Department of Correctional Services’ Strategic Plan & Budget: briefing

Meeting report

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
10 May 2006
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES’ STRATEGIC PLAN & BUDGET: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Kgoshi L M Mokoena (ANC Limpopo)

Documents handed out:
Department of Correctional Services Strategic Plan for 2006/07-2010/11
Department of Correctional Services Budget 2006/2007 Financial Year

SUMMARY
Members raised questions around the phasing in of the Seven Day Establishment and phasing out of the overtime and whether it was cost effective. They were concerned about the much spoken about new-generation prisons and whether or not these prisons would be built. Concern was also expressed that the overcrowding in prisons did not serve the Department of Correctional Services’ rehabilitation aims. The Department felt that instead of having to respond to negative publicity all the time, it should be performing their task of corrections and rehabilitation.

MINUTE
Strategic Plan 2006/07 – 2010/11 Presentation
Mr T Motseki (Chief Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Services) said that the delegation hoped to address some of the issues that had been raised in recent weeks. He said that it was unfortunate that the DCS would present its strategic plan for the present financial year without having briefed the Committee on the events if the previous one.

He briefly highlighted some of the DCS’s successes during 2005/06. The special remissions were an unprecedented success. DCS had started the phasing in of the Seven Day Establishment and had managed to come to an agreement with the unions. There was also an improvement in the administration of the Department. The Department also succeeded in resolving many of the issues relating to the administration of the Medcor medical scheme. The launch of the Centres of Excellence was also an important step towards the implementation of the aims of the White Paper on Corrections (2004).

The HIV prevalence survey had been rolled out in earnest from February 2006. This survey was important since it affected both offenders and officials. The Grootvlei facility in the Free State had also been designated an anti-retroviral site.

The Department was working with the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) on implementing the recommendations of the Jali Commission and eradicating corruption.

The Department was very proud that Commissioner Linda Mti had been appointed vice-president of the African wing of the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA) and would be the country’s coordinator of the United Nation’s Commission for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

Budget 2006/07 Presentation
Mr P Gillingham (Chief Financial Officer: Correctional Services) briefed the Committee on the Department’s Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) baseline allocations per programme and sub-programme as well as their budget allocation per region and province. He also briefly explained the virement process.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that so much had been said about the DCS. The delegation should use this opportunity to explain their position.

Mr A Manyosi (ANC Eastern Cape) pointed out that the DCS had reported that it had come to an agreement with the unions as far as the introduction of the Seven Day Establishment was concerned, yet the strategic plan and budget indicated that overtime would still be paid in accordance with the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA)

Mr Z Ntuli (ANC KwaZulu-Natal) said that the unions had preferred overtime over the Seven Day Establishment. He asked whether the DCS could give an indication of the mood among the workforce at the moment.

Mr D Worth (DA Free State) agreed that officials had been upset about the phasing out of the overtime since this had been a supplement to their income. DCS reported that that it would embark on rescheduling in order to reduce hours yet from 1 April 2008 it planned to pay overtime again. He wondered whether this would not cost more rather than less since new staff would have to be employed.

Mr M Mzizi (IFP Gauteng) wondered how the DCS differentiated between public holidays and Sundays especially considering that it proposed to pay officials double on public holidays and one and a half times their normal rate on Sundays. Normally people were paid double on Sundays.

Mr Shiceka (ANC Gauteng) asked how many officials would need to be recruited for the Seven Day Establishment to be successfully implemented. The Committee was given the financial figures but had no figures in terms of the actual number of people that would be needed.

Mr N Mack (ANC Western Cape) asked whether the phasing in of Seven Day Establishment had so far improved working conditions. He asked where the DCS spent the money that had been saved due to its introduction.

Mr Motseki said that it was estimated that the DCS would need 8301 people to successfully implement the Seven Day Establishment. It had exceeded the intake target set for 2005/06. He would forward the exact numbers to the Committee at a later stage. Savings had been generated from the phasing out of overtime and excess funds from the medical aid scheme. These savings had been used for the procurement if other services.

Mr Gillingham explained that DCS ran a seven-day establishment – it needed to have officials at facilities seven days a week. DCS used to pay officials overtime for working on Saturdays and Sundays. This system was flawed, open to abuse and very expensive. The Seven-Day Establishment would ensure that staff would be available seven days a week. Officials would not necessarily start their working week on a Monday. Training colleges could only train a certain number of people per year. The phasing in of this system would take at least three years. The target was to have sufficient staff available by the end of March 2008.

He explained that even with the Seven Day Establishment the budget would have to make provision for overtime because the BCEA prescribed it, and because there might be instances, which might require additional shifts which would result in abnormal overtime being paid.

Mr Manyosi requested that the Department explain the long-term implications of the re-employment or re-instatement of officers. He wondered whether re-employment did not have many disadvantages.

Mr Motseki explained that the DCS had taken the decision to re-employ rather than reinstate because some officials had been dismissed and reinstatement would place a responsibility on DCS to offer officials their former positions. Some had received pension plan payouts already. It was hoped that redeployment would contribute to better working conditions.

Mr Manyosi was curious about what the DCS’s direct contribution to the accelerated shared growth initiative (ASGISA) would be. Mr Z Ntuli wondered what DCS’s contribution to the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) would be.

Mr Motseki admitted that the DCS had no programme aimed specifically at ASGISA as yet. The DCS did have training programmes in place.

Mr Manyosi was concerned about the adequacy of the DCS’s budget in terms of achieving its goals. He wondered whether the prison population was increasing or decreasing. He wondered whether the allocations made to regions reflected the population of the region, the prison population or the levels of crime in the respective regions.

Mr Motseki said that the allocation each prison received was based on the number of offenders in that institution.

Mr Shiceka expressed doubt as to whether the new parole policy was working. He informed the Committee of a Lusikisiki case where a man had been sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on charges of domestic violence. He had served a third of his sentence already but re-integration activities had not yet started. The member was concerned that the lack of implementation of the policy impacted negatively as far as overcrowding was concerned.

Mr Worth wondered what responsibility parole boards carried in terms of the release of recurring offenders who commit more crimes upon their early release upon parole.

Mr Ntuli asked what progress had been made as far as the overcrowding at the Durban Westville facility.

Mr Motseki responded that the new parole boards stemmed from the promulgation that took place in 2004. Members had discussed the appointment of chairpersons. The DCS would still rely on the Committee’s assistance in terms of their appointment.

Parole worked with two systems: one system provided that all persons sentenced before 1 October 2004 to serve half of their sentence before being considered for parole. Those sentenced after 2004 had to serve a third of their sentence before being considered for parole. He emphasised that offenders who met the requirements could apply for parole but their application could still be rejected. The case the member referred to and the crime that had been committed sounded very serious. If the parole board was satisfied that an offender’s behaviour indicated that he could be released and whether or not he or she had a social environment into which he or she could be released parole might be granted.

He said that overcrowding still posed a serious challenge. DCS, along with the departments of justice and security would evaluate the management of the awaiting trial detainees.

Mr Shiceka pointed out that some areas were not so enthusiastic about the implementation of Section 62(f) of the Correctional Services Act or alternative sentencing. This provision could assist in reducing the prison population. He asked whether the special remissions had been a success and was curious about the rate of recidivism.

Mr Motseki remembered a case where a DCS staff member had referred a case under Section 62(f) only to be told by the magistrate that they were undermining the authority of the court. DCS was in the process of meeting with magistrates across the country to facilitate how they could best make use of this Section. He hoped that the Social Reintegration Framework might create further opportunities for the implementation of this section. He emphasised that communities also had a role to play. There was no reason why a chairperson of a ward committee for example could not supervise activities undertaken by a parolee.

Mr Ntuli said that the DCS’s core business centred on corrections and rehabilitation. He wondered how the DCS rated themselves in this area. He asked how many psychologists and mental health workers were employed to assist in this regard. At the previous meeting with the Minister of Correctional Services there had been talk of a reintegration programme that would ensure that offenders would have people to receive them upon their release. He asked what the progress in this regard has been.

Mr Motseki said that the DCS was in the process of revising their social reintegration programme. The DCS had in the past mainly checked up on whether or not persons were complying with their parole conditions. It was looking into supervising and assisting parolees and probationers. Parole and probation served to ensure stability of the family. This would go hand in hand with a strong sense of victim empowerment and reparation. The process would include a strong development component. He acknowledged that there was a strong public debate around the issue but said that the DCS was also aware that the public could be very intolerant of people who had been in prison. He said that then implementation of the White Paper and its provisions for social reintegration would start in earnest.

Mr Manyosi asked what the post-release success rate of the Provision of Existing Skills and Education Programme was.

Mr Mack said that it was difficult for ex-offenders to find employment due to the stigma attached to having been in prison. He suggested that the DCS should offer entrepreneurial training and assistance to offenders so that they could start their own businesses upon their release.

Mr Motseki said that the DCS in collaboration with the DPW would set aside a budget, which would enable the DCS to select specific centres of excellence that could provide services to that facility. DCS and the DPW would pool their resources to provide skills and thus improve the employability of offenders.

Mr Mack commented on the fact that the incubator programme ha to be abandoned and that contractors now chose their own sub-contractors. He said that sub-contactors were often at a disadvantage and ended up bankrupt or showing no profit. Offenders who had done the earlier suggested entrepreneurial course could be subcontracted.

Mr Shiceka wondered how the DCS would go about the maintenance of facilities which would be their own responsibility from 1 April 2008 and no longer that of the Department of Public Work.

Ms F Nyanda (ANC Mpumelanga) was concerned that the DCS was looking for contractors when the biggest community centre in Mpumalanga was being built entirely by the South African Police Services’ (SAPS) own contractors, labour, etc.

Mr Motseki said that the Department would take financial accounting responsibility but someone else might perform some functions. The DCS would plan its own budget and pay for services. DCS would establish the capacity to perform these tasks. They hoped to come to an agreement with DPW soon. So far only SAPS was exempt of the service agreement.

Mr Le Roux said that the controversy around the fencing at Zonderwater would have to be cleared up since they were casting a shadow over the whole Department. The presentation indicated that security work had been done by using savings that had been carried over from capital works and the cutting of staff expenses. On the one hand the Department was cutting down on its staff, but it also complained that it did not have enough money to recruit more officials.

Mr Motseki said that the recent criticism of the DCS in the media was "regrettable". It sounded like desperation to implicate persons. Neither she nor the CFO could recall ever being asked to do anything that was not above board. Such allegations were malicious. The situation was "very emotional" for the entire Department and especially for the Commissioner who had been accused of taking bribes. The Deputy Minister gad even been accused of lying. He emphasised that DCS wanted to spend their time doing what they had been tasked to and not responding to allegations.

Mr Motseki that the media had reported that the DCS had used money to have fencing installed but that the materials for this project were just "lying around" at the Zonderwater facility. He explained that the contract provided for the procurement and delivery of the materials with the building to commence after March. Anyone who had expected a project of this size, which only commenced in December to be finished by March, was "unfair".

Mr Shiceka said that the DCS’s explanations about the building of the new generation prisons were unsatisfactory. There was talk of irregularities in the procurement process. He said that since senior management had been implicated it would have been useful if they could have been present at the meeting. He emphasised that the Committee was tasked with ensuring that state resources were managed appropriately.

Mr J Le Roux (DA Eastern Cape) said that to his understanding space was the biggest challenge the DCS was facing. Rehabilitation was dependant on the levels of overcrowding in prisons. The building of the new prisons should have been a matter of priority. He wondered who had been responsible for the first quantity surveying estimates, which were later found to be incorrect.

Mr Gillingham said that the DPW was responsible for the calculation of baseline allocations. When the DCS became aware of the error in the estimates they could not get a satisfactory explanation. The DCS then took an informed decision make use of an independent quantity surveyor.

Mr Worth said that the DSC’s baseline allocation decreased towards 2009. Already R80,8 million had been spent on the earthworks for three of the prisons, but plans to start building only one have been finalised. He wondered whether the Auditor General would not consider this wasteful and fruitless expenditure, since only one prison might end up being built.

Mr Worth doubted, considering the construction boom, whether DCS would be able to afford the new generation prisons at a later stage if they could not afford them now.

Mr Gillingham pointed out that the DCS never claimed to not have sufficient funds and they never approached National Treasury for additional funds. Shortly after the report the unfortunate incident at the private facility Khutsong occurred – staff at the facility withheld their labour. This forced DCS to take 740 offenders into their already overpopulated system.

He emphasised that the DCS could not outsource its core responsibility. After the receipt of the independent quantity surveyor, the DCS with the assistance of the DPW and the technical unit of the National Treasury decided on the procurement process that would be used in future. On 6 March management decided that in future the private sector would design the facility "by concept" since the DCS had already spent much money on the design of a facility. The private sector would find a site, finance the building of the facility and maintain it for a minimum of 15 years (with the possibility of extending it for another 5 years). The DCS would be responsible for the operation of the facility. The advantage of this system was that the DCS did not have to have all the money upfront and could use the capital budget to make a contribution to the repayment of the building. This would be a much more cost-effective way to go about the building of the prisons. This process enjoyed the full support of the Department and National Treasury.

Since the DCS had invested most of the money in Kimberley, the DCS would continue with this prison. Nigel and Klerksdorp would be built on the new concept. The Leeuwkop facility would be subjected to a viability study and environmental assessment. He said that this site was in a very expensive residential area that would not be easily accessible. Officials might not be able to send their children to the schools in this area.

All the DCS’s procurement processes were subject to an audit by the Auditor General’s office. Due to the media coverage the DCS had requested the AG to reaudit
the previous year’s statements. The Department would forward the results of this audit as soon as they became available.

Mr Mack warned that if Government tenders were published there might be an automatic increase in industry costs.

Mr Worth noted that some of the new security equipment was not working. He asked whether the DCS placed conditions upon firms to ensure that equipment would be maintained.

Mr Ntuli asked what had been done to resolve the issues around anti-retroviral (ARV) roll-out that had led to the hunger strike at Durban Westville prison. Mr Motseki informed the Committee that the hunger strike for ARVs had been resolved. The dispute had occurred because the Department of Health could not administer ARVs to people who did not have identity documents. The DCS negotiated with the Department of Home Affairs who would now provide ID documents to these inmates.

Mr A Moseki (ANC North West) asked whether the DCS had a performance tool in place that could measure the performance of senior management. Inefficiency was a challenge across all government departments. He asked whether an improvement had been noticed.

Mr Motseki said that all senior management was required to spend at least 5 days of the year at the work face. It was hoped that this would improve their understanding of the work environment. All officials were expected to indicate how they would implement the Batho Pele principles.

Mr Worth said that there was talk of using close-circuit television in order to cut out travelling from correctional facilities to courts. He asked where the DCS’s responsibility began and ended ion terms of transporting offenders and awaiting trial detainees to and from courts. Mr Moseki asked what the DCS’s response to the escape of the "Boeremag" awaiting trial detainees was.

Mr Gillingham explained that once the DCS received the date of an awaiting trial detainee’s (ATD) appearance in court they were responsible for locating the offender and making sure that he was available on that date. They were then handed over to the SAPS. The DCS’s responsibility stretched only up until the point the ATD was handed over and resumed once he or she was returned to the facility. Sentenced offenders were the responsibility of the DCS who was responsible for their transport to and from the court.

Mr Moseki said that he had previously requested a copy of the DCS’s organogram. It was important to know how an organisation was structured when considering that organisation’s budget.

Mr Le Roux reminded the Committee that in the DCS’s previous budget a large amount of money had been set aside for the building of new offices. He wondered what had become of this project.

Ms Nyanda asked whether the DCS had advertised for social workers. She wondered whether there were no qualified social workers or whether the DCS had not advertised the posts.
She was curious as to why the DCS would be recruiting one doctor per region, when the budget made provision for increases for three doctors per region.

Mr Moseki wondered which other Departments the DCS had to compete with in their recruitment of scarce skills.

Ms Nyanda mentioned that in some regions (Nelspruit, Barberton, Witbank) applicants had to include R1000 when applying for a position in DCS. Could the DCS comment on this situation?

Mr Gillingham said that DCS completed with other departments as well as the private sector when it came to the recruitment of staff like doctors, nurses, etc. Often the DCS invested in professionals only to lose them to the private sector.

He explained that at least one facility in a region had to have a hospital. The objective was that such hospitals needed to have at least one doctor in residence. He pointed out that these positions were advertised but that they were poorly responded to. During the last recruitment drive only one person responded to an advertisement for six positions and then failed to appear fro the interview. The DCS would review its salary packages to see how they could make them more attractive.

Mr Motseki explained that the Department outsourced their recruitment. This was done precisely to circumvent the bribery some officials had been accused of. There was no direct link between the DCS and the recruitment agency so he was not in a position to respond to the allegations of bribery.

Mr Moseki said that gender equity was an important and fundamental priority. He requested the DCS to give an indication of the progress that had been made in its gender representation. He also wondered how other target groups such as disabled people were represented.

Mr Motseki reminded the Committee that the new regional commissioner for the Eastern Cape was a woman. The DCS had received a mandate from Cabinet to improve how they fared in the area of gender equity. The Department was trying. He would forward the exact figures at a later stage.

Questions the Department would respond to in writing:
Mr Moseki requested greater clarity on what the DCS would do in terms of gender equity and affirmative action.

Mr Shiceka requested that the Committee receive a copy of the Jali Commission’s report.

The Chairperson asked the DCS to explain their recruitment policy. He wondered why the Department was outsourcing a function it could very easily perform.

The Chairperson was pleased that the DCS had indicated that it would investigate the massive increase in the tender costs. He requested the delegation to supply the Committee with a more detailed report on this matter.

The Chairperson pointed out that the DCS should not wait upon the Committee to invite them for briefings. They should feel free to address the Committee at any time and should be assured that the Committee would call on them when it needed clarification. He informed the Committee that Minister Balfour had said that he could appear before the Committee prior to the Budget Vote.

The meeting was adjourned.