Department of Correctional Services on its 2015 Strategic and Annual Performance Plan; Committees' draft Reports adopted for budget votes 18, 20, 23

Meeting report

The meeting started with a minute of silence in honour of members of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS), Western Cape who died last week in an accident.

Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Strategic Plan 2015/2016 – 2019/2020 and Annual Performance Plan 2015/2016 briefing
Mr Terence Raseroka, Acting Deputy Commissioner: Strategic Management, Department of Correctional Services, took the Committee through the strategic and annual performance plan of the Department.

He tabled the full presentation (see attached document) and noted that Part A focused on the vision, mission, values of the Department, Part B on strategic performance elements; Part C on linkages to other plans and annual performance plan. The performance of the Department centred on the White Paper for Corrections, White Paper on Remand, National Development Plan (NDP) and the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF). There was a description in the document on the strategic planning process, showing the number of engagements and meetings with both the Minister and Deputy Minister as well as engagements with prescribed pieces of legislation outlined in the current administration. The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) plan had also been included in the strategic plan for the very first time.

Issues dealing with staffing, information technology (IT), finance and procurement, organisational structure and occupation specific dispensation (OSD) were placed under the organisational environment.

The Department ensured that its plans were linked with the 14 outcomes of government as well as the NDP. There were five key elements of the election manifesto, and the Department was contributing directly to the fight against crime and corruption. In terms of the 14 outcomes, the Department was contributing to outcome 3 - which was to ensure that all people in South Africa were safe. Specific sub-outcomes were formed from outcome three which translated to the mid-term strategic framework (MTSF).

Three indicators had been contributed to the MTSF. The purpose of the indicators was to ensure a reduction in the level of contact crimes and to contribute towards reducing offending or recidivism. The first indicator was to ensure that 80% of sentenced offenders were subjected to correctional programmes by 2019. The second and third target for 2019 would focus on 85% of paroles without parole violations and 85% of probationers without violations, respectively.

The Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster (JCPS) focus for the DCS would be based on chapters 12 and 14 of the NDP. Significant contributions had been made through the work of the Department to a number of government outcomes. DCS had contributed to outcome 1 (quality basic education) by providing education to the inmates. Those in care of DCS were also provided with proper health care which was a contribution to outcome number 2. Specific performance indicators for each contribution were outlined. (See attached document). Contributions had also been made to the core outcome – outcome 3, which was to ensure that all people in South Africa were safe. Specific indicators that dealt with this outcome were also outlined in the document. Specific indicators explaining DCS’ commitment to improving the capability of officials, which would in effect improve the capability of the public service, were outlined to show the contribution of the Department to outcome 5, which focused on skills and capable workforce to support and inclusive growth path. In terms of outcome 12 (an efficient, effective and development oriented public service), specific human resource (HR) targets had also been outlined. With regard to outcome 11 (creating a better South Africa, a better Africa and a better world), DCS had been contributing operationally by organising and participating in various programmes, for instance, African Continental Services Association (ACSA) and other engagements with other countries all over the continent. Two specific indicators, especially those related to the social reintegration activities, were also outlined to show DCS’ contribution to outcome 14 (nation building and social cohesion).

Turning to the specific goals, he noted that the first focused on ensuring that remand detention processes were effectively managed by making sure remand detainees appeared in court as determined by relevant legislation. This was dealt with by the Remand Detention (RD) branch.

The second goal was to ensure that all sentenced offenders were incarcerated in safe, secure and humane facilities and were provided with health care needs, and this was handled by the Incarceration and Corrections Branch of the DCS.

The third goal was closely related with the last element of the Department’s value chain, which was social reintegration, with the DCS aiming to ensure that offenders, parolees and probationers were successfully reintegrated back into the society as law-abiding citizens.

DCS had provided a logic model to drive its activities, which focused on three immediate outcomes within the general overall model of ensuring that all people in South Africa were and felt safe.

DCS had five programmes, which were Administration, Incarceration, Rehabilitation, Care, and Social Reintegration. The purposes of the five programmes were outlined. Sub-programmes under each of the five programmes were also outlined. (See slide 21 and following slides, in attached document).

DCS’s links to other plans referred to a number of related plans which were strategic plans, annual performance plans, the triple P (public private partnerships) as well as long term infrastructure and other capital plans.

The number of performance indicators for the current financial year had been listed in the Annual Performance Plan (APP). Under administration, DCS had five strategic plan indicators and nine APP indicators. Incarceration had a total of eight indicators while rehabilitation, care and social reintegration had a total of seven, five and seven indicators respectively. The total number of indicators for the current financial year was 41.

The difference between quantitative and qualitative indicators was explained. Most of the indicators were measured in percentages that had projected numerator and denominator to measure performance. For example, for the indicator on escape, the numerator was the actual recorded number of inmates who escaped from DCS’ custody, while the denominator was the projected inmate population for the current financial year. It was important to explain the difference because there would be indicators that would be measured quantitatively and qualitatively in the plans of the Department.

The strategic plan indicators for the next five years of the current administration and the annual performance plan that would be measured for the sub-programmes under the five programmes of the Department were also outlined. (See attached document). It was explained that there was no annual performance plan for the sub-programme for offender management under Programme 2: Incarcerations and Corrections, because it was operational on a continuous basis.  The sub-programme focused on correctional programmes under Programme 3: Rehabilitation also had no APP indicator because it was also operational on a continuous basis. A new indicator was placed in the APP for offender development, which was to measure the grade 12 pass rate obtained per academic year for the current financial year. There was no APP indicator in correspondence to the second strategic indicator under this sub-programme, as it was already being measured at an operational level.

DCS was already managing the TB cure rate of offenders at the operational level, which explained why there was no APP indicator under the first sub-programme of Programme: Care. There was no strategic plan indicator for nutritional services and hygiene services, but the APP indicators for both sub-programmes were outlined. (See attached document). Under Programme 5: Social Reintegration, the first sub-programme on parole administration had no APP targets because it was being managed at an operational level.

Specific details of baselines and targets were the described. Under Administration, the first strategic objective was the improvement of the image and overall performance rating of the Department. The current baseline was 44.25 % which translated to 1 553 out of 3 510. The performance indicator/target for the next five years was to ensure that the percentage of surveyed people rating correctional services performance positively had increased from 44.25% to 66% in 2019/2020. The indication was that the Department would move from the baseline of 44.25% in previous years to 49% in the current financial year and then to 54%, 59% and 66% for the remaining part of the five years.

The second performance indicator was integrated communication and marketing strategy that had been developed and implemented. In the previous financial year, an integrated communication and marketing strategy, with a phased programme of action, was approved. Implementation on phases 1 to 3 would begin in this financial year.

The next strategic objective focused on percentage of officials found guilty of corrupt activities. The target was set at 94% for the remaining part of the financial year. The breakdown of the cumulative percentage was to move from 92% in the current financial year to 93% in the next financial year and thereafter 94% in year 2017/2018.

The next indicator was the percentage of finalised legal cases successfully defended by DCS. It was a new indicator with no baseline information. The target was placed at 75% for the current and subsequent financial years, to be increased to 78% in the third year.

The next indicator under the sub-programme on management was percentage of correctional facilities and community correction offices where integrated inmate management system (IIMS) and LAN infrastructure was rolled out. The target for the end of the administration was for 100% of the correctional facilities and correction offices to be connected and integrated. The plan of DCS was that the previous financial year would focus on the procurement and integration of the system, ranging from 25% to 75% over the next three years. 

There was a new indicator that came from JICS, and the performance indicator here was to increase the percentage of correctional facilities and the PPP facilities that were inspected in relation to the conditions and treatment of inmates. That target for 2019/2020 was 100%, which meant that all the 245 centers should have been inspected by 2019. The breakdown for achieving this indicator was outlined.

Corporate Services had an indicator that referred to percentage of funded post filled per financial year. The target for 2019/2020 was that 98% of all the funded vacant positions should be filled. The breakdown towards achieving this was based on the current estimated performance, which was 98% for the previous financial year, and it was an indicator that should be maintained for the next three years.

DCS aimed to train 16 500 officials in line with the workplace skills plan (WSP), with an increase from 18 150 to 19 965 and 21 962 in the following years for the percentage of management areas where the Integrated Employee Health and Wellness Policy (IEHW) was rolled out.

The Finance programme indicators measured the percentage of allocated budget spent per year. The identified target was that 99.75% of the total allocation of budget should be spent. This would be done by maintaining the estimated performance for 2013/2014, which was 99.75 %, for the remaining financial years.

Programme 2: Incarcerations had four sub-programmes. The performance indicator for the first sub-programme focusing on security operations was to measure the percentage of inmates who escaped from correctional and remand detention facilities per year. The focus was to reduce the number of escapees and maintain it at 0.022 %, with specific figures provided for each of the years. Numbers of inmates injured as a result of reported deaths, and percentage of unnatural deaths in correctional facilities were also outlined (see slides 80 and 81)

The sub-programme on Facilities included indicators for the number of new bed spaces created through construction of new facilities. The target was to create 2 500 new facilities in the next five years. DCS was guided by the processes outlined in the Department of Public Works (DPW) and construction industry, but DCS’ intention was to create 518 bed spaces by 2016/2017 through construction of new facilities.

With regard to remand detention, the performance indicator was to ensure that operational polices aligned with the White Paper on Remand Detention in South Africa and were implemented and monitored in remand detention facilities throughout the country. The DCS aimed to have the final draft policy and procedure manual by the end of the current financial year. Next year, the policy should have been approved, and in the following years it would be implemented and monitored.

Another new indicator related to the percentage of remand detention facilities where continuous risk assessment (CRA) should be rolled out. The plan was to roll out the CRA for the next three years which would increase from 14% to 43% respectively.

The sub-programme on offender management would measure the percentage of overcrowding in correctional centres and remand detention facilities that were in excess of approved capacity. The target was for 2019/2020 was 35%, based on a figure of 29% for last year.

Programme 3: Rehabilitation again had several sub-programmes. The first related to sentenced offenders that were subjected to correctional programmes per year. The target for 2019 was 80%, which meant that 81 000 out of the 101 000 of offenders would be subjected to correctional programmes. This would be achieved by increasing the estimated performance of 64% in the current financial year to 68 %, 72 % and 76% for the subsequent financial years.

DCS would also focus on the number of offenders who participated in the educational programmes, judged by daily attendance register per academic year. These were offenders that participated in educational training. The target was to have 16 116 offenders participating in Adult Education Training  programmes and 802 in the Further Education and Training mainstream by 2019.

The next performance indicator was to measure the percentage of offenders that participated in skills development programmes measured against the list of offenders registered for participation as per enrollment register. The target for 2019/2020 was to have 80% of offenders in this category. This would be achieved through the expected performance on skills training which was 80% and would be maintained over the years. This would also apply to those undergoing the Technical and Vocational Education and Training.

Another sub-programme focused on psychological, social and spiritual services, and the indicator referred to the numbers of those sentenced to correctional supervision who were involved in social work services per year. The target for 2019 was 76%.

Programme 4: Care also had several sub-programmes. The first focused on the percentage of inmates who were HIV positive and were on antiretroviral therapy (ART). The target was to reach 98% for offenders in this category. There was also a target of 85% by 2019 for those with the new TB pulmonary cure rate of offenders. For the sub-programme for nutritional services, the target was to increase the percentage of therapeutic diets prescribed for inmates from the 10% estimate in the previous financial year to 15% in the current financial year which would be maintained for the subsequent financial years. In terms of hygiene services, the target was to achieve six management areas with contracted health care waste services for the subsequent financial years.

Programme 5: Social Reintegration aimed to ensure that the percentage of offenders profiles submitted by the Case Management Committees (CMC) were considered by parole boards. The target was set at 95% by the end of 2019/2020 financial year. The breakdown on how this would be achieved was outlined in the document. (See document reference number 138 of attached document).

The strategic indicators on the percentage of parolees without violations per annum as well as probationers without violations per annum were considered next. The target for the two categories had been set at 97% for 2019. The breakdown for both was outlined at slide 142.

The percentage of persons under the system of community corrections who were on electronic monitoring was the next indicator considered. The estimated performance for the previous financial year was 288 persons. The target was to achieve 1.3%, which translated to 1000 out of the 78 221 in the current financial year. This would be increased to 1.42 % and 1.64 % in the subsequent financial years.

For the sub-programme on community reintegration, the indicator was the number of victims/offended, parolees and probationers who participated in the restorative justice process (VOMs and VODs). The target was to reach 18 000 victims or offended persons as well as 102 735 parolees and probationers. The breakdown of how this would be achieved for both victims and offenders were outlined on slide 147.

The final sub-programme focused on office accommodation. The estimated performance for the previous financial year was 12. The plan was to have 18 more established for the current financial year, which would be increased to 22 and 31 in the subsequent financial years.

2015 Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) – See attached presenation
Ms Nandi Mareka, Deputy Commissioner for Financial Management and Accounting presented the Estimates of National Expenditure to the Select Committee. The 2015 allocation focused on the three main aspects of DCS which was to focus on the protection of all inmates, rehabilitation programmes, and reintegration of offenders into the community as law abiding citizens.

She noted that there were reductions effected in 2015, resulting in allocations of R20.6 billion in the current financial year and R21.5 billion in the outer year. This resulted in the need to reprioritise to ensure that critical aspects were covered. The biggest sub-programme under the ‘care programme’ was on nutritional services, hygienic and health care services which usually faced a lot of budgetary constraints.

Discussion

Mr G Michalakis (DA; Free State) asked for clarification on the relationship between DCS and the Department of Public Works (DPW). When doing oversight, he had noted that some correctional facilities had problems with buildings, which were the responsibility of DPW, and he asked how widespread these problems were. The Free State had identified problems with supply of uniforms for both inmates and officials, and with provision of mattresses. Some of the staff have had to purchase their own shoes and had not received uniforms for almost five years. The reply from the Minister was that the budget was insufficient to address some of these issues for at least the next few years. He asked what the Department’s plans were to ensure that staff members at least, were treated with dignity. He wanted to know why there was a reduction in the budget for rehabilitation programmes. Speaking to reports of cell phones smuggled into prisons, there had been mention that the DCS was to install cell phone jammers in facilities, but it was said that the DCS was awaiting approval from the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) before it commenced implementation. He asked if the DCS had now received an answer from ICASA and if approval had been received, he wanted to know whether there was enough money in the budget to implement the cell phone jammers for the current financial year.

Mr Zachariah Modise, Acting National Commissioner, DCS, replied that DPW and DCS had been experiencing a number of problems and had prepared a service level agreement, as well as a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on projects that the Department had with DPW. Owing to several problems, DCS interacted with the Minister and Deputy Minister and established a task team that would look into projects that were under way, with the understanding that current projects would be finalised. The agreement and plan of action would be provided to the Committee. DCS had had serious challenges with the completion of particular projects. Reference was made to one project where the contractor had been liquidated and could not proceed with the job, but DPW had promised to engage the guarantor to include the work. DCS was indeed facing a challenge with providing uniforms to both officials and offenders. With regards to offenders, materials manufactured in the workshops were now available, and more detail would be provided on this later. The Department’s concerns focused mainly on offenders, as there were some without jerseys and shoes, and this was the reason for organising particular workshops where the offenders would sew these uniforms themselves. There was a serious problem of cellular phone smuggling in almost all the correctional facilities. Phones were smuggled in by officials, visitors and offenders who came into the facilities with the phones hidden on their persons. It had been difficult to put cameras at the entrances to these facilities to detect cellular phones, but detector systems had been put in all the newly built facilities.

Ms Nthabiseng Mosupye, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Information Technology, DCS, replied that the negotiations on ICASA made reference to the Government Gazette 24123 of November 2002.

Ms G Manalope (ANC; Northern Cape) wanted to know how the Department would provide the 98% increase for the vacant posts that needed to be filled in the current financial year, taking into consideration the critical posts and the numbers of senior management posts that were vacant, and comparing that to the small increases for compensation in the budget. With regard to the Rehabilitation programme, she noted an under-spending of R48 million for the previous years, which was critical. She asked how the DCS would realise the 80% target for rehabilitation of offenders, taking into consideration the cut in the budget. She asked for more details on the Ministerial Task Team and the current outstanding issues with the OSD.

Mr Smallberger, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Incarceration and Corrections, DCS, noted that the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources would also speak to the lack of spending on the Rehabilitation programme. However, he pointed out that it was compensation of employees where this under spending occurred. The DCS showed the highest vacancy rates for social workers, psychologists, chaplains, and other similar posts, although the targets for programmes running in rehabilitation would be achieved.  This related in particular to the agreement with the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and the assistants in the education of offenders, which were not reflected in the budget proposal, as also relationship with non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Many of the officials were assisting and rendering programmes, although these were not reflected in the Rehabilitation Programme figures directly.

Mr Teboho Mokoena, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Human Resources, DCS, described the recruitment process affected by the budget cuts. Between March 2014 and March 2015, DCS suffered 1 620 resignations, 251 officials died, 112 officials were dismissed, 558 officials retired from duty, 52 officials were not renewed, and eight others were unable to renew their contracts. Only 1 400 people had been recruited in this people - below the number exiting. This was attributed in part to the ongoing processes surrounding the pension reforms. The difference between DCS and DBE was that, for DBE, teachers could be recruited easily and on a contract basis, but for DCS, former members of staff usually planned to start up other business initiatives with the funds from their pensions. Eight proposals had been prepared for the Minister to announce during his budget speech. The Minister would be calling a "state of emergency" as far as recruitment to the Department was concerned. DCS had tried to decentralise recruitment through the regions but that decision, taken a year ago, would now be reviewed. On 10 May 2015, DCS had advertised learnerships, and although no learners were recruited in the last year, due to financial constraints, the decision was now taken, to fill the gaps, to target recruiting 3 096 learners through the learnership, spreading this over three intakes, since colleges could only accommodate 1 032 learners at a time. The three intakes would keep the colleges running and avoid redundancy. The learnership programme was aimed at blocking the gaps at entry level by retaining the learners on a contract basis after the completion of the programme. These learners would then be absorbed to fill available vacant positions during the selection process, depending on their level of performance. Other solutions for professionals were also being considered, including the idea of flexible contracts where professionals would not use their positions to bargain for other higher positions advertised in other Departments, as was the usual practice. Flexible working arrangements, allowing for professionals to be brought on board as independent contractors, but not employed full time within the Department, would be considered. These professionals would be paid only for services provided. The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) would be involved in this, as this was in effect creating a new employment relationship. A distinction would be made between people dealing with consulting work and those on flexible working contracts. It was necessary to have social workers and psychologists to deal with the bottlenecks around rehabilitation. Bursaries of R5.4 million had been given to social workers. The DPSA was be asked for permission to maintain and not increase the salaries of social workers, but this was not granted, since DPSA had felt that it would cause discontent amongst the existing social workers, who would be earning lower than the newly qualified social workers, and would be expected to train the new workers. The Department would have to forego the R5.4 million that had been spent but would make subsequent bursary conditions stricter. The other challenge over which DPSA had been engaged was unattractive salaries offered to professionals by the DCS, compared to those paid to other social workers. DPSA had needed to be involved because paying more to professionals would affect the overall budget of the Department. A special dispensation could be made to cater for professionals, but job-hawking of social workers and other professionals between various departments should not be tolerated.

Ms Mareka said that the Department was self-financing for various projects on goods and services, and this had mounted the pressure on the Department, especially with regard to the reductions on the budget which had affected the allocation for rehabilitation.

Mr Mokoena also spoke to OSD, and said that the DCS had established a task team that comprised of DPSA, National Treasury and DCS. An 'in-principle' agreement had been reached to settle the matter with organised labour. The directive received from both Treasury and DPSA was to the effect that about R1 to R3 billion would be needed to settle the matter. For every five years of service, a staff member would be eligible for one notch increase, currently calculated at 3%. So, if a person had been in the service for 20 years, it would amount to four notch increases at 3% each, which would be quite substantial. Some deliberations had been done to reduce the notch increase from 3% but the agreement that was reached with organised labour was that once an actual percentage had been agreed upon, re-consulting would begin, so that people going through the second phase of OSD could be paid the amounts accruing to them by installments, since the Department did not have the R3 billion needed in its immediate budget. The directive from the DPSA was that DCS must find its own money from within the budget allocation, as no extra money would be provided. Part of the negotiations had been that DCS would buy overtime disputes, if OSD was settled. The overtime issue amounted to over R1 billion and the proposal to organised labour was that if the OSD was settled, the overtime dispute would be bought, so that the Department would not need to find another R1 billion to cover the overtime.

Mr M Mhlanga (ANC; Mpumalanga) wanted to know why DCS was unable to manufacture these uniforms, as had been usual at the beginning of the administration.

Mr Smallberger replied that the Department was currently providing more offender uniforms than had ever been provided before. The challenges were based on the economic climate, because reduced amounts had been received in some parts of the budget. This reduction was identified and submitted to the Chief Financial Officer. The offenders were making their own uniforms in workshops, as well as remand detention uniforms. The immediate challenge was production of jerseys for offenders and a special project plan had been drawn up to address the issue. Currently, there were two main workshops where the jerseys were manufactured, and a process to relocate some of the work was in place, to ensure the issues would be addressed.

Mr Teboho Mokoena, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Human Resources, DCS, replied that currently DCS had requested proposals from people in relation to staff uniforms. Funds had been set aside and the request for proposals had been sent to the Acting National Commissioner for procurement of uniforms. Distribution had begun for the stock of uniforms at Witbank to various institutions across all regions.

Mr S Thobejane (ANC; Limpopo) said that some warders in DCS had themselves been criminals, and he wondered what DCS was doing to curb perpetration of crimes by the very officials who should be taking care of prisoners, but were allowing contraband to be smuggled in. He asked how many officials linked to this kind of behavior had been apprehended by the Department, and how many had faced disciplinary actions and/or were arrested, as they were defeating the ends of justice. The presentation was not clear enough as it did not specify the allocations quarterly, which would be necessary in order for the Committee to carry out oversight functions. He wanted this to be specified clearly in the APPs.

The Chairperson added that the Acting National Commissioner could request more time for his team to do more research and then come back with a more accurate presentation if needed.

Ms T Wana (ANC; Eastern Cape) asked for the total number of access registers available, and wanted to know if they were updated and available. She asked for how long the current vacancies were likely to remain unfilled. There were contradictions in the presentation on the labour relations. There was a specific issue of overtime in the conditions of employment. The OSD was discriminatory since fresh graduates benefitted more from the OSD than people who had been in the service for long. The Department and the management had not explained the notches, and she wondered how the OSD was designed to permit such discrimination.

Ms Manalope asked for a progress report on the Ministerial Task Team, asking what time frames were usually stipulated for established task teams and what the terms of reference guiding them were. She asked that the Department bring the Committee fully on board in drawing up a strategy to resolve the issue of vacancies, especially in relation to the large number of exiting staff. She asked how DCS would try to ensure that professionals currently in the system could be retained. She asked for more clarity on the contradictions on shift of funding from compensation of employees to goods and services. Vacancies should be treated with the utmost urgency, as they could affect almost all areas and programmes of the Department. She wondered if the DCS would be able to realise the NDP objectives if it did not have enough staff. If necessary, DCS should seek assistance in drawing up a strategy, and come back and report to the Committee immediately when such a strategy was available, instead of waiting till the end of the financial year. Progress reports on a quarterly basis should also be submitted to the Committee. She also wanted know what status of the CCTV cameras in all the correctional centers were.

Mr Modise replied that that DCS worked under a very difficult environment, with budgetary constraints experienced on a yearly basis that impacted on the Department’s ability to retain special skills. Throughout the public service, the establishments and departments were decreased over a number of years, and 45 000 was the decrease in the DCS. How well the DCS could respond to its specific environmental challenges was largely dependent on the people DCS had to deal with; they were, of course, people that had committed crimes at one time or the other. The resulting effect was that social workers, nurses, psychologists and other professionals on were not eager to stay in those environments. There was also a serious challenge of insufficient manpower. There had been a lot of resignations in the public service, but particularly in DCS, the South African Police Service and Department of Basic Education. DCS had taken a conscious decision, in its HR and strategic management divisions, to develop a turn-around strategy to address recruitment, specialisations, human resource development, conditions of employment and job retention. Once this was done, the Department would provide to the Committee the turn-around strategy that would assist in addressing these challenges for the short-term, medium-term and long-term. OSD was one of the challenges facing DCS. When DCS opted to adopt the OSD, executive management, DPSA and National Treasury had not actually taken into full consideration the proposals of DCS unions for implementation of the ODS, and it had led to several labour cases brought against the Department. Ways to resolve the issues around the OSD and overtime were currently being looked into.  Statistics showing the number of officials that had been found guilty of smuggling and providing unauthorised items to offenders, and details of how far the Department had gone with investigations and disciplinary enquiries were available, and could be provided to the Committee. He stressed that it was not only the officials who brought contraband into correctional centres, for visiting family members also often smuggled contraband such as hard drugs and firearms into the facilities and offenders might hide contraband items in their bodies when entering. Details of how the Department had fared in curbing smuggling over the past three years would also be provided to the Committee. A team was requested to assist the Department in addressing other issues raised. He requested Mr Mohapi for further details of the official that was allegedly suspended after reporting the alleged corruption in the recruitment process, for further investigation at the region and Head Office.

Mr Mokoena added points in relation to the OSD. The delay in implementing the second phase of OSD had resulted in the unintended consequence that new entrants into the labour market of the Department were on the same level as previous employees. OSD was meant to introduce new salary scales that would acknowledge the importance of the various critical disciplines in the justice value chain, and to acknowledge the experience of people who had been in the system for longer periods so that they could benefit more than the new intakes. This had not been achieved, partially because of the ongoing disputes. OSD itself was discriminatory - it excluded some transversal jobs such as HR jobs and general administration jobs like cleaners and messengers that were not considered to be critical enough to fall under its scope. Overtime was provided for, within the Labour Relations Act, and DCS usually made provision for overtime as well, but prior approval must be obtained, in order to reduce the numbers of hours overtime. Before the introduction of the seven-day establishment, workers were automatically paid overtime for Saturday and Sunday, even though they worked from Monday to Friday only. The wage on overtime during that period was between R1 and R2 billion on average. Management and organised labour realised that this was not sustainable, and that was why the seven-day establishment was introduced. Specific interventions on recruitment would be included in the Minister's budget speech to be delivered on 20 May. He noted that many of the current vacant positions had been advertised. The only challenge was for the Department to dedicate time to concentrating on the applications, by putting all other processes on hold and setting up panels that would focus on the recruitment process.

Ms Mosupye said that an assessment had been done on the CCTVs and the estimated cost of implementing this was around R2.1 billion, which the Department did not have at the moment. It was, however, trying to source funding and it was prioritising the centres where it would be most needed.

Mr Michalakis asked for clarification around the Development and Rehabilitation programme, particularly with regard to a certain programme conducted twice a year, where a large group of serious offenders were transported from Pretoria to Port Elizabeth.

Mr Modise replied that the transport of offenders from Pretoria to Port Elizabeth was a choir competition that was held on a yearly basis, where chorister offenders from the six regions were sent to a particular place decided upon by the Department, to compete as part of their rehabilitation.

Mr Smallberger said that rehabilitation was not only occurring within the walls of the correctional facilities. The choir competition that held in Port Elizabeth was one of the rehabilitation programmes of the Department, and which the DCS was considering making into an annual event. Other national events were also being arranged, for offenders and community services, organised by the Department. DCS had strict criteria on selecting offenders to participate in these programmes; all offenders had to comply with the security regulations and meet the conditions provided. The offenders that travelled to Port Elizabeth returned without any negative incidence.

Mr M Mohapi (ANC; Free State) wanted to know when designations would be filled by permanent staff, noting that the Acting Commissioner had been ‘acting’ since the last time he appeared before the Committee. He followed up on Mr Thobejane's question whether any of the warders alleged to have been involved in smuggling of cellular phones into the prison had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and, if so, what the consequences were. There had been an incident where one of the prison warders exposed corrupt recruitment practices and was suspended, and he wanted further details on the correctional centre and the status of the whistle-blower. He asked asked that quarterly reports from the DCS Internal Audit should be submitted to the Committee so that the challenges faced by the Department around internal audit could be addressed. He asked what the Department was doing to curb employees who performed remunerative work outside DCS, and what was the range of employees involved. He also noted that the DCS's fruitless expenditure was noted at R1.1 million, while the irregular expenditure was registered at R187 million, and he wanted to know the contriuting factors to both these figures, and what the DCS was doing to resolve them.

Mr Mokoena noted that interviews had been conducted for the positions of the National Commissioner, CDC Strategic management and the Chief Financial Officer, and the processes were already being handled by the Minister. He confirmed that the issue of employees performing remunerative work outside of the scope of the Department was an ongoing concern for DCS. However, a regime had been put in place to ensure that employees would need to receive approval whenever they wanted to engage in work outside the scope of the Department. DCS had a retention policy that did manage to contain the number of officials who received counter-offers at the point of exit from the Department in the previous financial year. DCS already had a dispensation where people were employed on contract, so the DCS merely had to check with the DPSA whether there was anything wrong with having flexible contracts. People would be treated more as employees of the Department than as consultants.

Ms Mareka said that the Department had tried to speed up some of the investigations around irregular and fruitless expenditure. Once an allegation was reported, the Department would investigate to determine if the expenditure was indeed irregular or fruitless, and if it was confirmed to be so then disciplinary action would be taken. The bottleneck experienced was on the cut of the investigations. Investigators had been appointed from different regions to facilitate decision making. However, there were certain instances where investigators gave conflicting reports. New investigators were reassigned in such cases and help was also sought from inspectors. It was discovered that some officials did not report cases of irregularities. A process was then introduced to amend the inspection tool, so that more cases could be reported. For the 2014/2015 financial year, there had been a reduction in the level of irregularities, especially with regard to price quotations for courses that people did not attend, and the new policy now provided that an explanation should be attached to the expenditure, for audit purposes.

Mr N Ligege, Acting Chief Financial Officer, DCS, said that DCS still had a challenge of capacity with respect to the development process that had not been entrenched throughout the regional and central levels of correctional services. There was, for instance, still a problem with the logging system and these issues were on a transversal level, and would require help from National Treasury. However, compensatory controls had been provided to help with manual reporting.

Ms Wana thanked the DCS on behalf of the Committee, noting that the questions posed by Members of the Committee to the Department were intended to ensure that the Department was vigilant at all times, particularly to avoid corruption.

Adoption of draft Committee Reports on budget votes 18, 20, 23
The Chairperson read out the draft Committee Reports on the approval of budget votes 18, 20 and 23, for, respectively, the Department of Correctional Services, Independent Police Investigative Directorate and Department of Police. These read that Members agreed that the reports had been considered.

Mr Michalakis said that it was proper to say that the Committee had "heard the report" but he would not like there to be mention of considering the Report, and he reserved the right to abstain from voting.

Mr Mohapi pointed out that the highest decision making body in terms of the budget vote was the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), and this was where voting would take place, not in the Select Committee. In essence, the Committee could only consider, and not vote for or against, the reports.

Mr Michalakis responded that the Committee only "heard" the report but the term “considered the report” implied that some sort of final decision had been made.
 
Other members disagreed and explained that the Committee had ‘heard the reports and concluded its deliberations’ on those Budget Votes. Budget Votes 18, 20 and 23 were agreed to, with members of the DA reserving their rights.

The meeting was adjourned.