases were exorbitant. It was better to invest in new own buildings, than to lease.

The Chairperson also noted that the Committee was not happy about costs for consultants and professional services.

Mr Sokhela replied that a breakdown of costs would be provided.

The Chairperson asked what consultants contributed in terms of core functions, and Constitutional requirements. It had to be shown that use of consultants did not contradict government policy. There had to be a benchmark for salaries versus hardcore services.

Mr Sokhela replied that the percentage of salaries to services was 72%. It was within the norm for a labour-intensive organisation.

The Chairperson asked what the R45 million for Remand Detainees would buy.

Ms Mareka replied that the Head Office would receive R12 million, and facilities would receive R33 million. Once issues had been finalised, there would be a separate programme for Remand Detainees, although at the moment it was still better placed as a sub-programme.

The Chairperson remarked that Remand Detainees were incarcerated for an average of 177 days. The issue had to be approached differently. 80% of people in correctional centres had been sentenced to less than two years, and no rehabilitation was provided for them. They were simply brought in, kept in and then released. Many of them should not have been imprisoned in the first place.  They had to be given rehabilitation as a priority, or kept out of the centres.

The Chairperson, referring to an earlier question, asked why the DCS budgeted for escapes.

The Chairperson noted that the DCS was down-managing the inmate population but allocations for food and food supplies had escalated.

The Chairperson also wanted to know what property payments were, and why rental and hiring had risen. He reminded Members that the budget positions would be developed from the figures, and the Committee needed to write a report in preparation for the discussions on 16 May. Anything that the DCS wanted to be added, or to highlight, had to be submitted by 8 May.

Mr Abram noted, in relation to parole issues, that Mahatma Gandhi had said that the weak could not forgive, only the strong could.

Mr Abram noted that the Minister of Correctional Services had claimed that the new budget programme structure would enhance allocation and reprioritisation, but it did not. It was said to be the product of an extensive review process, but in fact it was not. He urged that the National Commissioner and DCS senior management engage with civil society initiatives. There had to be periodic meetings to come up with a bold plan to move away from simply warehousing inmates. Changes up to that point had been cosmetic, and in reality the status quo was still being maintained. He said that he had been very upset, during a recent Committee oversight visit, about gang tattoos, which he saw as the product of corrupted minds. He advised the DCS to work very hard in relation to gangs. These were connected to drugs and prostitution. There had to be a holistic plan.

The Chairperson said that civil society, on the previous day, had bemoaned the lack of a proper forum to engage in debate about correctional service budgets, and this forum had to be re-instituted. Targets based on inputs rather than outcomes, was a major challenge.

Mr Moyane admitted that the DCS had to do better. He appreciated that civil society wanted to work with the Department. The forum would be re-instituted. There would be a response to issues raised, for the budget vote.

The meeting was adjourned.