Department of Correctional Services Operational Performance

Meeting report

Committee Matters
The Chairperson informed the Committee about a visit to Mr C Frolick (ANC), the House Chairperson for Committees, Oversight and ICT, regarding the study tour abroad. Brazil, Canada, Australia and Cuba could not be visited. The options were Germany or Denmark, and an African country. The Secretary would look at Uganda and Zambia. Four members of the ANC would be able to go, and three from COPE, the IFP and the DA.

Operational Performance (September-December 2012): Department of Correctional Services
Mr Terence Raseroka, Deputy Commissioner at the Department of Correction Services (DCS), noted that the DCS had struggled over the previous years to monitor audit queries. There had been a disjunction between strategic and operational plans. Key Auditor-General (AG) issues about planning and reporting were taken up in the mid-term review. The AG had stated that there had been non-compliance related to performance indicators not being aligned to targets. There was incomplete performance reporting. The AG stated that the DCS did not understand their own data. Targets for operational plans were not aligned to indicators. Incorrect templates were used for monthly reports. There was cutting and pasting with information used from previous years. The DCS had embarked on introspection, to get in line with Treasury requirements.

Mr Raseroka took the Committee through the number of targets achieved and not achieved for the various programmes.

Discussion
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) objected that there was no hard copy in front of members.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) agreed that hard copy had to be available.

Mr J Selfe (DA) felt that the briefing showed up DCS weaknesses. He appreciated the frankness of it. 

Mr Selfe remarked that the situation for rehabilitation was the most shocking. 10 targets were achieved while another 10 were not. Corrective steps were opaque. It was not clear what the figures regarding social work services to offenders meant.

Mr Selfe referred to school targets per month that were set out a year before. He asked how many people were benefiting from schools, and if they were being used at all. The high level presentation lost quality of detail.

Mr James Smalberger, Chief Deputy Commissioner at the DCS, responded that some offender development targets were annual. The figures on social and psychological services were based on sentenced offenders who had seen social workers. It was possible that a single offender may have been seen more than once. The DCS system did not identify names. There was a cumulative figure of 80482 out of the 110 000 population. There was a move towards working on spreadsheets to avoid duplication. Numbers were deceptive. There was no guarantee of the quality of interventions. The DCS could not answer how much value had been added. They could only state that inmates had been seen by social and psychological workers, and that the problem had been addressed. The DCS needed quality psychological information when a “lifer” was to be released, for instance. A track record over years was needed.

Mr Selfe remarked that it was not very helpful to say how many work sessions with social workers there had been. The Committee wanted to know how many had been rehabilitated.

Mr S Abram (ANC) said that he was disappointed at the lack of achievement in key performance areas. He had empathy for DCS officials who had inherited a difficult situation. Still jobs had not been adequately carried out. The DCS had a R17 Billion budget and they were not up to speed in delivering services. He feared that the DCS was not being run on economic principles. He had paid a visit to Boksburg Centre; where there was an inmate whom had boiling water thrown at him by another inmate because he was talking too loudly on his cell phone. The injuries were only discovered when the cells were unlocked. The incident occurred at the end of December, and after two weeks, he had still not been sent to the doctor. Officials were worried; they wanted to see inmates treated in a humane manner. This kind of incident was no longer an isolated incident. The DCS were not adhering to the Constitution. He wanted to hear what was being done to meet unmet targets.

The Chairperson advised that Members ask more constructive direct questions. He asked why school targets had not been achieved. The direct question about the assault at Boksburg was why a doctor had not seen the inmate. During the two-week wait, the inmate’s eye had fallen out.

Mr Smalberger replied that there were still three schools outstanding at the end of the third quarter. In the past it had been possible to do one matric subject per year.

The Chairperson interrupted Mr Smalberger to say that the PC was not interested in the syllabus. It was a matter of whether schools were being built or not. Contractors were slow. The kind of delays seen at Ceres and Vanrhynsdorp with construction was no longer acceptable. He asked if construction of the schools had been completed.

Mr Smalberger replied that the three sites had not yet been handed over, and the Vanrhynsdorp School formed part of the site.

Ms Ngwenya noted that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) had asked questions about budget issues from 2008/09. The Minister could not answer, because he had not yet been there. She wanted to know about plans to deal with assaults by gangs on inmates. She asked how many had been arrested.

Mr Zacharia Modise, Regional Commissioner of the DCS, answered that a proper response could be given once the matter was dealt with. There was a gang strategy in place. There were areas where gang activities were intense, and others where it could be minimised and controlled.

Ms Ngwenya asked about progress with kitchen repair and equipment.

Mr Modise replied that he would provide a comprehensive report on nutrition.

Mr Selfe asked what was meant by “participate” in production skills programmes, for instance. He asked if it meant one session per month. He advised that the DCS consider outcomes when defining their programmes – outcomes that focused on inmates becoming better people.

The Chairperson added that the PC was not interested in hearing about 10 job opportunities. They wanted to know how many inmates had qualifications. The Committee had made suggestions about what they wanted to see. The data on visits by psychologists was vague.

Ms Phaliso remarked that Heads of Centres and Area Managers were responsible for performance. There was a red zone of non-deliverance. If there was a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the Head of Centre, people had to be evaluated. There had to be action against people who were not performing. If rehabilitation was not properly reported on, it meant that there had been no service. She asked if the DCS had performance agreements in place, or whether they relied on consultants. The DCS could not just say that things were not implemented. They had to explain why this was so.

Mr Teboho Mokoena, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Human Resources in the DCS, responded that there was performance management, even for juniors. Not everyone in the DCS received merit awards. In terms of discipline and misconduct, there were a list of offences, but they were rarely performance related.

Ms Phaliso asked about a time frame for advertised vacancies.

Mr Mokoena, replied that positions had been advertised at the senior level. Selection panels were still conducting interviews. Applicants were granted a period of two months, to get away from their current jobs.

Ms Ngwenya returned to gang issues. She asked what a gang management strategy meant, and which gangs were involved. There had to be wardens who knew about the 26 and 28 number gangs. At Pollsmoor Prison, the gangs had been allowed to grow.

The Chairperson asked about the SLA between the DCS and the Department of Public Works (DPW).

Mr Modise replied that the DPW Director General and the DCS National Commissioner had signed the SLA.

The Chairperson referred to the nutrition contract, which expired on 31 January. The Committee had agreed that it could be extended to 31 May, but it had to go through the supply chain management process. He asked where the DCS were on that matter.

Mr Modise replied that everything had been done up to the evaluation stage. Visits had been conducted. Adjudication still had to be completed, but it would be done within the time frame.

The Chairperson referred to the distinction between core and non-core business of the DCS. Consultants had been paid R3 million to evaluate whether nutrition in-sourcing or outsourcing was most effective. Whatever process the DCS followed, had to be above criticism.

Mr Smalberger replied that the Enterprise Programme Management Office (EPMO) handled the distinction between core and non-core business.

Mr Modise added that there would be a National Management Committee meeting on the matter, the following Monday. It would be asked if it was economically viable to manage nutrition. There had to be a cost-benefit analysis. The question was how it impacted on the ability to render rehabilitation. There would be a response on the matter.

The Chairperson reminded Mr Modise that it had been decided that the contract would not be extended automatically. Whatever was done, it had to adhere to supply chain management principles. The DCS had to decide whether nutrition was core business or not. The Committee would not allow the contract to be extended again.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) remarked that Groenpunt and Barberton had not been included in the nutrition outsourcing process. At Barberton inmates were fighting for food, there was chaos. At Groenpunt there was chaos in the kitchens. Inmates could not cook for inmates.

Mr Smalberger responded that the contract had been advertised in November 2012, and had closed on 31 January. It was no longer possible to add Groenpunt and Barberton.

Mr Selfe pointed out that if the DCS delayed with the sale of their own equipment, outsourcing would continue. The Hawks and the Special Investigations Unit were investigating one bidder for the nutrition contract. He asked if that would disqualify the service provider.

Mr Abram asked if kitchen equipment used by the nutrition contractor had belonged to the DCS at the time of outsourcing. If so, he asked what the terms for use by the contractor were.

Mr Modise replied that the equipment stalemate had not been resolved. The DCS should have had a fallback position.

Mr Abram asked if DCS agricultural products were being sold at market related prices. It seemed that products were being sold below market prices.

Mr Modise replied that there was a market related contract with the DCS service provider for the procurement of agricultural products. The contract was between two juridical persons; hence, it was confidential. There was a clause that dealt with rates.

Mr Abram asked about accredited service providers appointed to train offenders. He asked what the DCS wanted to train inmates for. Were these only in-house skills, or would they be equipped with skills for when they were released? What was expected of the accredited service provider?

Ms Nandi Mareka, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the DCS, replied that accredited training would make inmates employable in three star hotels. They would receive certificates, and would be able to compete fairly on the outside.

The Chairperson reminded the DCS that once they had adjudicated a contract, it had to be open to scrutiny, so as not to lead to qualification by the AG.

The Chairperson turned attention to the fencing contract and the role of the Independent Development Trust (IDT).

Mr Smalberger said that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the IDT would be supplied.

Mr Magagula commented that the DCS was paying people 80% of the fee, when the work had not yet been done.

The Chairperson remarked that it was similar to what happened with Pezulu. He asked why 62% of the money had been paid before the job was done.

Mr Modise replied that the implementing agent was IDT. It served the same purpose as the DPW. IDT was being paid to oversee the project. The payment of 62% was contained in the contract. The DCS had been responsible for the contract.

The Chairperson stated that the DCS could not use taxpayer money to pay for what they did not yet have. Unless 62% of the contract had in fact been completed, the DCS were in default.

Mr Selfe commented that the IDT was the implementing agent, but there was also another consultant. He asked what the consultant did, and how much he was being paid.

The Chairperson explained that Mr Selfe meant that the IDT were collecting a 4% fee, yet they brought another consultant on board. This was something that SCOPA was concerned about – it seemed that consultants were being brought on to manage other contractors or consultants.

Mr Modise replied that he did not have some of the information.

Mr Abram noted that he had been to a centre where he was told that the security system was not functional. There had to be a centre specific presentation on that.

Mr Modise replied that some of the software for security systems had “had its time”. The General Information Technology Officer (GITO) would see to refurbishment.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that fencing poles at Groenpunt were in sad state. Groenpunt was in need of fencing. She asked about the procurement of CCTVs.

The Chairperson referred to the state of cameras on fences and access control.

Mr Modise responded that fences were prone to rust. There had been an evaluation all over the country. Some centres had been prioritised. Groenpunt was not in line for the first phase. There had been glitches in the cameras between fences at Durban Westville. The fence had been replaced.

Mr Abram asked if the dysfunctional systems at Boksburg were the result of poor workmanship or normal wear and tear. Fencing for eight centres was costing R500 million. Rust had been mentioned. He asked if the DCS had done a cost-benefit analysis to consider bricks. It was possible that concrete could be cheaper than wire.

The Chairperson asked if there was value for money at a cost of R70 million per centre.

Mr Modise replied that he would respond in writing about feasibility. The software for the turnstiles at Boksburg was outdated.

Mr Selfe asked about consultant costs and the R25 million spent on a cancelled contract.

Mr Modise replied that he did not have sufficient information at hand to answer.

Mr Magagula commented that there seemed to have been a rushed payment for fencing, which meant that someone needed money. IDT had to account for this.

The Chairperson said that the CEO of IDT would be called in. R37 million had been paid to consultants. IDT had to explain why there had to be such haste in paying. Chances were that the contract was going to be extended, as happened at Ceres and Kimberley. The date had already been extended from April to September. The DCS were planning for failure. IDT had to come with the DCS and explain. It was going down the same path as the nutrition contract.

The Chairperson asked if the gang management strategy was working or not. It was known that gangs at Durban Westville were drinking expensive whisky. They were paying people on the outside through the money market. At Johannesburg, gangs were planning the elimination of their enemies from the inside. If they could not get a hit done on a strong enemy, they would send someone who had been released, to frame him. Names were known. The Committee would ask the DCS to send them to Kokstad.

Mr Max referred to the recent suspension of DCS officials at St Albans. Due to staff shortages related to the OSD, inmates stabbed wardens regularly. The staff wanted to meet with the Eastern Cape Regional Commissioner, Mr Nkosinathi Breakfast, but he mandated the Area Commissioner to see them. He refused to see them, and 160 officials went to his office. 99 were suspended and other staff had to be brought in from elsewhere. It was said that a member had died the day before. He asked if that was true. Personnel were disillusioned, also at Kimberley, Westville and Groenpunt. The DCS had declared that 2013 was to be the year of the official. The DCS did not care about grassroots people. Generic complaints were not listened to. The second group of payments were still awaited There had been awards against the DCS. There had to be a revolution at the grassroots level.

Mr Mokoena explained that the suspensions had been occasioned by an illegal act on the part of the employees. 120 people could not demand to be met without representatives. A Ministerial task team had been set up, and progress was being made. However, the legitimacy of the Ministerial task team was questioned. The Public Service Association (PSA) declared that members had a right to act in that manner. If 120 officials were allowed to march, the question was what would happen to current structures in place. The Minister had established a task team, and the DCS would go back to the Department of Public Service and Administration.

The Chairperson stated that if there were a process, the Committee would condemn the march.

The Chairperson asked about the Remand Detainee Ncube, who had complained that she had been on remand for seven years.

Ms Britta Rotmann, Regional Commissioner at the DCS, replied that she did not have information on complaints. People from the courts had been received, who said that the case had dragged on because there had been a constant change of attorneys. Her five co-accused were not out on bail, but in prison.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee was relieved to hear that she was not the only one in prison. The secretary would get hold of the inmate, and a response would be crafted. Legal Aid SA had apparently assisted.

The Chairperson asked about an inmate named Wikus, who was phoning regularly with complaints.

Mr Smalberger assured the Committee that he would undertake and resolve the matter.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that the community could not be safe if inmates controlled prisons. A clear report on vetting for DCS Members was expected.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.