Correctional Services Department 2001/2002:hearing

Meeting report

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
9 APRIL 2003
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2001/2002:HEARING

Chairperson: Mr F Beukman (NNP)

Documents handed out
Correctional Services Annual Report 2001/2002
Auditor General's Report for Correctional Services 2001/2002 [Part 5.2 of Annual Report]

SUMMARY
Members from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and from the Portfolio Committee on Public Service questioned the Department of Correctional Services delegation headed by Commissioner Mti. Their main point of referral was the Auditor General's Report for Correctional Services for 2001/2002. Issues of contention centered on the subjects of Merit Awards, the internal auditing capacity of the Department, and a time frame in which the department expected to successfully tackle its problems. The Committee gave the delegation one-week in which to provide a concrete time frame of when the Department's internal audit section would be fully staffed.

MINUTES
Mr F Beukman (Chairperson, NNP) called on Mr Smith to commence the questioning.

Mr Smith (ANC) asked the delegation to comment on the extent of corruption in Correctional Services.

Mr Mti (Commissioner, Correctional Services) stated that he indeed agree that corruption was a problem within Correctional Services. It should be noted that the problem was compounded by the nature of their 'clients' (prisoners).

Mr Smith inquired about the institutions within Correctional Services that were set up to deal with corruption. He asked whether the similarity of their functions could not be seen as duplication.

Mr Mti answered that the number of institutions set up to deal with corruption could not be considered duplication or wastage because they complemented each other in their functions. He explained that the Jali Commission, which looked at the various aspects of corruption in prisons, had their term of reference confined to only 8 prisons. The Correctional Services Special Investigative Unit (SIU) was approached by the Jali Commission to give assistance in areas where the Commission could not reach.

Mr Smith asked if the delegation felt there was duplication between the work of the Auditor General in the form of the Report, the Jali Commission and DCS's own internal auditing department.

Mr Mti replied that with regard to the Auditor General's Report, they had to ensure the issues that had been raised therein came with a timeframe adequate for them to be able to deal with the identified problems. Focussing on their internal auditing department, Mr Mti commented that the Department prescribes this body. They had had problems with it, which led to them outsourcing the service to external companies. He asserted that there was no duplication between the work done by the Jali Commission and that done by the Auditor General. The Department's approach from now on would be to build its own internal capacity.

Mr Smith asked the delegation if they could inform the Committee of a time frame which they envisaged as being sufficient for them to deal with the identified problems. He also asked what concrete steps were being taken to implement the findings of the various institutions.

Mr Mti explained that their strategy had 3 aspects: (i) preventative measures, (ii) investigation and (iii) sanction. They were particularly concerned with the aspect of sanctions, as they felt that they were too lenient to effectively deter corruption and malpractice within Correctional Services. Referring to the envisaged time-frame, Mr Mti stated that they did not know how far the Jali Commission was in its investigation. It was given 8 months from 8 August 2001 to conclude the investigations which were still in progress. He lightly suggested that they could make a calculation from this so as to determine a time-frame for themselves with regards to countering identified problems. He said that they had attempted to act on some of the recommendations of the various institutions. He mentioned that it had not been easy.

Mr Smith asked whether they had encountered any resistance from the trade unions with regards to their efforts to act on the recommendations of the various institutions. What was the input of the Unions was with regards to the skills shortage in Correctional Services? Were the Unions an impediment to their dealing with the problems within Correctional Services and if this was the case, had they a way of dealing with it?

Mr Mti stated that he had not found any meaningful engagement with unions on any issue. He said that the question of skills was something else. There was not a lot of resistance coming from Unions, but that they were starting to deal with it.

Mr Smith raised the issue of overcrowding in prisons. He noted that the problem is not exclusively the responsibility of Correctional Services, yet the Auditor General raises concern over the increase in the numbers within prisons. He asked if the delegation was able to indicate a time frame for a turn-around in this trend. What attempts Correctional Services had made to ensure this?

Mr Mti replied that "we all have the responsibility" to ensure that fewer people go to prison. Aawaiting-trial prisoners constituted a large number of the excess prisoners. This posed the question: who is responsible for unsentenced prisoners? They had suggested that there be a separate centre for awaiting-trial prisoners and were trying to engage the relevant departments in this regard. They supported all efforts of moral regeneration, especially considering the high number of juvenile prisoners and the fact that a lot of prisoners had HIV.

Mr Bell (DA) informed the delegation that he would be questioning them about Medical Services, as listed in the Auditor General' Report. He asked whether it was a Departmental decision to take up the medical aid scheme and he asked what decisions were taken regarding the deductions.

Mr Mti replied that over the years there had been a 100% contribution to staff medical aid by the Department. With the introduction of the Medical Schemes Act this changed. He felt it mandatory to state that there had been a lot of cooperation to deal with the issue from the side of management. The Auditor General's report under review by the Committee looked at the period from the year 2001 to the year 2002. There had been major movements with regards to reducing the contribution of the Department and ensuring the contribution of the employees since that time. Contributions from the side of employees had gotten better, especially since the beginning of 2003. He estimated that they were at that particular point 90-95% compliant with the Medical Schemes Act. Within a year's time, he was convinced that they would have dealt with this.

Mr Bell referred to the switch from the old medical aid service provider to the new one. He asked the delegation to give the Committee an indication as to what steps they had taken to ensure that the accuracy of the data transferred from the old service provider to the new one.

Mr Mti replied that they had agreed upon a migration plan from the old service provider to the new . They were trying to ensure that the new service provider moves from an adequate starting point.

Mr Bell explained that he would be asking the delegation about the South African Revenue Services (SARS) and the fringe-benefit tax. He asked how far Correctional Services had gone with negotiations in this regard.

Mr Mti replied that he personally was interacting with the SARS. He was disappointed with his managers for not performing adequate follow-up on the matter, but expressed satisfaction at the cooperation of the SARS. They would have to negotiate from the time of the contribution until now.

Mr Bell asked if the SIU and the Jali Commission had picked up that there were major cases of corruption within the Medcor medical aid system. He asked the delegation to give a firm record as to what preventative steps they had taken and would be taking to guard against potential acts of corruption.

Mr Mti answered that as a result of work that was done, they had drawn upon a lot of experience in investigating corruption to ensure that they were stricter in their controls and administration. Part of the responsibility of taking preventative steps against potential acts of corruption lay with the Board of Trustees. They were working closer with the new service provider to tighten up controls. He admitted they could not say that they did not have problems. He highlighted the notion that criminals also have their own 'workshops' aimed at trying to beat the system.

Mr Bell asked what their current level of sponsorship was towards the medical aid scheme, and whether they were moving towards the one-third sponsorship which is now mandatory.

Mr Mti stated that their sponsorship towards the medical aid scheme stood at 80% and they were moving towards the one-third mandatory sponsorship.

Mr Bell noted that their contribution had improved greatly in the previous year. He stated that they should be congratulated for this.

Mr Bloem (ANC) asked if, following the department bringing the medical aid scheme back under its control, there was any measure in place to deal with the internal review and reporting mechanism shortfalls, especially those picked up by the Auditor General.

Mr Mti said that attempts had been made to deal with some of these issues, yet one could not say that they could not find any deficiencies in their system. There was an improvement, however. He mentioned that there were delays in the process, which contributed to problems not being detected early.

Mr Bell asked if it was not cheaper to obtain their medical supplies from the Department of Health rather than from pharmaceutical companies. Secondly, he noted that investigations had revealed that service providers were involved in multi-million Rand corruption. He asked whether there were any checks and balances in place from the side of Correctional Services to monitor the situation on an ongoing basis.

Mr Mti replied that they were trying to deal with the identified problems and the new service provider was helping them out in this regard. The bodies are there but the question was whether they were able to deal with the challenges.

Mr Bell expressed his main concern as being that 80% of the money for the medical aid scheme was coming from the Government. If there was some form of corruption relating to this money, then they had a serious problem.

Mr Mti stated that their responsibility was to deal with those people that they did find.

Mr Nair (ANC) brought up the subject of Merit Awards which were made either erroneously or were misplaced. Millions were involved in these discrepancies. In some instances, Head Office had not responded to questions regarding these discrepancies. He asked:
- What measures Correctional Services had in place to avoid the shortcomings brought forward by the Auditor General.
- Was there any administration in place to deal with the awarding of merits?
- Was any disciplinary action taken against the erroneous payment of Merit Awards?
- Was there any recovery of money lost through the erroneous payment of merit awards?
- Were there performance criteria guiding the awarding of Merit Awards.
- Was there a link between Merit Awards and Performance Awards.
- Were the 'top dogs' receiving merit to the exclusion of the officials at the bottom?
He asserted that the department itself was supposed to have conducted an investigation into this matter.

Mr Mti replied that for some time they had been attempting to recover the money lost through the erroneous awarding of Merit Awards. This was not easy process. He could not comment on any retrieval at that particular moment. The Merit Awards system had come to be about individuals using the process to give opportunity to friends. Commitment for the retrieval of these funds was lacking from managers. They had not taken any action against guilty officials as yet as they were responding more by trying to retrieve the money. They were trying to tackle the shortcomings identified by the Auditor General, even to the point that they had suspended the awarding of merits until such time that the identified problems had been attended to. The Performance Assessment and Merit Awards systems were different, though they were reviewing the Performance Assessment system. They were trying to introduce tighter control over self-assessment, stating an example that managers would given themselves five points out of five, a rating that even the President of the country would find difficult to obtain.

Mr Mashimbe (Chair) made the assertion that where there is a lack of policy, one would get a festival of thieves. Following this, he asked whether Correctional Services thus needed a review of policy. He also requested further clarity with regards to distinguishing between Merit Awards and Performance Assessment.

Mr Bloem (ANC) also requested clarity with regards to the difference between Merit Awards and Performance Assessments. "Following the abolishment of the Merit Awards" within Correctional Services, he expressed a desire to know whether there was a review conducted to assess the guidelines that govern the awarding of the Merit Awards.

Mr Mti replied that he did not know of an abolishment of Merit Awards by Correctional Services. With regards to the assessment of the guidelines governing them, he explained that Merit Awards criteria were formulated in line with outlines provided by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). Referring to the question regarding policy review, Mr Mti mingled it with the Merit Awards question and asserted that the issue went beyond policy. He stated that the instrument did need to be tightened. Moreover, they needed to ensure that there was a focus on managers where the abuse of Merit Awards is most likely to occur.

Mr Bloem demanded to know the actual criteria for the awarding of the Merit Awards, stating that to him it seemed as if it was an award system for friends.

Mr Mti replied that there has been a tightening up of the instrument in recent times. The challenge still remains of how it is managed. They are still bound to get problems. There were clear criteria within the Performance Agreement and as part of the job description that guided the awarding of these Merit Awards. One could not say that they could deal with the issue to everyone's satisfaction. He added that there was a Moderation Committee that dealt with complaints on these issues.

Ms Mothoagae (ANC) stated that it was still not clear whether the money that was erroneously awarded through Merit Awards had been recovered. She asserted that the question was that of the Department having to investigate its self.

Mr Fakie (Auditor General) pointed out the difficulty inherent in any performance management system. With the current policy in place, was the Commissioner satisfied that the process to manage Merit Awards ensured the majority of the awards went to those who were deserving?

Mr Mti answered that the process had been improved, especially considering that there were now documents to provide for every individual. He was not convinced that they were obliged to pay these Merit Awards, especially following the Auditor General's report. He reiterated that it was difficult to retrieve the money erroneously awarded through Merit Awards, and that they had not yet had any success to speak about.

Mr Kannemeyer (ANC) firstly presented a brief as a background that would inform his line of questioning. In this brief, he gave justification for their confrontational style of questioning by mentioning that the responsibility was also on them as the Committee to limit the space and extent of corruption. He stated that the mandate for this type of engagement was explained in the Velaphanda Strategic Plan, handed to the Committee by the Department of Correctional Services in the previous year. He also mentioned the President's State of the Nation address and the Finance Minister's budget speech as grounds on which they could afford to demand accountability from the Department. The Department's legislative responsibilities were spelled out in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). The reason why they were attempting to engage the Department in this manner was because it seemed as if it was failing to comply with its first responsibility. Their aim would be to dialogue on what steps and measures were taken since the previous year's report and what steps and measures were going to be taken from this hearing.

Mr Kannemeyer then requested from the delegation a briefing on the success or failure of the Vukuza programme mentioned in the previous year's report.

Mr Mti replied that the problems with internal control within the Department, including with finances, had a lot to do with the lack of commitment from individuals and also a lack of capacity from those who were given responsibility. The lack of proper utilization of personnel is also a problem. At that moment their restructuring programme was trying to ensure that correct placement occurs within the Department.

Mr Kannemeyer interjected by asking whether Vukuza did not address these problems. If people were not doing what they were supposed to be doing, they should be encouraged to leave.

Mr Mti reiterated once more that the problems were not easy. They could not really go to each and every person. With Vukuza, there was a lot of sensitization regarding budgetary controls. With the new restructuring, the level of financial competence was boosted. Managing a R72 million budget needs effective personnel. In his opinion, the challenge has to be one of commitment. He had a major challenge mobilising his managers at all levels and the struggle was to put this thinking and culture into people's minds.

Regarding the time frame for addressing its problems, Mr Kannemeyer pleaded with the delegation to provide the Committee with the most minimum of their expectations. In their report of July 2002, problems were detected with their internal audit section. He asked what the current situation was.

Mr Mti replied that they could not really speak of a properly functioning audit section within the Department.

Mr Kannemeyer commented that this bordered on unacceptability. He strongly requested that the delegation provide them with a report in writing so that they could fully understand the impact of the lack of movement from July 2002.

Mr Mti explained that they could contextualize the problem. He stated that the key vacancies they had were not at entry level, but in positions which required professionals. They were thus not easy to fill, especially considering the levels of salaries they required.

Mr Kannemeyer commented that the Department was not helping itself by returning to Parliament year after year and just stating what its problems were. He then asked when Mr Mti, as the Commissioner, would like to see a fully functioning audit system in place within the Department.

Mr Mti replied that he would like to see a fully functioning audit system in place yesterday, as a description of his urgency. One has accepted some constraints. He said that he would not like to give time frames that were unrealistic.

Mr Kannemeyer said that he would not let Mr Mti get away. He demanded that he provide them with a time frame. He asked if he was satisfied that his senior management team was able to tackle the challenges facing their department. He insisted that the delegation come back to the Committee within a week to inform them of when their internal audit department could be fully staffed.

Mr Mti said that they were going to accept the one-week grace period. Regarding his senior management team, Mr Mti stated that he had made reference to the issue of the overall strengthening of the leadership. He said that there were challenges here.

Dr Rapea (Deputy Director-General, Department of Public Service and Administration) made a brief presentation to the Committee regarding the issues raised in the hearing. He commented about the issues of Merit Awards, disability and leave grants, the Auditor General's Report and the work of the Jali Commission.

Mr Bloem noted that he would be asking questions about sick leave and overtime. On the subject of sick leave, he asked what role the trade unions were playing in the reported problems on sick leave. With regards to overtime, he asked who decided on who should work overtime.

Mr Mti replied that he had not had the opportunity for constant engagement with unions, so he could not speak on their opinions on sick leave. Regarding overtime, he explained that the decision was more between the area manager and his staff. He admitted that there is an abuse of the system at times. A solution would be to fill the vacant posts so as not to create the opportunity to abuse the overtime system.

Ms Ngakela (ANC) asked whether Correctional Services had considered the issue of electronic monitors as a tool to monitor corruption.

Mr Mti replied that that the assessment of this tool had been because there were questions about how helpful it was actually going to be. He suggested that they needed to engage communities. He doubted that the instrument would be helpful in the rehabilitation process. It was a nice thing to have, but was not essential.

Mr Smith concluded by thanking the delegation for their presence. He stated that the Committee took it into account the Department needed assistance. He said that a challenge would be to change the cultures and sub-cultures that already exist within the Department.

Mr Beukman (Chairperson, SCOPA) stated that there was need for big improvement within the Department and SCOPA would be monitoring their progress. He mentioned that there would be a closed meeting for SCOPA after the lunch break.

The meeting was adjourned.