Regional Commissioners & Judicial Inspectorate discussions, Expenditure to 31 March 2012

Meeting report

Meeting with Regional Commissioners and the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services
Judge Vuka Tshabalala, Inspecting Judge, Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services, noted that one of the problems highlighted in the Report by that Inspectorate (JICS), which had attracted attention, was the refusal by the Van Rhynsdorp Correctional Centre to allow an Independent Correctional Centre Visitor (ICCV) into that facility. This had happened during an oversight visit. The issue had since been resolved with the Head of Centre, at a workshop at Brandvlei, where she had apologized and noted that the ICCV had not correctly identified himself as such. However, what also emerged was that the Head of Centre was unaware of the legislative provisions dealing with the functions of the JICS.

Judge Tshabalala noted that the explanation was unusual, since the ICCVs were specifically trained to identify themselves during visits. However, there were no other problems with the treatment of the JICS. He noted that he himself had carried out 14 visits to facilities and had been supplied with information and encouraged to walk around on the premises and talk to inmates.

Mr Adam Carelse, Chief Executive Officer, JICS, noted that the JICS had received the full budget allocation that it had requested for 2012/13. In respect of the quarterly report, operational support and everyday running activities, the Department of Correctional Services (the Department or DCS) had an “open door” policy towards the JICS. The Inspectorate met with the DCS about managerial support, and had never been turned down when requesting meetings.

The Chairperson reminded Mr Carelse that the JICS Report, submitted two weeks ago, had indicated that the Upington Correctional Centre had not been aware that the use of force, mechanical restraints and segregation had to be reported to the JICS. The Springbok Correctional Centre management also did not know of the matters that had to be reported. At East London, mentally ill inmates had not been separated from the rest. That matter had been under discussion in the Committee for the preceding year. He said it was not acceptable for Regional Commissioners (RCs) to be unaware of what was going on at centre level, and consequences would flow from this lack of knowledge.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) also referred to the lack of response to letters written to Heads of Centre. There were clearly problems of communication or misunderstandings. Although there was no note of when the letters had been written, the lack of response was noted.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked if a copy of the JICS report had reached the National Commissioner. There were serious issues, including lack of communication between the ICCVs and Heads of Centre, despite the fact that it was claimed that the JICS met with Regional Commissioners. She asked why the problems seemed to persist.

Mr L Max (DA) insisted that the DCS had to respond to the JICS report, and every matter must be investigated. He noted an absence of good management and a careless attitude in the DCS. He added that some of the kitchens were unsanitary, with birds flying around inside. He asked how it was possible that the DCS could allow such conditions to persist. He questioned the competence of those responsible for these situations. He reminded everyone that inmates’ Constitutional rights had to be respected, and said it was very serious if senior managers did not know that it was mandatory to report certain matters to the JICS. He asked if managers were competent, and said that the Centre managers should be questioned. He commented that it was no excuse for the Van Rynsdorp manager to say that the ICCV could not identify himself.

The Chairperson likewise asked the National Commissioner if he had received the JICS report. He asked why Heads of Centres did not respond to letters from the JICS. He asked if there was a good working relationship between Regional Commissioners and the JICS. He also wanted to understand if Heads of Centres were considered competent, since it appeared that a negligent attitude persisted. He pointed out that some heads of centres were in charge of several thousand inmates, as in Johannesburg, and asked if they were competent.

Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner of Correctional Services, concurred that there was a cordial relationship between the DCS and the JICS. He appreciated the remarks made by Mr Carelse. He said that the legislative requirements were observed, and agreed that Section 85 of the Correctional Services Act made it clear that accessibility to information was a non-negotiable. Any omissions by any staff would be questioned. He added that the lack of response from Heads of Centres could be escalated to a higher level by the JICS and the Chief Executive Officer, and Regional Commissioners could assist.

Mr Moyane said it was lamentable that access had been denied to an ICCV. He maintained that access by the JICS had to be allowed, unhindered, for 365 days per year. The JICS report showed where the DCS had not responded. There had to be an audit to see whether Heads of Centres were aware of what the requirements were in connection with the JICS, and the DCS would follow a pro-active approach, rather than a reactive one. He agreed that communications had to be enhanced, and Heads of Centre ought to have information readily available. Mr Moyane noted that the positions of the current Regional Commissioners might change after restructuring, with effect from 1 June 2012.

Mr D Klaas, Regional Commissioner for the Free State and Northern Cape, DCS, stated that continuous training for centre managers was being improved. Further training for Heads of Centres would commence on the following Monday. He regularly raised current issues with other regional commissioners. He said that there had been two meetings with the JICS in the preceding six months, and matters that came to the DCS were dealt with. It had been decided that in future he should also receive copies of letters sent to Heads of Centres, which would enable him to monitor the situation and deal with any lack of response.  ICCVs would also receive continuous training, as some did not understand the Act. He commented that sometimes the changeover of personnel would impact on operational issues. He suggested that the JICS should in future engage with the Department during the compilation of its report, so that misunderstandings could be cleared up and ensure that the reports sent through to the Committee added value, since they could be accompanied by a detailed response from the DCS to the issues raised.

The Chairperson asked what was being done, on a regular basis, and what actions were taken against personnel who were found to have been breaking of the law, as in the unreported use of mechanical restraints. He also asked what the DCS was doing to prevent this in the future.

Mr Klaas responded that as soon as a matter was reported, there would be an investigation and the necessary disciplinary measures taken. In Brandfort, the JICS had made reports about the Centre, the Head of Centre was summoned, and it was found that this individual was himself not doing his work, and he was disciplined. A social worker had to be brought in from Boshoff to assist. It had been a problem for the Department of Social Development also, as there was only one social worker covering two or three centres. It had been necessary to take action at Brandfort, and an immediate investigation had established the facts.

Mr James Smalberger, Western Cape Regional Commissioner, DCS, said that the JICS report was needed, to assist engagement. He commented that when a matter was being investigated, it may well seem that there was no feedback to letters, but often it was only possible to give this feedback after the quarter had ended. The JICS report on the incident at Van Rhynsdorp had been crafted before he had had time to respond, but he commented that the matter of identity could have been solved by a phone call, but here the matter was complicated by the fact that the ICCV was not a regular visitor. He had read the communication between the ICCV and the Head of Centre, and it was clear that there were problems on both sides. He reiterated that, as reported by Mr Klaas, there would be new appointees. Administration had to be sorted out at ground levels. The incident of denied access had been an isolated one, and for the most part there was regular contact with the JICS. In future, he said that there would be better facilitation towards the drawing of reports, so as not to disrupt time lines. He agreed with Mr Klaas that it was not helpful for the Committee to receive one side of the story only, as this led to incorrect conclusions being drawn, and the full context had to be provided. There would be feedback from the DCS in the next Quarterly review.

The Chairperson asked Mr Smalberger if he had carried identification with him. If all DCS officials had identification, this would help. The question was how Heads of Centres identified visitors to the Centres, and he asked if DCS officials had to identify themselves.
 
Mr Moyane responded that the issue of identification was in an unfortunate state at the moment. Identification of DCS officials was different from that of ICCVs, and visitors had to have ID cards. There would be standard DCS identification introduced, as the Department changed. All officials would eventually have one, uniform form of ID by the end of the year, although some of the older officials might still have tags. The Head of Centre might know all his own officials, but not outsiders.

Mr P Mnguni (COPE) said that the reason for calling this meeting had been the JICS report, coupled with a comment, in a previous meeting, from the Chief Executive Officer, that there was a poor relationship between the DCS and the JICS. It seemed that he was now saying that the relationship was quite good. It was reported that there was no acknowledgement of letters written to the DCS, let alone any real response, and he appreciated the fact that the Inspecting Judge had undertaken to supply dates of correspondence in future. If it was now the case that there was a smooth relationship with the Department, the meeting had become irrelevant. The JICS had in fact asked for intervention by the Committee, and he urged the Chief Executive Officer to be consistent in his claims.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) remarked that the Portfolio Committee was not a court, but wanted to ensure that matters were running smoothly between all the stakeholders who were involved in working with offenders. If the DCS officials sought to justify themselves at every stage, the problem could not be solved. The Western Province Regional Commissioner seemed to be maintaining that the incident when the ICCV was barred was in fact not a problem, although he had expected that there would be an admission that things had gone wrong, and an assurance that it would not happen again. The DCS had to make sure that their own officials’ identification was in order, and get nametags. He suggested that the DCS should be allowed to address all issues.

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee was not an inquisition panel, and the objective of this meeting was to bring everyone together to clarify how things stood between the Inspectorate and the Department. The Committee had agreed on this intervention because of perceived difficulties, but whether in fact these were perceived or real, the Committee wanted to ensure a good working relationship between the JICS and the DCS. Members had asked if Regional Commissioners had received the JICS report. If they had not, it was unfair to “ambush” them on that day.

Mr Ndlovu said that he had earlier referred to a lack of communication, and it seemed that the parties were taking sides against each other, instead of ensuring that they all worked together. He too agreed that this was not a court of law, and the objective was not to fix blame, but to gain an understanding of the problems. If the DCS and JICS had now managed to fix their working relationship, the Committee had to be told of this.

Mr Max remarked that during his two years serving on the Committee, he had become convinced that the National Commissioner was committed to good results, but he had to rely on his Regional Commissioners, who in turn had to rely on the Area Commissioners. Both the DCS and the JICS were constitutionally-mandated entities, of an equal importance and status. He thought that what Mr Smalberger had said made sense, and this represented a good managerial approach to doing business. It seemed that there were communication and procedural problems, but the Committee had to hear what the real issues were. He asked the National Commissioner what he had done about problems identified that far. Mr Max appreciated the JICS report, but said that this too contained shortcomings, and there were problem areas to be addressed by both entities.

Ms Ngwenya repeated the question whether the JICS report had reached the National Commissioner, and said that the Commissioners needed to be given the opportunity to respond. She agreed with Mr Ndlovu that the DCS and JICS still seemed to act as if they were on opposing sides.

The Chairperson told the Commissioner that if he had not seen the report, he had to engage with it first, and asked how much time would be needed to do that.

The Commissioner replied that he indeed needed time to study the report. The Regional Commissioners would also need to go through the report, and any cases not responded to had to be investigated.

The Chairperson asked the Inspecting Judge if he was satisfied with that.

The Judge replied that it was helpful to the Inspectorate if specifics could be dealt with, as this could help with the resolution of issues in future.

The Chairperson advised that the two entities, working together, could considerably reduce the instances reported.  

The Commissioner asked that some leeway be given to the parties to deal with the matter.

The Chairperson told him that he had to decide who had to answer to each case reported.

Department of Correctional Services Preliminary Expenditure Report to 31 March 2012
Mr Siphiwe Sokhela, Chief Financial Officer, DCS, noted that 98% of the budget in the 2011/12 financial year had been spent. He took the Portfolio Committee through overspending and underspending per programme (see attached presentation for full details).

In the Administration programme, there had been overspending to clear unauthorised expenditure of R483 million. There had also been payments for consultants, stores, IT equipment and clearance of internal charges. In the Security programme, there had been underspending, due to non-filling of posts, which were currently being advertised and filled. In the Corrections programme, there had been overspending due to an unanticipated increase in number of posts filled, due to transfers. In the Care programme, there had been underspending on compensation of employees, because advertised posts were still being filled. Further underspending was due to the low movement of store items. Underspending in the Development programme occurred for compensation of employees, because of advertised posts still in the process of being filled. There was also underspending on goods and services, because of the low spending on workshop and agricultural materials. Underspending in the Social Reintegration programme was again related to compensation of employees, due to advertised posts still being filled. Underspending in the Facilities programme related to capital works, and was ascribed to a lower-than-anticipated billing from the Department of Public Works.

Mr Sokhela then summarised that spending according to economic classification. There had been underspending on compensation of employees due to vacancies not filled. There was overspending on goods and services, due to learnership payments. Transfers and subsidies had been in line with the budget spending plan. There was underspending on capital assets, due to the lower billing from the Department of Public Works for capital works. There had also been underspending because of incomplete IT infrastructure projects for the centres at Brandvlei, Van Rhynsdorp and Warm Bokkeveld.

Discussion
Mr S Abram (ANC) remarked that he was concerned about the financial controls. The external Audit Committee (AC) was still at odds with the Department, and was claiming that the DCS had excluded them from the appointment of the Audit Consortium. The Audit Committee had also commented that risk management was not being taken seriously enough. There was lack of agreement about the steps taken to mitigate risks. There were no sanctions for non-performance by line management. The Audit Committee further complained that the DCS was not properly remedying the qualifications expressed by the Auditor-General (AG) in previous years. The IT problems had been ongoing for years, and the AG had commented that the topic of IT was a matter of grave concern for the Department. He acknowledged that the DCS had appointed someone to be in charge of IT, and had made some changes in the IT systems, but said that the system still could not deliver on DCS plans.

Mr Moyane responded that the claims of the Audit Committee had to be contextualised. He took strong exception to the claim that the Audit Committee had been excluded from the appointment of the consortium. The Audit Committee had been part and parcel of the appointment process, and he had a letter that could prove that. It was not possible to work with an Audit Committee who attempted to twist the facts. He noted that the DCS was not attempting to “massage” any figures, and the Audit Committee had to help with oversight problems, so that the DCS could move away from the situation of having qualified audits over the preceding 16 years. He asked that this claim of exclusion by the Audit Committee be recorded as an untruth, and said he was willing to repeat his statements in their presence. The Chief Audit Executive had told him that morning that a letter had been sent to the Portfolio Committee. Various issues around the relations with the Audit Committee had been raised in the meeting of 6 March, there had been a workshop at Zonderwater, and the Audit Committee and DCS had come out as a unit. For the Audit Committee to say that it had been excluded was a lie.

Mr Sokhela added that he was likewise disturbed by the Audit Committee’s claims, and said that this amounted to poor treatment of the DCS. He pointed out that the Audit Committee was supposed to be a tool to assist management, and both the internal audit committee and the audit consortium had to add value to the process, whilst the external Audit Committee had to oversee the process. He maintained that throughout his own career, he had been willing to admit when he might have been wrong. The first time the Audit Committee appeared before the Portfolio Committee, it had spoken very badly about the DCS, and those same members were now denying that they had been involved with the consortium appointment, and claimed that the DCS had undermined them.  This was disturbing. The decisions about appointment had been made by the Adjudication Committee.

Mr Sokhela said that the budget for the consortium had been R7.2 million, but the costs eventually amounted to R14 million. He claimed that the Audit Committee had not wanted him to speak during meetings. When the consortium was busy with the audit, he had travelled to Durban to meet with the auditors, and he could then see that something was wrong and had asked the consortium to tell their managers to talk to him. He had previously worked with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) and was aware that the client must be consulted during the audit process. The report was never signed off, and was never discussed with the DCS management, but instead went straight to the Audit Committee. There were no recommendations in the report, no mention of risks or root causes, and no conclusion. He noted that the DCS was particularly concerned about complying with oversight, but he had not been told what the alleged non-compliance related to. He would be presenting a finance report to the Audit Committee on the following day. The DCS had started out on 15 May 2010 with the right dashboard, but the question was whether the consortium was adding value. If it turned out that he had been wrong, he would be willing to say so.

The Chairperson noted that the Bid Committee had set out requirements, and R14 million had been paid. He asked if, during the design of the tender, it had been stated that root causes of problems had to be identified. He asked why the consortium had been paid R14 million if they had not adhered to the contract, and commented that it would be fruitless expenditure if that amount was paid for a service that did not assist. This matter was in the hands of the Chief Financial Officer, and the question was whether the needs had been specified in the contract.

Mr Sokhela replied that these matters were regarded as standard procedure, when an audit was done. The question was whether the DCS had to pay for it. There had to be a pronouncement on the issues.

Mr Max agreed that this was a serious matter, if the facts had been distorted. The Audit Committee had to come and explain their letter, if it was indeed untruthful.

The Chairperson said that the Audit Committee would not be called without the DCS also being present. He said that the question of the costs remained.

Mr Sokhela replied that when the matter had come to his attention, he had not been aware of payments made.

The Chairperson asked about underspending on Development and Care.

Mr Sokhela responded that the DCS budgeted on the basis of figures that it received from branches. The end user had to say why the budget had not been spent. The end user had been asked how the costing had been done. If end users and branches had planned correctly, that problem would not have arisen. In the DCS, however, many things tended to be done at the last minute, a challenge that he had also had to face in the previous year.

The Chairperson said that the Portfolio Committee was the only entity who did in-house monitoring. The Chief Financial Officer received a management account every month. Managers who underspent by R700 million had to be managed properly, and these matters had to be dealt with on a quarterly basis. It was unacceptable for the Chief Financial Officer to come to the Committee in February or March, and announce underspending to the tune of R800 million over the year.

Mr Sokhela replied that there was engagement with managers on a monthly basis, on a one-on-one basis. The DCS was the only department that prepared monthly financial statements, because it did not wish to be faced with surprises at the end of the year. Statements were distributed to managers. However, he repeated the adage that a horse could be taken to water but not forced to drink. There was pressure on him from the Portfolio Committee and National Treasury. Managers had to know how to plan.

The Chairperson said that this response suggested that the managers were being given the tools but still did not want to manage. However, a variance of R800 million was far too much, and someone should be taking responsibility. DCS overall had the power to manage the situation. Change had to be visible. He pointed out that somebody must be taking charge of the whole infrastructure when managers failed.

The Chairperson pointed out the underspending because IT was not in place. The DCS would complain about overcrowding and lack of beds, but there were no reports that it would actually be firing those responsible. The Commissioner had the support of the Portfolio Committee, but at the same time he must appreciate its frustrations. There was little point in lamenting the situation; the DCS must take charge and ensure that it managed the situation.

Mr Abram continued that he would be less concerned if the Department returned unspent money to the fiscus, rather than rolling it over to the next financial year. He was concerned about underspending on goods and services. There was also a lack of spending on workshops. Workshops were important for rehabilitation and skills development. There had been spending on agricultural materials, but he had no idea what that meant. The DCS had to move towards self-sufficiency and the skilling of inmates. The Committee had been talking of the need to skill people for three years, and had not been taken seriously.

Mr Abram asked how many inmates eventually committed crimes again and were imprisoned again. He commented that the DCS was just “warehousing” people at the moment. There were not enough social workers for the Care Programme. There had to be a scheme to reach matriculants, who could be given tertiary training and then work for the DCS. There were a large number of mentally ill people in facilities, and the DCS had to think laterally on how to deal with that problem. Inmates were saying that when released, they could not succeed in society again, and they were at least certain that whilst incarcerated, they would be fed.

Mr Ndlovu remarked that the Department still relied too much on the advice of consultants. It was a human resources problem.

Mr Ndlovu also asked about IT challenges.

Mr Ndlovu remarked that if there was underspending on the Care programme, it meant that a core function was not being performed.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that the inability to fill posts was a challenge to the public as a whole. She asked about figures for psychologists, nurses, social workers and finance professionals. The failure to achieve parole targets was due to the under-performance of the Case Management Committees.

A DCS member replied that pre-release programmes had to be supplied. Case Management Committee (CMC) issues were receiving attention, and CMC structures would be finalised.

Mr Moyane replied that the Chief Deputy Commissioner of Human Resources and Corporate Services could elaborate on that. The current vacancy levels stood at 2.5 to 3%, which was not that serious, and was certainly lower that the high vacancy rates of the past. However, the DCS had a high attrition rate. There was an ageing workforce, and no plans were formulated in the past as to how to deal with that. Directives would be given to the Human Resources Division, to plan properly, by making estimates of how many members were approaching retirement age.

Ms Pumla Mathibela, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Human Resources, DCS, said that she agreed with the comments about vacancies and the need for a skills breakdown. The Department would return with a comprehensive report.

Mr Magagula remarked that the Human Resources section had to come and talk to the Committee about underspending on compensation for employment.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) added that the President had made a call for all vacancies in the public service to be filled within six months. Targets had not been met. The report also had to speak to those who had been released. There were no psychologists and social workers, so the question was whether those released had completed programmes to prepare them for release. She repeated a conversation she had had on the previous day with a woman who maintained that DCS was creating a problem for the country, by failing to rehabilitate offenders and claimed that communities would attack and kill released offenders because they feared that they had not been rehabilitated. She believed that a number of offenders would re-offend and be sentenced again to imprisonment.

Mr Moyane corrected this, saying that the level of re-offending was actually low in the 6 000 offenders released. The Minister had stated that there was no guarantee that those released would not re-offend, because this was tied into human nature. The DCS had appealed to young mothers in facilities not to disappoint the public.

Ms Phaliso asked about alternative procurement for Public Private Partnership (PPP) facilities, and noted that there should be ongoing research into relevant materials and a model. All were responsible for a safe society.

Mr Moyane responded that the DCS was looking for an all-encompassing model. All existing PPPs were only for males. In future, there would be building for other groups, like mothers and other women, youth and the disabled. The centres envisaged would not be huge, and should house 500 to 1 500 inmates, so that vulnerable groups could be dealt with properly. The PPPs did not deliver value for money in terms of procurement, and the DCS did not have core control. He stressed that the DCS had to be in charge of security and run the facilities.

Ms Phaliso referred to the need for gang management. The DCS had said that there was a budget for gang management for the fourth quarter. The unit had been approved at national level, and would be managed at area level. However, there was no statement of whether this budget had been sent to National Treasury, and the DCS must state clearly whether an allocation was made, and what amount had been budgeted.

Mr Mnguni referred to managers who did not comply. He suggested that all people interviewed for posts had to be asked if they could do costing, and those managers who did not manage properly should be shown their contracts, and it should be indicated that perpetual failure to perform according to contract was unacceptable. The Chief Financial Officer had indicated his frustration, but somebody had to see to problems at the lower level, and reports had to go to the National Commissioner. Currently, too much responsibility rested with the National Commissioner, when it was clear that more junior programme managers were at fault. They were setting the community against the offender.

Mr M Cele (ANC) referred to the statement by the Chief Financial Officer that some underspending had been due to invoicing not done on time, and asked what measures had been taken to get invoices sent out earlier.

Mr Sokhela replied that the Department of Public Works (DPW) did not handle invoices correctly. The DCS had spoken to the Chief Financial Officer of the DPW, and the latter department was still busy developing a proper billing system. The Commissioner would be briefed on that. It was also necessary to engage with the Director General of the DPW, as the DCS needed proper figures. The DPW was supplying wrong information, and claimed that R7million to R11 million was owed, but could not specify what had been done. Proper planning was needed.

Mr Max noted that there had been underspending with regard to facilities., notably Brandvlei, Van Rhynsdorp and Warm Bokkeveld. He asked if infrastructure extensions had been completed.

Mr Smalberger replied that extensions for vulnerable inmates had been completed at Brandvlei. The IT infrastructure was still outstanding at Brandvlei, Van Rhynsdorp and the Warm Bokkeveld centre at Ceres. 75% of the building had been completed. All three centres would be operative by the end of the financial year.

Mr Abram told the DCS that when an official accepted office, it came with all the problems as well as the benefits. He claimed that when he was told by a member of a community that offenders were “pigs”, he had responded that this may be so, but they were “our pigs”. Responsibilities had to be accepted.

The Chairperson noted that the Department had to find ways to trim its budget. He pointed out that R17 million had been spent on catering, both for correctional centres and the halfway house, but this must be compared to a budget of R9 million in 2010/11. R3.9 million had been spent on venues in 2010/11, and currently it was R17 million. The budget for local travel had been R180 million in 2009/10, and was currently R270 million. R68 million was far too much for cellphones. If expenditure became too high too quickly, the AG would be asked to do a forensic audit.

The meeting was adjourned.