Audit outcomes of Department of Correctional Services for 2013; Input of Stakeholders on Department & Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services 2012/13 Annual Reports

Meeting report

Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA): briefing on audit outcomes for Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
Mr Musa Hlongwa, Business Executive, and Mr Solomon Jiyana, Senior Manager, AGSA, reported that the DCS had received a qualification on assets. The Department had materially underspent its total budget on the programmes of administration, rehabilitation, care, and social reintegration. With regard to predetermined objectives, it had been found that the DCS had not set targets that were specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART). With regard to supply chain management, the contract register had been found to be incomplete and inaccurate. There were persons in the Department who had a private or business interest in contracts awarded by the Department, and who had failed to disclose such interest. There were persons in the DCS whose close family members had private or business interests in contracts awarded by the Department, and who had participated in the procurement process. There had been deviation from competitive bidding, justified as “emergency”, but immediate action had not been necessary. Human resources findings included that a written policy on overtime was not in place, and some funded vacant posts had not been filled within 12 months. Operational governance structures for information technology controls were not yet operational. The Department had underspent its budget by 10.6% on capital expenditure. The Departmental Investigation Unit (DIU) was investigating cases related to fraud and theft, financial misconduct or supply chain management.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that it was a terrible report. He had thought that the audit committee would play a mitigating role.  What was their usefulness? They were being paid R25 000 per meeting.  He asked the Auditor-General why there had not been a disclaimer.

Mr Lehlohonolo Majake, chairperson of the DCS audit committee, responded that the report showed a lack of confidence in expectations. The DCS seemed reluctant to resolve issues that had been worked through. Advice fell on deaf ears. The audit committee had advised and done its utmost. There had been a lack of implementation of recommendations.

Mr L Max (DA) referred to internal auditing. He asked what had happened after the report. He asked if the Department were compelled to say what they were doing to rectify matters. When he was Chief of Police, reports were looked at to see if they had been responded to.

Mr Hlongwa replied that the DCS had to use the findings to compile an action plan, assisted by the findings and the internal audit. There had to be quarterly meetings with the Minister. The Department had to inform the AGSA about action plans.

Mr S Abram (ANC) asked for a copy of the report, so that the Committee could measure if it had been utilised.   Strong action was needed against people who had vested interests in family business outside the department. He asked what steps had been taken against family contracts. Were people who had materially interfered with the adjudicating of tenders still in DCS employ?

Mr Abram remarked that the DCS had to say what the interventions were about. When the Auditor-General found a misdemeanour or irregular conduct, the question was what management of the entity had done about it. There had to be a follow up, and action taken against wrongdoers.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) agreed that the report looked bad. There had been no improvement. Things had rather become worse. The Portfolio Committee had only a few months left -- it was too late to try and fix challenges. Stakeholders had to come up with a solution. The report was shocking. There had to be improvement before the report went public.

Mr M Cele (ANC) agreed that the report was shocking.

The Chairperson noted that Mr Majaka was seeing the Department on 16 October. The audit committee had to report about that in the presence of the Department. The Committee wanted the audit committee report on Monday 14 October, so that it could be interrogated. The audit committee had to be present.

Mr Abram remarked that there must have been two quarterly meetings since the findings had been made. The Portfolio Committee had to be informed about that.

The Chairperson said that the report had been late in the first place, and there had been no time to discuss it. Nothing had been done, because the report was late.  It was already the last quarter of the current financial year. He asked the Auditor-General to be present on 16 October.

Public Service Association of South Africa (PSA): briefing on DCS Annual Report
Mr Pierre Snyman, Chairperson: PSA, remarked that very few, if any, of the contentious matters which emanated from previous reports to the Portfolio Committee, had been resolved.  A Ministerial Task Team (MTT) had been established to break the deadlock between labour and the employer, and to resolve salient issues like the non-payment of overtime; the seven day establishment; the second phase of the Occupationl Specific Dispensation (OSD); the health and safety of members; grievances and sick leave, and discipline and suspensions. The PSA had found a lack of commitment from the DCS as an employer, to finalise outstanding matters as indicated by the Ministerial Task Team. The strained labour relationship between the employer and labour had to be repaired. The DCS was seen as a labour-intensive organization, and the extent to which the Department realised its goals was dependent solely on its staff. There was a high staff vacancy rate and a high turnover rate. For many, the DCS was not an employer of choice. The Department had wrongly implemented the second phase of the OSD, and was in breach of the minimum official-to-offender ratio, which posed a risk to health and safety. Employees were exposed to a strenuous and abnormal working environment.

The Chairperson asked Judge Vuka Tshabalala, Inspecting Judge for the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services, to comment.

Judge Tshabalala said that the report was shocking. The Judicial Inspectorate had been unable to obtain funding from the DCS.

The Chairperson said that there were challenges around the staff establishment in the JICS. Money was being underspent, while there were unfilled funded posts. The matter would be dealt with on 16 October.

Police and Prison Civil Rights Union (POPCRU): briefing on DCS Annual Report
Ms Thandi Shimange, POPCRU First Vice-President,stated that capacity was a challenge in the DCS. The DCS could use funds returned to the fiscus, to attract professionals. The organisational structure of the Department was top heavy, with many layers of command and control. There had to be more staff at grassroots level.  POPCRU was concerned about fruitless expenditure, especially regarding outsourced services. Cases of fraud, corruption and maladministration were continuously reported.  POPCRU had not received feedback since the last sitting of the Ministerial Task Team about issues like OSD, backdated overtime and shift patterns. Overcrowding remained a problem at facilities, yet funds were being used to create new office space at head office. Other challenges were related to offender training; a lack of social work and psychological services, and a lack of access control, which made facilities unsafe. The DCS had received qualified audit opinions due to lack of mature financial management. There was a high vacancy level at all skills levels, and this was linked to continuous challenges of underspending and mismanagement of funds, with DCS members owed overtime since 2009.

Discussion
Ms Ngwenya remarked that challenges had been identified, but she had expected POPCRU, in particular, to come up with more recommendations, and to say more about the audit findings. DCS members had witnessed the challenges, which could be seen on oversight visits.  Inmates had been trained to present a festival at a centre in KZN, and they had given a good performance. They were being rehabilitated to be accepted by society upon their release.

Ms Ngwenya said that DCS members were crying about salaries and rents. She had expected POPCRU to say something about the security of inmate labour, and to talk about member’s salaries. The Portfolio Committee only implemented the law. It could not play shop steward for inmates. It was unknown what high ranking officials should receive. There were DCS members who had been stuck at the same rank for 20 years, at the same pay. Regions had to assist members.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that some union members were not disciplined, and asked what was being done about such members. The DCS was the main agent responsible for protecting life in the country.

The Chairperson told the unions that Ms Ngwenya was trying to advise them that they also had responsibilities. The unions were not talking about high work absentee rates, or the possession of alcohol. The unions were using the platform to raise their own issues. Things were being smuggled in. There were officials beating inmates. The unions were not the angels in the situation. The unions never insisted that people be fired.  Organised labour had to admit where they were culpable, and not abuse the Portfolio Committee.

Ms Shimange replied that POPCRU acknowledged that they were also responsible to see that members did not transgress. But the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) had been a POPCRU initiative.  DCS officials had been the worst paid, and they were currently in the top five. POPCRU and the DCS only bargained in court.  POPCRU were getting judgments in their favour, regarding agreements for better salaries. In the current year, the Minister had stated that enough was enough, and the MTT had been established. Meetings had been held with union members about corruption. The unions had to represent their members, right or wrong.  Justice would prevail.

Mr Snyman replied that the PSA’s task as a labour organisation was defined in Section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.  The PSA’s report spoke to the core business of collective bargaining. The PSA had shown where the Department had failed to implement agreements, as they were supposed to report on that. The call for a more balanced report had been noted.

The Chairperson stated that security officials had a duty to build the nation. Patriotism was more important than sectional interests. All concerned had to be patriots in the first instance. The Portfolio Committee was not saying that the unions were wrong to complain about the DCS. The question was what was to follow.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) said that the union presentation was the same as the year before. The unions worked with the Department daily. The Department had to answer to the PSA and POPCRU. There had been no movement. Things were going backwards.

Mr Max remarked that the issues raised were generic. They were not new. In the three years that he had served on the Portfolio Committee, things had stayed the same. There was no happy and motivated work force. The Committee had put pressure on the Department, but human resources management had been done wrongly, and had not complied with labour laws. The DCS did not listen to their people. Members came across as very negative, on oversight.  It seemed doubtful whether the Committee had any value, as the DCS did not listen.

Mr Max noted that the Ministerial Task Team had been set up because of generic problems between the unions and the DCS. The Minister had said in his budget speech that because of what the PC had told him, the MTT would seek resolutions.  It seemed that faith in the task team to resolve issues had been lost.   A programme with time frames, that indicated who would do what, and by what date, was needed.

Mr Max stated that the DCS was not listening to the Auditor-General, the audit committee, the Committee, or organised labour.

Mr Cele said that the Minister had not talked about the task team. It had to be explained to the Committee.

Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative: briefing on annual reports of DCS and JICS
Dr Lukas Muntingh, Project Coordinator, CSPRI, referred to a range of problems that had been commented on by the Auditor-General, such as vague performance targets and unreliable information collected. It was questionable if the DCS annual report could be trusted as a tool for accounting to Parliament and the public.  There had been numerous commissions and recommendations to Correctional Services since 1994, but there had been a consistent lack of response to recommendations. The DCS was setting too many targets. There was a need for outside interventions in senior management, to ensure a follow up.

There was an urgent need for the DCS to pro-actively influence the SAPS arrest policies that had led to avoidable burdens on the DCS and the court system. An estimated 83 000 people might remain with the DCS for only a short period, because the majority of police arrests were not for priority crimes. There was a two-year time limit on the duration of pre-trial detention, which did not compel a court to conduct an inquiry into lengthy delays in trials. The majority of sentenced admissions were for under two years, which excluded such prisoners from sentence plans. Imprisonment then had no purpose except punishment.

The most substantial underspending had occurred in programmes aimed at reducing re-offending, namely Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration. Impunity had to be addressed. Torture had become a punishable offence under South African law. The DCS had spent R257 million on access control systems four years ago. Currently only seven of the 78 systems were functioning. Other issues were literacy and education, infrastructure development, and the shift system. It was concluded that the DCS was again heading for a period of instability, with the sudden retirement of the National Commissioner, and with the Chief Financial Officer and CDC Strategic Management in acting positions. The DCS was failing to address challenges like assaults on prisoners in a meaningful manner.

Discussion
Ms Ngwenya said that questions posed by the briefing would have to be put to the Department.

Mr Cele asked for elaboration about the shift system.

Dr Muntingh replied that the Department of Public Service and Administration had done an investigation. There were senior officials who worked as warders over the weekend, and were then paid overtime at their own salary rate.

The Chairperson agreed that the SAPS arrest policy had to be influenced, but the judiciary also had to be influenced regarding sentencing of under two years.

Dr Muntingh replied that that there was a need for comprehensive sentencing reform. The Law Reform Commission had ground to a halt in the 90s.  Despite the designation as security cluster, the Departments of Correctional Service and Justice and the SAPS operated as silos.

The Chairperson said he took Dr Muntingh’s point about high-tech solutions. But it did not work to be labour-intensive with crooked officials. There were officials who did not want CCTV, which the Portfolio Committee advocated. There had to be access control and central supervision.

Dr Muntingh agreed that there could be a place for CCTV, but it had to be part of a bigger plan. There had to be better assessment of inmates. The integrity of officials was essential.

Sonke Gender Justice Network and Just Detention International: briefing on DCS and JICS Annual Reports
Ms Nomonde Nyembe, Policy Development and Advocacy Associate, Sonke Gender Justice Network, applauded the JICS for calling for its own independence from the DCS. In its annual report, the JICS had proposed that the Correctional Services Act be amended to reflect financing by the National Treasury, and that the appointment of the JICS Chief Executive Officer be made by the Minister, and not the DCS National Commissioner.  Sonke recommended separate legislation to ensure structural independence from the DCS, so that it could also be granted investigative powers akin to the IPID. The JICS worked with a problematic definition of unnatural death in custody.  The JICS was to be congratulated for disaggregating sexual violence complaints from the general assault categories. Assaults by officials on inmates did not result in adequate criminal investigation by the SAPS, or successful prosecution by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). Sonke was concerned about JICS’s silence on the riot at the Groenpunt centre.

Sonke applauded the DCS for investigating fraud, corruption and maladministration, but only 25 of the 141 officials found guilty had been dismissed. Negotiations entered into with labour on the shift model and overtime was also commended. The DCS had exceeded its target of testing inmates for HIV, and for placing eligible inmates on ARVs.  But such efforts were undermined when inmates were forced to default on their ARV regimen due to systemic failures. The DCS had adopted a policy framework to address sexual abuse of inmates, which was seen as a pro-active approach. However, a screening tool for vulnerability to sexual abuse had not yet been developed.  Figures for assault on inmates had not yet been disaggregated by the DCS.

Discussion
Ms Ngwenya commented that the DCS had to focus more on HIV/Aids.

Mr Cele asked what was meant by stern punishment.

Ms Nyembe replied that assault was a crime, and had to be prosecuted. The DCS had to send a clear message through dismissal, where necessary.

The Chairperson noted that the Inspecting Judge had the power to investigate corruption. The question was if there was capacity for that. The DCS could not investigate its own corruption. The Departmental Investigations Unit was not effective.

Ms Nyembe replied that the Inspecting Judge had a legislative mandate to investigate corruption.

The Chairperson said that according to the Committee’s experience, defaulting with ARVs started after arrest and three weeks spent in a police cell.  It was not always the DCS who defaulted.

Ms Nyembe replied that there were many reasons for default. Some inmates defaulted because there were no guards to take them to get their medicine.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would dispute the figures on rapes and unnatural deaths. The question was whether death due to an appendix would be classified as natural death. It would be natural if it occurred at home, but unnatural in the DCS. If someone died in DCS custody, it would be said that it was due to inhumane conditions. At Leeukop prison, people were still incarcerated in zinc structures, which was a leftover from the apartheid era.

Detention Justice Forum: briefing on Annual Reports of DCS and JICS
Ms Nyembe presented on behalf of the Detention Justice Forum. The JICS had to enhance its structural independence from the DCS. The process to appoint the Inspecting Judge had to be reviewed to enable stakeholder consultation, and to remove the Minister from the process.  Inmates’ awareness of Independent Correctional Centre Visitors (ICCVs) had to be strengthened. There were calls from civil society that the authorities commit to ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT).  Both the JICS and the DCS were called on to reflect the Prevention and Combating of Torture of Persons Act.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked who would be the stakeholders that would decide about the appointment of the Inspecting Judge.

Ms Nyembe replied that it had to be possible for anyone to engage.

The Chairperson said that Parliament pronounced on behalf of the people. The matter would be raised with the Judicial Inspectorate.

Ms Nyembe replied that Parliament did take the opinions of people into account.

The Chairperson said that not any stakeholder could speak.

Gender, Health and Justice Research Unit, University of Cape Town: briefing on DCS and JICS annual report
Ms Gray Aschman, Researcher, noted that the White Paper on Corrections stated that rehabilitation processes had to be responsive to the special needs of women. There were two major areas of concern with regard to the DCS and JICS Annual Reports. Those were the absence of gender-disaggregated data and the apparent lack of gendered analysis in the evaluation. The DCS’s evaluations had to include a specific analysis of policies, programmes and data that reflected the conditions and needs of incarcerated women.

Overcrowding was a key concern. The quality of food was poorer than that received in the men’s sections. Work opportunities and skills development for women was still governed by highly gendered regimes. Women had even fewer educational and training opportunities than males. The DCS Annual Report contained no reference to gender-specific health and hygienic needs. Health screenings had to include a physical examination and determining of primary health care needs. Assessments had to screen for child and adult sexual and/or physical abuse. There had to be increased access to on-site mental health professionals. Education, work and vocational training had to be encouraged for every sentenced offender. The current daily wage for work was a disincentive for engaging in productive work. It was too meagre to save wages or use wages to support children on the outside. Pay-for-work-models had to consider the extent to which offenders could earn funds to support families, and further education and training not offered by the DCS.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that it was an indictment of the Portfolio Committee, that the importance of what had been raised had never been recognised.   The points made were valid. The DCS and the Judicial Inspectorate had to improve.  The problem of prisoners being far from home could not be resolved. He had seen a feature on TV where women were moved into police cells, but police cells were not geared for that.

Ms Ngwenya said that the DCS had to pronounce on the fact that people were sent to prisons at the place where they had committed the crime.

The Chairperson said that care had to be taken with genderising work. The downside was that if a woman wanted to be trained as a welder or engineer, she would have to be trained by a male. The Committee had in the past wondered if it was acceptable to have male warders at female prisons.

Mr Max commented that research on rape was limited to two centres.

Ms Aschman agreed that research was not representative, as it had been limited to Pollsmoor and Worcester.  63% of histories of abuse occurred outside prison.  There had been no reports of sexual abuse by DCS members, nor of extreme violence. More research across the country was needed.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that a researcher was not an overseer.  Prisons were not built for women. The Department had to improve on women’s centres.   Research was slanted toward regions around Cape Town. It could not be said that there was no delivery for women.  Women in Pollsmoor did not have their own kitchen, but there were women working in the kitchens. Oversight had to be carried out.

Ms Ngwenya asked that the pay-for-work model be explained.  It was claimed that female prisoners could not save. There was no such concern about people on the outside. If a woman killed her husband, the state was not going to look after her children.
 
Ms Ngwenya acknowledged that the briefing had been provocative, and that more debate was needed.

Ms Aschman replied that women mostly did sewing of denim prison uniforms. They were paid two or three rand per day. There was poverty and unemployment everywhere, but inmates could not move around to look for work. They had committed crimes, but they still had responsibilities.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.