Correctional Services 2009/10 Annual Report: input by Auditor General, CSPRI, NICRO, POPCRU & Parliamentary Researcher

Correctional Services

18 October 2010
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee received submissions on the DCS 2009/2010 Annual Report from the Office of the Auditor-General, the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI), the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO), the Police and Prisons' Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and the Committee researcher. The Committee researcher raised numerous critical concerns about the Department’s performance management which were repeated by each successive speaker. He highlighted the problems with the technical aspects of the report such as inconsistencies in the format and presentation which made the information inaccessible and confusing. He contexualised the Department's performance in terms of its alignment with government policy and direction. He noted that the Department had been tasked with the establishment of a transformed, integrated, modernized, properly-resourced and well managed criminal justice system. Most importantly the need for the establishment of a Remand Detention Centre to deal with awaiting trial detainees and the systems improvement in correctional facilities to reduce the high incidence of repeat offences, had been prioritised. Both these priorities informed the debate on the serious challenges of overcrowding, awaiting trial detainees and the high rate of recidivism raised by most presenters.

The Auditor-Genera had given a qualified audit opinion which was the third consecutive year that the Department had received such an opinion. The matter on which the opinion was based remained tangible assets and problems with the verification process and inconsistencies in the asset register. There were also incidents of irregular expenditure and material losses and an adjustment had been made at the beginning of the financial year for which supporting documentation still had to be supplied.

The CSPRI presentation drew attention to questions about the Department's compliance with the Correctional Service Act and minimum standards of human detention. Pervasive overcrowding, the fact that some offenders were in their cells for 23 hours per day and the continued detention of persons awaiting trial were serious contraventions of the Act. He identified the core issue that 50% of the people in custody awaiting trial would leave prison without going to trial. Their cases would be struck from the roll or withdrawn for insufficient evidence. The conclusion to be drawn was that it was the wrong people who had been arrested or that they were arrested on insufficient evidence. The implication thus was that 30,000 people were in prison without purpose and they could be released. He noted that the Department had significant liabilities emanating from litigation. He found that internal and external accountability in the Department was lacking and this was seen in their poor programme and financial management.

NICRO supported the grave concerns about the Department's performance and the implications of overcrowding on the implementation of programmes and the Corrections Sentence Plans which should be provided for each offender. The high recidivism rate, the negative aspects of institutionalisation, gangs and drugs and the collusion of staff were also highlighted. The Department was criticised for its slow progress in effecting positive change, their skewed priorities, their lack of accurate data and lack of firm commitment to the rehabilitation of offenders and the necessity for family centred services.

POPCRU interrogated the building of new correctional facilities, the Public Private Enterprises (PPPs) and the issue of awaiting trial detainees.

Members were overwhelmingly negative about the performance of the Department in the past financial year. They acknowledged some successful achievements such as the Imbeleko Project which aimed at creating a child friendly environment for offenders with young children. They noted the appointment of the new National Commissioner which hopefully would provide the stability in leadership the Department needed. Questions were raised on a broad range of pressing issues such as the educational qualifications of management to the failure of the Department to insure its vehicles. They raised the recurrent problems in asset management as noted in the audit report, the lack of accountability, the lack of management skills and financial skills of staff, capacity constraints, the appointment of interns to address the problems in the asset register when there was a 65% vacancy rate in the internal audit  section. They debated the Chairperson's suggestion for the establishment of centres of expertise instead of the present concept of centres of excellence. They also debated whether the Department should be responsible for accommodating awaiting trial prisoners or whether it was the responsibility of the Police or the Justice Department.

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had engaged extensively with the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) on its Annual Report in the past week and they would be receiving submissions from stakeholders after which the Committee would prepare its report for Parliament. Briefly reviewing the issues and challenges which the Committee had addressed in its mandatory oversight role in the past 18 months, he expressed his concern that it had not contributed as much value as expected. The Committee had fruitful discussions in that time and agreed on principle on issues such as the alignment of the budget, sentence backlogs, the less-than-24-months-sentence plan, recommendations made by stakeholders and challenges around escapes, deaths and parole. Having noted all that had been said, the question to be asked was what had to be done moving forward. Although they were in the process of evaluation, the Committee should also determine the way forward. Stakeholders could assist by identifying five key areas that must be addressed and which would contribute to meaningful change in how the Department operated and which would benefit the people of South Africa. These priorities could be used as a focus for the Committee moving forward.

He commented that there had been discussions and adjustments but that there had not been significant change in the past 16 years and neither had there been a successful implementation of the White Paper on Correctional Services or the Act. Failures of the past should be acknowledged and successes should be built upon and the Committee should influence the Department in the direction of radical and meaningful change. Personally he felt that the idea of 'centres of excellence' had seemed a good idea but in his experience they had not produced the expected results. He posed the question whether it was time to move from the concept of 'centres of excellence ' to the concept of 'centres of expertise'. This would entail identifying locations for such centres, for example Kimberley could be the Centre of Education (up to Grade 12) and Boksburg was suggested as the Centre of Bakery. The advantages would be that artisans would not have to be spread throughout the country. It was frequently reported that there were not enough teachers at sites and if they were in one locale they could be better utilised. The immediate challenge would be the outcry if youngsters were moved far away from their families. His counter-argument was that a balance should be sought between the deprivation of family contact and the rehabilitative value to the individual and society of receiving literacy, educational and occupational skills which would assist in making them better human beings and which would help ensure that they could be gainfully employed on release. He felt this concept offered a more sustainable option and he invited comment and debate from stakeholders and the Committee.

His second suggestion related to the problem of overcrowding which prevented rehabilitation and other programmes from taking place. Referring to awaiting trial detainees, the Chairperson asked if the pressure should not be placed where it belonged. He noted the move towards remand centres but said that the Police and the Justice Department were responsible for those awaiting trial, and they should be urged to finalise their cases as soon as possible. If they carried the responsibility, they would have to carry the financial burden and this might prompt them to move faster and would open the space for DCS to do the rehabilitation. The Remand Detention Centres in their current form should be re-looked at as he felt there was no pressure on the Police and the Judiciary to finalise their cases. Within the context of the qualified audit report and the challenges that he had highlighted, he encouraged the stakeholders to come up with meaningful suggestions that the Committee could focus on moving forward.
 
The Chairperson noted the sequence of the items on the agenda which was firstly a presentation from the Committee researcher, secondly, a presentation from the office of the Auditor-General followed by the submissions from CSPRI, NICRO and POPCRU.

Summary and analysis of the 2009/10 Annual Report of the DCS
In his introductory remarks, Mr Mpho Mathabathe, Committee researcher, indicated his agreement with the Chairperson's thinking around 'centres of expertise' and reiterated that the Committee should focus on specific areas that they could champion and be proud of looking back.

Guiding the members through the most pertinent observations in his analysis of the Annual Report, he noted that in terms of its technical aspects it was an improvement on the previous year but more could be done to make it more reader friendly and understandable. While an attempt had been made to report on all aspects of the strategic plans of the Department, insufficient reasons were given for the non achievement of targets. A serious drawback was that some of the indicators could not be linked to corresponding targets and in some instances the reported information was not in the same format which made it difficult to ascertain whether the target had been achieved or not.

In terms of the alignment with government policy and direction, he referred to the two focus areas outlined for the DCS by the President in his State of the Nation address in 2009. Firstly the Department was tasked with the establishment of a transformed, integrated, modernised, properly resourced and well managed criminal justice system. Included in this brief was the establishment of a Remand Detention Branch to deal specifically with the issues affecting awaiting trial detainees (ATDs) While some progress had been made in this area, the Chairperson's comments were relevant in terms of the pressure placed on the DCS by the overwhelming number of ATDs. Mr Mbathabathe noted that little was mentioned on progress on the establishment of dedicated remand detention centres in the Annual Report.

Secondly, systems in Correctional systems were to be improved to reduce repeat offending and contribute to successful rehabilitation of offenders and reduce recidivism. The DCS was faced with a number of challenges here such as overcrowding and the implementation of the 2X12 shift system. Overcrowding stood at 38.70 %. In most instances correctional centres are operated with less than 50% of staff per shift which made it difficult to maintain the 2X12 shift system. This affected the provision of rehabilitation programmes to prisoners since there were not enough personnel to guard offenders or to take them to different programmes. He noted that some progress had been made in addressing the backlog of offenders without Correctional Service Plans.

Key successes by the Department were the launching of the Imbeleko project which aimed at creating a more homely environment for children below the age of two in correctional centres and to place those above that age in sustainable family structures outside the correctional facility. There was the operationalisation of the Correctional Services Amendment Act. There was the review of the Medical Parole legislation and the development of the draft incarceration framework although they were still awaiting the documents that would be submitted to Parliament.

Key challenges were overcrowding which impacted negatively on service delivery including the provision of three meals a day. The suspension of the National Commissioner and disciplinary action against a number of senior managers ranging from poor performance to financial mismanagement resulted in instability in the Department.

The financial year started with a deficit of R483,8 million which affected a number of strategic projects. Under Administration, he observed that the Department had been allocated R478,050 billion and they had spent 100% of that amount. In terms of the vacancy rates he noted a discrepancy in the statistics given in different contexts of the Annual Report. In the 2007/8 reporting year the posts for psychologists were 106 and at the time only 38 psychologists were employed. In 2009/10 the post establishment was reduced to 10 and this huge reduction in posts had to be questioned.

In terms of Security, he noted that the budget allocation was R4,425,262 billion, which was the highest allocation for programmes but only 98.5% of the budget had been spent. This underspending amounted to approximately R71 million and he questioned why Security received this huge allocation when funds could be diverted to other deserving programmes.

He noted the statistics for deaths in prison but remarked that the figures for natural deaths had not been indicated which would be pertinent in relation to reviewing the conditions for medical parole. Although there were statistics for unnatural deaths, it did not specify the causes of these deaths and who was responsible. The report also did not indicate who was responsible for assaults and whether it was prisoner on prisoner assaults or staff on prisoner assaults.

Under the programme 'Corrections' he observed that the installation of video postponements could not be managed in 11 centres. This failure to meet the target was attributed to absence of a state of readiness of these centres, which was the same reason recorded in the 2008/09 Annual Report. In August 2009, the Department had informed the Committee that good progress had been made in seven facilities but in the Annual Report, only one centre was recorded as operational.

Mr Mathabathe identified numerous problems in the Care Programme such as misleading information on the number of offenders participating in programmes and the number of sessions attended. He noted the number of inmates who had been treated for mental illness and he felt strongly that they should be accommodated separately where their specific needs would be addressed.

There was underspending under the programme 'Development' and only 95.7% of the budget was spent. He isolated the incidence of self-sufficiency. The report noted that a number of goods and services, such as eggs, milk and meat were provided but the targets were not indicated so it was not possible to measure whether targets had been reached.

On the programme Social Reintegration, he highlighted the issue of parole violation and the fact that not only had the target not been met, but there had been an increase in violations. This information supplied made it unclear why this had happened and if it had been the result of poor monitoring or factors in the community. It should be considered whether the right candidates were being put up for parole and whether the criteria were the problem and if offenders were ready for parole. The implications were that the courts would lose trust in community corrections and the Department’s ability to monitor and this would impact negatively on the number of offenders they would release on parole and correctional supervision.

Under the programme 'Facilities' he drew attention to the Public Private Partnerships (PPP) where it was recorded as five in one instance and as four in another context and this inexactitude was unacceptable.

His overall conclusions were that austerity measures and capacity constraints had led to most of the Departments targets not being met. As exact and clear targets had not been indicated in some instances in the report it was difficult to measure the performance of the Department. He noted the number of virements between programmes and this shifting of funds showed a lack of planning and budgeting. There was a high level of irregular expenditure, material losses, loss of State vehicles amongst others and this was a cause for concern. The Department had also incurred fruitless expenditure such as the hiring of charter aircraft and delegates not attending conferences and investigations into these incidents were ongoing. He commended the Department for dealing with corruption at all levels and noted that it had been rated third most efficient of 85 departments audited by the Department of Public Services and Administration.

The Chairperson allowed for questions of clarity before the next presentation.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) commented that there were still many questions that the Department had to answer.

Presentation on the Audit Outcomes 2009/10
Mr Musa Hlongwa, Business Executive, supported by Mr Solly Jiyana, Senior Manager, from the Office of the Auditor-General reported on the audit outcomes of the DCS. Mr Hlongwa contexualised the report within the AG's mandate and summarised the audit opinions which were conferred on the annual financial reports of government departments. The Auditor General had a constitutional mandate to strengthen the country's democracy by enabling oversight, accountability and governance in the public sector through auditing, thereby building public confidence. Audit opinions could be unmodified and unmodified (with emphasis of matter) and this indicated a clean, unqualified audit report. A modified (qualified ) audit indicated that an unqualified opinion cannot be expressed but that the effect of any disagreement with management regarding departures from the financial reporting framework was not so material and pervasive to require an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion.

He noted that the DCS had received a qualified audit opinion in the reporting year and that it was the third consecutive year that it had received such an opinion. The matter on which this opinion was based remained tangible assets. The current qualification issues on tangible assets were that the valuation, completeness and existence of major assets could not be verified. The completeness and existence of minor tangible assets could also not be verified. Included in the opening balance to tangible assets was an adjustment of R129 million which had been made to the opening balance of last year for which management was unable to provide the supporting documentation. Recommendations made by the Auditor-General were that regular assets counts had to be made to confirm the existence and completeness of assets. The asset register should be reviewed to ensure that assets were valued at cost or fair value. Supporting documentation and a reconciliation had to be provided for the adjustments made to the opening balance.

Emphasis of Matters related to unauthorised expenditure and material losses. Unauthorised expenditure of R483,000,000 had been incurred during the 2008/09 financial year and was still awaiting approval from Parliament. Material losses of R9,000,000 had been incurred as a result of losses of vehicles, claims and other sources.

In terms of pre-determined objectives, the lack of effective, efficient and transparent systems were noted and poor performance planning, monitoring, measuring, reviewing and reporting. At correctional centre level record keeping was poor with information recorded on loose registers or not recorded at all. There was also inadequate quarterly reporting on performance information and progress was not tracked against targets as per the approved strategic plan and therefore did not facilitate effective performance monitoring and evaluation. He drew attention to the inadequate content of the strategic plan which did not include indicators that were linked to targets for all of the entity's programmes as required by Treasury.

The presentation of the reported information was also found inadequate and the format was not accessible and in accordance with the relevant guidelines for reporting for the financial year-end. For the Facilities and Corrections programmes, the actual performance did not relate to the target or was in a different format in some instances, making it difficult to evaluate the level of achievement of its targets.

A recommendation was made for monitoring controls to enforce compliance with National Treasury on compiling a strategic plan and reporting on performance information. The general comment on the audit process of 2009/10 was that there had been a general lack of compliance with auditing requirements and on this performance an adverse opinion was issued. This was reflected in the management report and not indicated in the Auditor- General report. Recommendations made were for management's involvement in performance information monitoring and reporting, the training of staff in collecting and reporting on performance information and the implementation of basic systems for performance information reporting.

On other legal and regulatory requirements, non-compliance with the Public Finance Management Act on the payment of creditors within 30 days was noted. In terms of internal control, leadership, financial and performance management and governance were areas of concern. The lack of leadership was identified in the failure to place people with the appropriate accounting skills especially at regional levels. The lack of adequate training and disciplining of personnel in asset management  were amongst the weaknesses that had to be remedied.

In his concluding remarks, he stated that the DCS had developed an action plan to address all audit findings. This action plan was monitored regularly at audit steering committee and audit committee meetings. The department has cut spending to ensure that there was no unauthorised expenditure. Vacancies in key management positions had been filled post year end but suspensions still remained high with two CDCS still on suspension. This had an adverse effect on service delivery as projects were put on hold. He cautioned against possible fruitless and wasteful expenditure in respect of the security system procured through the Sondolo contract if the system was not fully reactivated and if staff were not trained to operate the system as intended.

Discussion
Ms Ngwenya (ANC) expressed her appreciation for the report and supported the recommendations they had made. She noting the serious challenges it had exposed and asked for how long the two senior management staff were suspended and if they were still receiving their salaries. She enquired about the Sondolo contract and asked how much had been spent and on what as the system was not working and they had not received clarity on this issue from the DCS.

Mr Hlongwa responded that they did not have exact information on the suspensions and this could be ascertained from the Department. On the matter of Sondolo, he said they had visited some centres and found the system was not working. The Department had trained supervisors but not operators and that was why the system was non-functional. There was a monthly amount paid to Sondolo and the department should have the latest information.

The Chairperson stated that he recalled that an amount was paid for maintenance but queried this payment if the system was non-functional. He understood that payment was made for a capital item and if that was paid in full, payment for an upgrade could be paid but not the payment for maintenance on a non-functional system. He wanted the auditor's response on this and if they had questioned the Department on this matter.

Mr Jiyana said that they had not done a detailed investigation and the Department could supply the relevant information.

Mr Hlongwa said that before they had finalised the report, the Department had assured them that they were in the process of training people. He assumed the maintenance was for keeping the system open while people were being trained.

The Chairperson said the Committee met with the Department quarterly and that their next meeting was going to be in November. He requested that the A-G’s Office prepare a progress report on each of the recommendations they had made, for presentation at that meeting.

Mr Hlongwa responded that they had discussed the key controls with the Department at the initiative of the A-G who had wanted them to meet with the Minister of the Department to address their audit findings. They had identified four areas to be addressed: firstly, fixed assets (for which the DCS had received the qualified audit opinion), compliance with laws and regulations (which included supply chain management), finances (which would entail the preparation of quarterly financial statements and financial reporting to familiarise them with the procedures for completing the Annual Report) and lastly, the pre-determined objectives (the performance information on programmes). There would be quarterly meetings with the Minister where they would report on the progress of the action plan and they could make these reports available to the Committee.

Ms Ngwenya requested a follow up on the Sondolo matter and asked that they establish how many people had been trained, what amount had been spent and what these people were doing now. She also requested that a monthly report be given to the Committee.

Mr Hlongwa said it would be difficult to comply with the request for a monthly report as they had a pre-determined audit action plan that they had to adhere to due to financial and other constraints.

Mr L Max (DA) questioned the Department's strategy of cutting spending to ensure that there was no unauthorised expenditure, since it would jeopardize service delivery. They should be channelling the money into the right programmes and he asked if the A-G had interacted with the DCS on this approach as this was completely wrong. He felt the department was not complying with basic management principles. He referred to the instance mentioned in the A-G's report where information was recorded on loose registers and said this was totally unacceptable as were the instances where junior personnel failed to supply requested information to management. In the interaction the Committee had with DCS on the Annual Report, he had assessed that some of the management knew what was required but that implementation seemed a problem. He asked what the requirements were for appointment to the top ranks as looking at the report it was obvious that there was a lack of managerial skills. He had recommended previously that the Department's turnaround strategy should be monitored by the Committee, and if there was no change then those who did not deliver should go.

The Chairperson asked for a response from the auditors on the Department's cutting of expenditure and also the critera for appointment of staff.

Mr Hlongwa said they did not know what the criteria for appointment of management was but he noted the number of vacancies in the top structure and finance section which contributed to the mismanagement.

Mr Mathabathe agreed with the issues raised by Mr Max and he regarded leadership stability critical to resolving the recurrent problems in the DCS. He questioned the role of Regional Commissioners and said that accountability had to be enforced and the failure in reporting lines should not have been tolerated. He queried why there had been no follow up on the successive qualified audit opinion on tangible assets. Recommendations had been made but they had not been implemented and he asked if the A-G’s Office had followed this up. He was concerned that they had found no adequate systems to capture performance information. He questioned whether the statistics recorded for correctional service plans for offenders were reliable as the fiddling of statistics had happened elsewhere.

Mr Hlongwa said that the recommendations had remained the same and they had advocated the clean audit campaign and the four current recommendations to assist the Department.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) wanted clarity on the amount of R9,000,000 under material losses incurred as a result of loss of vehicles, claims and other sources. She wanted to know how they were lost or stolen. The Committee should call in the staff who were responsible in the past three years for the affected areas to account for what had happened. She raised the PPPs which Mr Mathabathe had mentioned and questioned the budgetary allocation for 12,000 bed spaces at Allandale, East London, Klerksdorp and Nigel as she felt that this was a duplication. She noted that the National Commissioner had informed the Committee that he had to write for an appointment to visit these PPP facilities and that he had no say over them and if that was so, why were they budgeted for.

The Chairperson agreed that the responsible persons should give account for their actions. He asked the auditors to respond on the PPPs but noted that there had been a policy decision on the PPPs.

Mr Hlongwa said that the R9,000,000 related to the loss of vehicles. The Department did not insure all its vehicles and it was liable for damages and legal claims. The other sources related to theft.

The Chairperson responded to the disbelief of committee members and said they would ask the Department about the wisdom of not insuring its vehicles.

Mr Hlongwa responded that Treasury had a regulation which allowed for the Department not to insure all its vehicles.

Mr Lukas Muntingh, Project Co-ordinator, CSPRI, noted that in the Annual Report, 28 posts were made available for the internal audit function. He asked the auditors whether, in their assessment, these posts were enough for a Department of this nature and complexity.

Mr Hlongwa said it was difficult to answer that question but the efforts to capacitate this section was a positive move as internal audits had not been taken seriously. They could be used in the area of pre-determined objectives to prevent the problems highlighted in the audit reports.

The Chairperson asked the auditors to benchmark what the internal audit capacity should be for a Department with a R13 Billion budget, more than 40 000 employees and an excess of 230 facilities throughout the country.

Ms Vanessa Padayachee, National Manager, NICRO, commented on the strategic plans and its inadequate content and asked if this had been adjusted in the current strategic plan noting that the strategic plans were projected for a number of years. She asked if the Committee could institute disciplinary action.

The Chairperson said the Committee could not institute disciplinary action but could affect the budget drastically and the Committee intended to do that in order to influence the Department's behaviour. The Department had to take disciplinary measures against its staff if they failed to perform.

Mr Max asked if there was an investigation into the R129 million adjustment that had been made to the opening balance of last year.

Mr Hlongwa replied that they had asked the Department for the supporting documentation in order to resolve this problem.

The Chairperson commented that to have this matter recurring as a question mark every year was untenable. If the supporting documentation could not be supplied, then there was the potential for fraud and corruption. At some point the Auditor-General should draw the line and those responsible should be called to account. At some point it had to be decided whether to write it off or charge someone in order for the Department to move towards an unqualified audit report.

Mr Hlongwa responded that the question of asset management was not being monitored currently as the fixed asset register was not being kept properly. Items on the fixed asset register could not be found on the ground and vice versa. To move forward the Department should fix this problem and clean up the fixed asset register. The National Treasury would then be the right institution for the Department to approach to negotiate on what action to take. It was a serious cause for concern that problems were still occurring with additions (new assets) and this proved that there were still major problems with asset management in the DCS.

The Chairperson confirmed with the auditors that they had stated that if it had been a requirement for them to report on performance, the DCS would have received an adverse audit opinion on performance. He said committee members should note the implications of this in their further engagement with the Department.

Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) submission
Mr Lukas Muntingh, Project Coordinator of the CSPRI, said that the submission was aimed at highlighting problems in the Department’s performance, and he noted that they were recurring issues as had emerged in the previous presentations. The CSPRI raised serious concerns such as accountability, inmate labour, parole and social reintegration and services to offenders and other issues which were indicative of the contravention of the minimum standards for humane detention. The CSPRI believed that the demand should be for compliance with the Correctional Services Act, which was the principal legislation defining the Department's core mandate and it had to be complied with under all circumstances.

He noted that the Annual Report swamped the reader with various targets and indicators but much of this was descriptive as opposed to what results it was required to achieve and demonstrate. Picking up on the issues raised by Mr Mathabathe and the A-G, he stated that there were so many substantive and factual problems in the Annual Report that it was questionable whether it was a sufficient and reliable account on how the Department spent the budget.

In his introductory remarks Mr Muntingh, addressed the issue of overcrowding and the Chairperson's suggestion that the Police and Justice Department may need to take care of this longstanding problem. He said that overcrowding could be used as a general excuse for evading problems. It was important to look at how overcrowded prisons were run on a daily basis. Were prisoners sitting in their cells for 23 hours in a day or were they out of their cells, involved in activities and getting into programmes as the effects of overcrowding would then be less severe. His concerns about handing responsibility to the Police was that they were not trained to work with detained people. The Police did not see detaining people as their core function and this contributed to human rights violations in police cells. Despite misgivings about some DCS staff, they were better trained to deal with detainees. He identified the core issue as the fact that 50% of the people in custody awaiting trial would leave prison without going to trial. Their cases would be struck from the roll or withdrawn for insufficient evidence. The conclusion to be drawn was that it was the wrong people who had been arrested or that they were arrested on insufficient evidence. The implication thus was that 30 000 people were in prison without purpose and they could be released.

Mr Muntingh stated that the overall purpose of the Annual Report was to report on progress made towards clearly defined targets aligned to the strategic plan. This required that the information presented in relation to a specific target must speak to that target and secondly that the level of compliance claimed must be open to validation. He picked up numerous instances where the information supplied did not correlate with the target and these contradictions and inconsistencies occurred throughout the report

In one instance levels of compliance in the Department is reported to have been increased by 1%. However it was also reported that the number of correctional centres that fully complied with Unit Management, including the Structured Day Programme and Three Meals a Day System increased from 86 to 126 out of the targeted 138 correctional centres. This seemed at odds with the 1% compliance noted earlier.

Mr Muntingh referred to the Department's relationship with external stakeholders such as the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) which required closer scrutiny as it impacted on the treatment of inmates and conditions of detention. While it was recorded in the Annual Report that some of their recommendations on the reduction of overcrowding, the implementation of offender labour and the review of the privileges for offenders were implemented there was no evidence that this had taken place. Similarly their claim and that they would continue to work with the Justice Inspectorate to address the shortcomings in the annual and other reports was not substantiated.

He noted that the Department had significant liabilities emanating from litigation. Clarification was sought on the liability of R986,598,000 for bodily injury/assault . Referring to the statistics for these liabilities (see presentation),  he stated that the Department was exposed to claims of a human rights nature and that it was an indication of significant non-compliance with the Correctional Services Act in the Department.

He raised the issue of the decline in offenders involved in production workshops which was recorded at 1.5% of the sentenced population. The reason given for this decline was the lack of 'suitable offenders'. No further explanation was given and it was difficult to understand how offenders became less suitable.

Under Services to Offenders it was reported that in excess of 25,000 Correctional Sentence Plans (CSPs) were developed against a target of 11,000. He emphasised that this meant that the figure given was only for the amount of forms that had been completed by offenders. The Annual Report was vague on how the CSP guided service delivery and ensured that offenders received the programmes they required. It also reported that that 44,481 offenders participated in correctional programmes. He stated that it was important for the Department to distinguish between programmes rendered by its officials and programmes rendered by external agencies such as non-governmental organisations.

In his conclusion, he said that it was clear that internal and external accountability in the Department was wanting. Despite negative connotations with the concept, what was required to take the Department forward was a functioning bureaucracy. There had to be a clearly defined and detailed regulatory framework describing the specific duties of officials. Secondly, officials had to be held accountable for failure to perform their duties. In particular, heads of centres should be accountable for what happens in their centres with reference to legislative compliance. Thirdly, officials of the Department must be thoroughly trained in the Correctional Services Act, Regulations and standing orders.

Discussion
The Chairperson referred to Mr Muntingh's comments on awaiting trial detainees and said that he was not convinced that the Police should be less obligated because they were not trained to deal with the detention of offenders. Mr Muntingh's statement that 30,000 people were being needlessly incarcerated indicated that the Police had not done their job correctly. Why should the DCS carry the responsibility. Something had to be done and the pressure should not be on the DCS alone. In terms of overcrowding and why people were in their cells for 23 hours, the DCS was saying that because of the nature of the criminals it was too dangerous to take them out. When it came to prison labour, they referred to the suitability of the offenders. The Chairperson failed to understand this and said the Committee should take it up as the Department continually justified what they were doing with their own agendas.

Ms Ngwenya thanked Mr Muntingh for the information he had given. She noted there were serious challenges and she said the Committee should be addressed on the backlogs in the system with regard to awaiting trial detainees. She referred to her experiences when visiting an overcrowded prison catering solely for awaiting trial detainees and questioned the number of years such detainees could spend in such facilities. She asked if the time served was deducted from their sentences if they were convicted. She had visited the magistrates courts and been told that the statements taken by the Police was sometimes so unclear that it influenced them to detain the suspects. She said there was a problem with the educational standards of some of the Police and some of them could not take a proper statement. She suggested that the Police take responsibility for housing them as it took a huge part of the DCS's budget which should be used on offenders who had been sentenced. She said that the community did not have a handbook to guide them on how to treat people on parole. She suggested that an information booklet on parole be budgeted for which would help all parties, including the victims, as the challenges they faced were often not addressed.

Mr Muntingh responded to the question of awaiting trial detainees and said the point of departure should be the fundamental constitutional obligations set out in section 35. From his perspective he advocated keeping the awaiting trial prisoners with the DCS. There were too many problems with the police taking care of people in custody, given their record of deaths in custody. The problem was how to deal with the influx of people into prison and preventing them from staying there so long. His feeling was that a constitutional court case was not far off which would address the issue. Detaining a person for four, six or even 10 years was not compatible with the Constitution. A solution would be if there was a mechanism in law which stated that if one was charged with particular offences, it had to be reviewed after a certain period had lapsed and it had to be demonstrated why one's continued detention was necessary. The incremental obligation would be on the State to say that it was a serious charge and that the person would interfere with evidence or had already threatened someone or else it would amount to detention without trial. In his assessment it already was as people were detained for three or six months and the case was then withdrawn. A constitutional challenge was looming and that could be pre-empted by amending the legislation whereby people in custody could challenge their continued detention. The State could then present their case on why the continued detention was necessary.

Responding to the Chairperson's query about the Department's reference to the 'nature' of offenders as the reason for them not being let out, Mr Muntingh noted that the DCS had reclassified offenders and had dropped the number of maximum level offenders by 20% . More offenders were now classified at medium level and were eligible to move from their cells and attend workshops.

Mr Muntingh thought a handbook on parole as suggested by Ms Ngwenya was a good idea. There was a lot of confusion on the issue of parole and there was an obligation on the DCS to educate people. Little information was available to parolees on services such as NICRO, Narcotics and Alcoholics Anonymous. The rights of victims were more difficult to implement logistically and the Department was not doing much in this area.

Mr Max responded to the concerns raised by Mr Muntingh on the 7-day establishment and that each Area Commissioner might develop his own permutation on it with dire financial consequences. He said that he had been assured by the Department that this would not happen and they would not exceed the budget. On the vacancy rate, he noted that the Annual Report indicated that National Treasury had requested that the Department reduce its staff to 41500 from April 2010 which would equate to 500 vacancies.

Mr Max noted the concerns around the lack of management skills or commitment in the Department and suggested that it was time that the Committee request that, from middle management upwards, staff undergo assessments to see whether there was competency and where people could be assisted.

Mr Muntingh responded that he hoped the Department would uphold the 7-day establishment system for financial reasons but also in terms of services which were his chief concern. In respect of the high vacancy rates in key positions, he asked if it did not border on reckless management and irresponsibility to allow for vacancies to remain unfilled when it was known that there were serious problems such as asset management. He commented further that there were roughly 41,000 staff for 165,000 prisoners which equated to a ratio of approximately one official to four prisoners and that this was the best ratio the Department had ever had.

The Chairperson noted that Treasury had denied that they had asked the Department to reduce staff and that they had to get the Departments response on this.

Mr Mathabathe referred to overcrowding and awaiting trial detainees and said that if the responsibility of incarcerating these detainees were placed with the Police, they would re-strategise as it appeared they arrested people randomly to meet their target. In terms of their performance indicators the number of arrests were one of their targets and maybe this had to be re-looked at. On the decline in production workshops mentioned by Mr Muntingh, he noted that a motor mechanic workshop had been closed in Pretoria recently. Referring to the issue of accountability, questions should be asked on how people were appointed and the criteria for such appointments and the skills and qualifications needed. He supported the idea of naming and shaming people who did not submit reports and calling them to account to the Committee.

Ms Nyanda (ANC) spoke of the problems awaiting trial detainees in the correctional facilities at Nelspruit and Barberton experienced. Like the other speakers, she noted the overcrowding and the high incidence of remands despite the years people were detained. She found that the police were part of the problem as they arrested people wrongfully. They were not competent with some even using fraudulent educational certificates. She was also dissatisfied with the officials from the Department as it appeared that they were not honest in their dealings with the Committee. She raised her concerns about the appointment of interns. She also queried staff appointments as staff who had resigned appeared to have been reemployed almost immediately.

Ms Mdaka thanked Mr Muntingh for his presentation. She drew attention to his quotes from the Auditor-General's Report which dealt with the Departments failure in terms of effective performance monitoring and evaluation and the finding that the Department did not have effective, efficient and transparent system and internal controls regarding performance management. She said that it was telling the Committee that a lot of damage had been done by the Department. She advised double-checking their qualifications. She said that there had been a lot of corruption in the Department in the past and the Committee was there to monitor and to implement change.

The Chairperson agreed on checking up on the qualifications of officials and said until they had vetted the officials certain problems would persist. He said that less than 4,000 had been vetted and there could be many shocks that awaited. Part of the Committee's responsibility was to see that the department speeded up the process.

Ms Mdaka queried the necessity of recruiting so many interns and asked why they were not employing them on a full time basis. The interns were in an insecure position and would just have to follow orders. She agreed with providing young people from the universities and colleges with the opportunity to acquire skills and experience but questioned the amount spent at the expense of employing people permanently.

Mr Muntingh said that interns were specifically employed to update the asset register which was a longstanding problem as pointed out by the A-G. He had raised this issue and asked why this was being done now. He questioned the logic of employing outside people when 65% of the audit function positions were vacant.

His thinking on overcrowding was that transferring the awaiting trial population to the police was not going to make them disappear. The State still had a duty to provide custody that met the minimum standards of humane detention. Giving them to the Police was merely exporting the problem and there was no guarantee that they would be treated any better. The police may handle them more efficiently but they may in fact harm them more and they could be at greater risk of human rights violations. His recommendation was that it had to be looked at comprehensively. At Parliamentary level the Committee should liaise with the Committees for the Departments of Justice and Police. They could get the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and other stakeholders, like the Legal Aid Board could be approached for ideas on reducing the period people spent awaiting trial. National Treasury should also be approached as research had proved that half of the cases against awaiting trial detainees would be withdrawn and their custody would thus have been without meaning and purpose. There continued detention amounted to fruitless and wasteful expenditure that the state was incurring and this was an important factor that could be brought into the debate. He agreed that it was a terrible indictment that the police's productivity was based on the number of arrests made. It was also necessary to look at the performance of court officials and the number of cases they handled and if they were using mechanisms such as plea bargains.

NICRO submission on the DCS Annual Report 2009/2010
Ms Vanessa Padayachee, NICRO's National Manager, Advocacy and Lobbying, introduced her presentation by commenting on the debate on who was responsible for awaiting trial detainees and the issue of overcrowding in correctional facilities as well as other issues raised by the previous speakers. She noted the contradictions of performance indicators for police being measured by the number of arrests made and the NPA's performance indicators being linked to convictions. Looking at all these issues and why the DCS was stuck with the overcrowding problem, she felt strongly that the entire criminal justice system should undergo a review. She said that unlike Mr Muntingh she was not that certain that DCS was responsible for awaiting trial detainees but rather that it was the Department of Justice that was responsible. She agreed that the Police could not do it but they had to be trained how to detain with an awareness of human rights as people were detained by them. She agreed with Mr Muntingh that the problem could not just be transferred to another department but that it should be strategised by the entire sector to arrive at the best solution. She emphasised that a commitment should be made by the Department of Justice and the NPA to use Diversion and non-custodial sentencing. She noted that there were still Magistrates who did not use those options. In the Annual Report it stated that non-custodial alternative methods were not considered because of austerity measures. She felt that diversion and non-custodial supervision could be a very effective option when looking at people awaiting trial but that it needed to be more rigorous than it had been in the past.

With regards to the issue of parole and involving the community, she said that NGO's could play a very important role including victim support. This was a sensitive issue as victims were going through their own healing process and were not amenable to contact from the Department. Working through agencies was critical, so that they could prepare victims, liaise with the Department and create a system that would involve victims and that system was lacking at present.

On the submission from NICRO she says it was aimed at constructive criticism and that the Department's mandate as it appeared in the Correctional Services Act should provide the context for deliberating on the challenges posed in the Annual Report. She said that this mandate which spoke to the obligation on the DCS to contribute towards the maintenance and protection of a just, peaceful and safe society, the enforcement of court-imposed sentences in the manner prescribed in the Act, the detention of inmates in safe custody and the promotion of social responsibility and human development of all offenders and persons subjected to community corrections, was not being met by the Department. Reiterating that the Department had failed completely to fulfil its mandate for example by their failure to provide safe custody and promote the human development of offenders through rehabilitation programmes, she drew attention to a number of negative factors within the system. The list included the 80% recidivism rate, correctional programming not available to all offenders, offenders residing in overcrowded facilities which impacted on the delivery of programmes, offenders released who could read or write, victimization by gangs and wardens and other factors.

She noted that 50% of the total youth offender population were incarcerated for aggressive crimes. Referring to correctional service plans, she said that there had to be a structured intervention plan for each offender so that they were afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation. She noted the complexities of offending behaviour and the lack of psychologists in the system to address the psychological issues of offenders who on release offended again. Their crimes became more violent and heinous and it was a real indictment of the constitution and a violation of the safety of our citizens. Correctional plans were being done for offenders who had been incarcerated for up to 15 years and who were now coming up for parole as this was a condition for parole. There had been the opportunity to intensively engage with the offender to address those complex problems and to see what could be done to change the offending behaviour, but this opportunity was lost. It was serious that people were released and there had been no structured intervention plan which on completion indicated changes in attitudes and offending behaviour. This was a matter of misdirected priorities as the DCS was not getting the basics right and organisations such as NICRO had to deal with people who were worse off than when they went in.

She noted that offenders resided in overcrowded facilities and conditions in prison were still not conducive to humane detention. Overcrowding had a noticeable impact on the ability to conduct programmes because of the high prisoner to staff ratio. There were times when NICRO had gone into the prison when there was a lack of capacity or other issues and the programmes were cancelled or postponed. The organisation was at the mercy of the officials and this disrupted the programmes were part of a process of rehabilitating offenders. She noted that the department allowed people the choice to attend programmes and she felt that it should be mandatory. If an assessment was made of a client and areas were identified that needed to be changed they should follow a structured programme till completion. She commented that the punitive approach did not work in rehabilitating prisoners and it made them angrier than they were before.

She noted that there had been considerable debate around inmate labour and prisoners having access to vocational skills and production workshops. It was also a fact that people acquired skills but still could not get a job on release and they also had to deal with the stigma of being ex-offenders.

The issue of families was important and she referred to the Chairperson's idea of 'centres of expertise' which she felt was an amazing recommendation but she had some reservations. The role of the family was critical even though some families were dysfunctional. She noted that the Annual Report had not mentioned the role of families in social reintegration and where and how they engaged with families as this was critical to rehabilitation. This was her problem with the Chairperson's concept of centres of expertise as offenders still needed to be close to their families and there had to be a plan to overcome this drawback. There was a need for family services and NICRO had recommended a family centre for many years and they still had not received the go-ahead from the Department on that and it was time for the institutionalisation of family services. NICRO'S concern was ensuring that the offender who was released did not come back. Reintegration of offenders was a problem if the family was not involved and recidivism occurred when there was no supportive family network. Reintegration was facilitated by stable employment but also on supportive and functional relationships.
 
On the negative impact of institutionalisation she raised the issue of gangs in prison which was a very complex issue and involved drugs, victimization, atrocities and human rights violations. Vulnerable offenders were targeted and it was organised crime and she wanted this to be investigated further and she noted that there was a gang management strategy.

She raised the issue of offender labour and also meaningful work and she felt offenders could be employed in many creative ways that did not involve paid labour and this could contribute to self sufficiency.

Like Mr Muntingh she found it surprising that nobody has taken the DCS to the Constitutional Court on human rights violations.

She welcomed the new National Commissioner and hoped his appointment addressed the leadership instability in the Department.

Discussion
Mr Max wanted to know what the success rate was for rehabilitation as the Police had the problem of rearresting the same people.

Ms Nyanda commented on the importance of sensitising the community to the issues of parole referring to an imbizo which had been held at Mpumalanga which had been organized by the judicial cluster. She said such programmes should be ongoing to prepare communities and families to welcome them back. She also commented about the problem of gangs and drugs in the criminal justice system and the collusion of the police.

Ms Mdaka commented on the lack of personnel and said the vacancies should be filled. She referred to the role of families in rehabilitating offenders and said that there were many problems as some had become more violent and threatening and family members were terrified of them.

Ms Ngwenya referred to the centres of expertise mentioned by the Chairperson and noted that NICRO worked closely with inmates and knew the importance of family. She recognised the importance of contact with family members and felt NICRO could assist in researching the matter. She noted the problems of gangs and drugs in correctional facilities even though there was CCV and said staff were also involved. She felt that inmates should not have the choice in attending programmes. She said the issues Ms Padayachee, had raised about the Imbeleko Project needed to be debated even in the community outside. She said the Department had a tendency not to consult with the community and this had happened with this project and when it came to parole.

Ms Padayachee's response to the success rate of rehabilitation was based on the high recidivism rate which was 80%. On the challenges to family visits, she said NICRO was approached by many poor family members who did not have the money to visit offenders. NICRO had arranged to hire a bus but their funds were limited and they could not do it everywhere and the DCS should look at establishing family centres. With regard to security and drugs, sources had disclosed that it came through the police and mainly at the court cells and into correctional facilities, where the security system was being bypassed with the collusion of staff. There were lots of strategies and corruption and she hoped that the Gang Management Strategy would address this.

She said when it came to the victimization of family members, restorative justice was necessary and she commented that involvement with family should not start at pre-release. If there was structured rehabilitation these problems would not occur when an offender is released as they would be assessing risk and other factors.

POPCRU submission
Ms Tryphina Phihlela, Research and Parliamentary Officer, POPCRU, gave a brief presentation on the Annual Report due to time constraints. She commented on the issue of overcrowding in her opening remarks and said it should not be a DCS problem but a problem of the whole criminal justice cluster. Instead of blaming the Police and the Judiciary other mechanisms such as establishing proper monitoring systems within the whole cluster or looking at alternatives such as alternative sentencing for minor crimes.

Highlighting the most pertinent issues raised in her presentation she noted the progress made by the DCS in some areas and welcomed the appointment of the new leadership. Positive achievements were identified such as improved security, the reduction in the rate of escapes, the Imbeleko Project which aimed at creating a child friendly environment for children under two, and the partnership with Wits Business School to promote staff development .

Like the previous speakers she encouraged the Department to comply with its mandate and the framework outlined in the White Paper on Correctional Services as it set objectives against which the Department's performance and service delivery should be measured. She stated that the fundamental question at this stage should be " have we aligned our policies with the strategic objectives of the White Paper?"

Raising the issue of awaiting trial detainees she noted that the South African legal system presumed innocence until proven guilty and yet awaiting trial detainees were accommodated in the facilities of the correctional system which were designed for sentenced offenders. This defeated the primary purpose of correctional services which was to enforce the sentences of the courts, to ensure humane detention and the promotion of social responsibility and human development.

 She noted that due to the lack of technical and life skills inmates were provided with, survival outside the prison environment was difficult and many re-offended because in their view, life was easier in prison. This was counter productive to the fight against crime and corruption. POPCRU's submission on this was that all inmates that were serving sentences longer than 24 months had to have a corrections sentence plan in place as soon as possible, as indicated by the White Paper. If the Department was unable to achieve this target on its own, many organizations outside of the Department possessed the skills to assist in this regard.

Returning to the issue of overcrowding, Ms Phihlela stated that building more correctional centres, or even building private prisons was not the solution to overcrowding while other areas like addressing the root cause of crime, effective implementation of policies, improved management of correctional centres and the restructuring of the justice system were still not attended to.

Declaring POPCRU'S stance on Private Public Partnerships, she stated that before the distortion of the PPPs, the correctional services environment was well categorized by for example, agricultural/ farm production, production workshops, building groups and more. She noted further that Correctional Services exceedingly misapplied the so-called PPP concept. This directly and negatively impacted on the Department's budget and on the level of skills that offenders were acquiring and also influenced the extent to which offenders were employable on release.

Discussion
Ms Ngwenya asked what the alternative was to building new correctional facilities and dealing with overcrowding. She noted that prisons built under apartheid were meant for men and the accommodation was not suitable for women. There was a need for centres for women and women with children.

The Chairperson agreed on the point raised on the budget re-alignment. He agreed that the Department should indicate how many people re-offended and noted that Ms Padayachee had indicated an 80% recidivism rate. He said the Department should be asked to supply the figures. The Chairperson said they had received mixed signals from organised labour on the effect of the 2x12 system and asked her if it was working from the perspective of organised labour.

Ms Phihlela responded to the question of correctional facilities and said spending the money on rehabilitation was better as it would help ensure that offenders never re-offended. Criminal behaviour should be eradicated at a grassroots level. In answer to the question of the 2x12 system, she replied that it was manageable and would improve in time.

The Chairperson said Ms Ngwenya's question was not only about overcrowding but about the lack of correctional facilities that catered for the needs of women offenders and for those with young children.

Ms Phihlela said that instead of building new facilities the existing facilities could be upgraded as that would be less costly.

The Chairperson said that they would be meeting with the Department on the following day and thanked all the presenters for their contribution.

The meeting was adjourned.

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: