RESEARCH UNIT
9 October 2007
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE LEGAL AID BOARD (LAB) 2006/07
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to assist the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development in exercising its oversight
responsibilities by providing a summary and analysis of the Annual Report of
the Legal Aid Board (LAB) 2006/2007.
1.1 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
The Legal Aid Board is an independent statutory body established by the Legal
Aid Act 22 of 1969, as amended by the Legal Aid Amendment Act 20 of 1996.
Despite its somewhat outdated enabling legislation, its legislative mandate is
found in the Constitution and various statutes:
Legal Aid Act 22 of 1969 as amended
In terms of the Legal Aid Act 22 of 1969, as amended by the Legal Aid Amendment
Act 20 of 1996', the LAB's main object of LAB is to render or make available
legal representation to indigent persons at State expense as contemplated in
the Constitution, which affords every citizen the right of access to justice.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996
Section 35(2)(c) provides that "everyone who is detained, including every
sentenced prisoner, has the right to have a legal practitioner assigned to the
detained person by the State and at State expense, if substantial injustice
would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly."
Section 35(3)(g) provides that "every accused person has a right to a fair
trial, which includes the right to have a legal practitioner assigned to the
accused person by the state and at State expense, if substantial injustice
would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly."
Section 28(1)(h) provides for "a legal practitioner assigned to a child by
the State, and at State expense, in civil proceedings affecting the child, if
substantial injustice would otherwise result."
The following Acts are also of relevance to the LAB's mandate:
Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 2 of 2000
Section 30(1)(c) of this Act provides for the granting of the legal aid in
Equality Court matters.
Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19
of 1998
Section (4)(5)(d) states that "the unlawful occupier is entitled to
appear before the court and defend the case and, where necessary, has the right
to apply for legal aid.
2. VISION, MISSION AND VALUES OF LEGAL AID BOARD
The Vision of the LAB is for: "A just South Africa in which the rights
enshrined in our Constitution are promoted, respected, defended, protected and
fulfilled to ensure justice for all. n
The Mission of the LAB is "To be a leading provider of quality legal
services, ensuring effective access to justice for the poor and vulnerable, in
an independent manner."
The Values of the LAB include: "Dedication and commitment, Service
Excellence and Professionalism, Respect for human dignity, Integrity,
Efficiency and Effectiveness, Accountability, Promotion of an internal culture
that is inspirational and empowering."
Issue for Consideration
·
Neither the Annual Report nor the strategic plan
provides details of the Board's organogram. It is very difficult to establish
how the Board is organised and how this relates to the allocation of
responsibilities and funds
3. TECHNICAL ASPECTS
The Annual Report of the LAB 2006/07 was tabled before the National Assembly on
28 August 2007, in adherence to Section 65 of the PFMA which requires that
reports be tabled by 30 September of each year.
The Report seeks to provide a detailed account of LAB activities and
performance in the reporting period. The Report represents information using
graphs and tables as well as using the narrative form of describing outcomes
and achievements. The following comments must be noted in this regard:
·
It is preferable for reports presenting large volumes
of empirical data to do so in the form of graphics. This makes it easier for
the reader to understand and compare the data. While the Report does this in
many instances, there are numerous other examples that would have been better
illustrated using graphical representations.
·
Both the Annual Report and the LAB Strategic Plan 2006
do not identify targets and timeframes in which such targets are to be
achieved. Instead a substantial portion of the performance report lists vague
outputs. The Outcome Achieved is usually noted in a positive light. There are
no quantifiable targets against which to measure outcomes and even if a success
was achieved, it cannot be independently verified. This style of reporting
allows for even minor successes to be noted in glowing terms while failures can
be easily glossed over. It is therefore difficult to accurately measure
performance in key areas.
·
As the Report fails to mention specific targets, it
would have useful if more year on year comparisons were mentioned. This would
allow for the level of improvement to be ascertained.
·
The Report is voluminous and it is possible for key
areas to be overlooked as readers try to wade through the content.
4. TARGETS AS PER ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL EXPENDITURE
The Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) 2006/07 lists the follow as
targets for the Legal Aid Board in the reporting period.
·
Sub programme |
Output |
Measure/Indicator |
|
Legal Aid Board |
Legal representation for the indigent |
Number of cases finalised Percentage decline in
criminal cases being heard without representation. |
250 000 cases per year 10% fewer unrepresented cases
per year |
Table 1: ENE Medium Term Output Targets
The LAB falls under Programme 5: Auxiliary and Associated Service of the
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. The specific target set
by the Department as indicated above is to increase the number of new matters
handled by the LAB and to decrease the number of unrepresented accused by 10%.
·
The LAB has exceed the Department's target of 250 000
new matters, dealing with 314 084 matters in the reporting period.
·
The LAB lists reducing the number of unrepresented
accused as a priority programme and alludes to its success. However there is no
reported data in this regard and the success of .this programme cannot be
measured.1
5. OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE: ACHIEVEMENTS AND
CHALLENGES
5.1 SELECTED ACHEIVEMENTS:
·
The Board reports that it has provided access to
justice for more than 350 000 citizens, which is an increase of 5% from
2005/2006.
·
All criminal courts in South Africa are now covered by
the Legal Aid Board.
·
Children's Units were opened across the country, and
the focus on awaiting trial prisoners continued.
·
The Board hosted a national Access to Justice
conference.
·
The Board has increased representation on national and
provincial steering committees established to improve efficiency of the justice
system.
·
The Board maintained its public education programme
maintained. This included holding community meetings countrywide and the
distribution of annual newsletter to 6 million households, as well as the
development and distribution of educational material.
·
The Board made a written submission made on the White
Paper on the Transformation of the Judiciary. Written submissions were also
made in respect of the Legal Services Charter.
·
For the sixth year in a row the Board has achieved an
unqualified audit report.
5.2 CHALLENGES:
The Board faces a number of challenges. These include:
·
Inadequate coverage of courts despite having 58
justice centres and 41 satellite offices, the utilisation of Judicare and
co-operation agreement partners. This requires an increased number of
practitioners per court for effective service delivery. At present the Legal
Aid Board is struggling to maintain a ratio of one practitioner per court.
·
Issues of providing access to Legal Aid, particularly
in rural areas, remains a challenge.
·
Public perception that the standard of performance by
LAB candidate attorneys in the District Courts is below standard. This is
despite the care that is taken to ensure that candidate attorneys are properly
trained and supervised. These perceptions require addressing. The heavy
caseload of candidate attorneys needs to be addressed in order to achieve a
balance between training and their exposure to work generally.
·
Inadequate remuneration of staff, particularly legal
staff is a challenge. The remuneration of legal staff remains inconsistent within
the justice cluster. While a DPSA process is underway this is not keeping pace
with expectations, creating significant problems. In this regard, the Board
reports that industrial action has become a real threat.
·
The absence of proper career pathing is also an issue.
·
The application of the means test excludes a large
number of persons who not indigent nevertheless are unable to afford to fund
their won legal expenses.
·
The issue of civil legal aid remains a problem.
Approximately only 11 % of matters are civil matters but there is a huge demand
for such services.
6. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
The LAB identifies three key strategies in its Strategic Plan 2006
including:
1. Delivery of quality legal services.
2. Development of human capital to support the delivery of quality services.
3. Development of institutional capacity to support the delivery of quality
legal services.
These three key strategies go to the core of the function of this entity. All
these strategies seek to improve legal service delivery. Each objective is
described in great detail. However no concrete targets and timeframes are
provided. In some instances such targets cannot be set but in many instances
they can be set. For example, Strategy 1 includes the delivery of quality legal
services that are: "accessible to urban and rural clients through a
national network of delivery points as well as focused/targeted programmes
aimed at various categories of clients. However the Strategic Plan does not
state how these goals will be met, how services will be extended to specified
communities and in what timeframe this would be achieved.
This section will highlight some of areas of service delivery in terms of the
three Strategic Priorities.
6.1 QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES
6.1.1 QUANTITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED
The performance of the LAB is measured in most part by the delivery of
legal services. Some of the key measures of service delivery are indicated by
the number of matters finalised, pending (outstanding) matters and the number
of new matters.
·
Finalised Matters
An important aim of the LAB is to increase the number of finalised
matters.
LAB DELIVERY SYSTEM |
2006/2007 |
% |
2005/2006 |
% |
Justice Centre |
312 824 |
90% |
264 825 |
87% |
Judicare |
28 826 |
8% |
32 941 |
11% |
Co-operation partners |
4847 |
2% |
5360 |
2% |
Total |
346 497 |
|
303 126 |
|
Table 2: Finalised matters in 2006/7 in comparison to 2005/06
·
The LAB has increased the number of matters it has
finalised by 1,4% compared to 2005/06.
·
However, when compared against the number of pending
matters the total number of finalised matters decreases substantially, as shown
in the following table.
NUMBER OF MATTERS FOR JUSTICE CENTRES |
2006/2007 |
% |
Finalised |
312 824 |
67% |
Pending |
151 296 |
33% |
Total |
464 120 |
|
Table 3: Finalised and Pending Matters for 2006/07
·
Therefore 312 824 out of 464 120 matters were
finalised, i.e. 67% of total matters handled by the Justice Centres. This is in
sharp contrast to the 90% of matters reported by LAB. It is suggested that a
more accurate picture would be provided if finalised matters are not only
compared to previous year's finalised matters, but also to pending matters.
No breakdown as to how matters are finalised is provided. It is unclear
whether these statistics represent the number of matter finalised by the LAB
i.e. files closed, or whether it indicates the number of matters finalised in
the court system i.e. matters concluded. Further, as no breakdown is provided
it is unclear as to the mechanisms used to finalise these matters. For example,
are attorneys implementing Alternative Dispute Resolution as promoted by the
Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs?
Questions
·
How were the above matters finalised? For example how
many matters were finalised by the State withdrawing charges, trials completed
or matter settled.
·
What percentage of finalised matters re-entered the
Court system thus increasing court backlogs?
·
Pending Matters
LAB DELIVERY SYSTEM |
2006/2007 |
% |
2005/2006 |
% |
Justice Centre |
151 296 |
No data |
150 295 |
76% |
Judicare |
No data |
No data |
44 766 |
22% |
Co-operation partners |
No data |
No data |
3172 |
2% |
Total |
No data |
No data |
198 233 |
|
Table 4: Pending matters for 2006/07 in comparison with 2005/06
·
Incomplete statistics are provided for the number of
pending matters compared to 2005/06.
·
It is unclear as to how long these pending matters
have been outstanding. Strategy 1 is to contribute to an effective and
efficient legal justice system and Delivery Programme 5 provides for focussed
programmes to remove blockages to efficient and effective functioning of the
justice system. Figures do not enable one to gage how successfully such
programmes have been implemented.
·
What are the reasons that cause matters to be
outstanding over prolonged periods?
·
What is the average time it takes to finalise matters
at district, regional, high court and civil matters?
·
What mechanisms are in place to monitor that matters
do not stay on the Court system for prolonged periods of time?
·
What measures have been implemented to reduce the
number of pending matters and reducing court backlogs?
·
Why are the pending matters for Judicare and
cooperative partners not indicated? Are these monitored
LAB DELIVERY SYSTEM |
2006/2007 |
% |
2005/2006 |
% |
Justice Centre |
314 084 |
87.5% |
291 457 |
85% |
Judicare |
39331 |
11% |
42 787 |
13% |
Co-operation partners |
5468 |
1.5% |
6000 |
2% |
Total |
358 883 |
|
340 244 |
|
Table 5: New Matters for 2006/07 in comparison with 2005/06
·
The total number of new matters, in comparison to
2005/06 has increased by 5%. This is a notable improvement.
·
However, as no targets in respect of new matters were
set, performance cannot be objectively measured.
.Questions
·
What strategy is the LAB using to increase the number
of new matters?
·
In what percentage of new matters did the LAB
represent children?
·
What is the target for new matters in the next
financial year?
LAB DELIVERY SYSTEM |
FINALISED |
|
NEW |
|
|
2006/2007 |
2005/2006 |
2006/2007 . |
2005/2006 |
Justice Centre |
33 545 |
28 455 |
34 393 |
36 304 |
Judicare |
603 |
417 |
2324 |
1 556 |
Co-operation partners |
3622 |
4048 |
4299 |
5005 |
Total |
37 770 |
32 920 |
41 016 |
42 865 |
Table 6: Civil Legal Aid matters (new and finalised) for 2006/07 in
comparison with 2005/06
·
The number of finalised matters has increased but
there has been a decrease in the number of new civil matters. No reasons are
provide for the decline.
·
There is no indication of pending civil matters.
·
It is noted in the Annual Report by the Chairperson,
that the issue of civil legal aid is unresolved and that the Department of
Justice has not provided guidelines as to how funds will be allocated to this
area.
Questions
·
In light of the vast number of people unable to afford
private attorneys, what strategy is the LAB using to increase its services in
this area given the above mentioned constraints?
·
Judicare
|
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Civil |
388 |
375 |
424 |
1 137 |
Criminal |
6457 |
6464 |
5478 |
18 608 |
Table 7: Civil and Criminal Judicare Matters for 2006/07 per Quarter
·
The allocation of matters to Judicare shows
substantial increases in the last quarter of the year. However when this is
compared to the New Matters dealt with by the Justice Centres, there is no
comparable spike in matters received. This can be observed across provinces and
regions.
·
It is unclear as to why such an increased number of
matters were allocated to Judicare in the last quarter.
·
This could indicate either poor planning or capacity
issues. This would have budgetary implications.
·
It is unclear as to what systems are in place to
monitor the performance and delivery of Judicare.
Questions
·
Why were increased numbers of matters allocated to
Judicare in the last quarter of the reporting period?
6.1.2 INCREASING QUALITY OF SERVICES
Various interventions and monitoring programmes were implemented to improve
quality. These programmes focused on ensuring that legal practitioners were
better prepared to represent clients. This was done by using checklists, case
discussions, mentorship programmes and court observation.
·
No targets are provided as to how quality has been
increased. The Report states that an independent audit of legal service
delivery was conducted. This is merely reported on and no year on year
statistics of the quality measures obtained are provided. Quality and how it is
measured is not defined.
·
The Report states that quality targets were exceeded
by LAB practitioners. No data is provided to support this. This is serious
oversight in the Report. There is a perception that LAB attorneys especially
candidate attorneys, are unable to deliver quality legal services. This data
should therefore be reported on to demonstrate whether this perception has any
substance.
·
It is reported that the recommendations of the
previous legal quality audit were implemented. However this cannot be measured
as no further information is provided in this regard.
Questions
·
What standards are used to measure legal
'practitioners' performance?
·
How is performance monitored on a daily basis, outside
the yearly legal audit?
·
What is the ratio of supervisory staff to candidate
attorneys in terms of monitoring quality?
6.1.3 INCREASING ACCESS TO SERVICES
A key output of access to services is to increase coverage in all courts. There
was a special focus on increasing access of legal services to children and
awaiting trial prisoners.
The LAB ensured that clients were able to access its services at all criminal
courts. Children's Units were established at a number of Justice Centres and
the LAB's representation of children has increased. The number of unrepresented
accused has been reduced.
·
No figures are provided to indicate the degree by
which the representation of children has increased.
·
Reducing the number of unrepresented accused is listed
as a key priority but again there are no measurable indications of whether this
was done.
·
How many Children's Units have been established? How
are they distributed nationally?
·
In what percentage of its matters has LAB represented
children in the last financial year?
·
What percentage of the total number of juvenile
offenders in the court system, are represented by the LAB?
·
What mechanisms are in place to expedite matters
involving juvenile clients and awaiting trial prisoners?
·
What initiatives are in place to increase legal
services to awaiting trial prisoners
·
By what percentage has the number of unrepresented
accused decreased?
6.1.4 INCREASE AWARENESS OF THE LAB SERVICES
The Report states that this programme was fully implemented with numerous
education outreach programmes, visits to schools, communities and civic
formations. The programme contributed to the increased awareness of the LAB.
·
Community outreach is reported on but not measured against
any specified target. However when compared to the same events last year there
is a notable decline in the number of programmes.
EVENT |
2006/2007 |
2005/2006 |
Fair play tournaments |
64 |
68 |
Community events |
91 |
86 |
Cell branding |
50 |
58 |
Public lectures |
73 |
151 |
Total |
278 |
363 |
Table 8: Awareness events for 2006/07 in comparison to 2005/06
·
Why was there a reduction in the LAB community
outreach programmes?
6.2 DEVELOP THE HUMAN CAPITAL TO SUPPORT THE DELIVERY
OF QUALITY SERVICES
6.2.1 DEVELOPING PEOPLE CAPACITY/COMPETENCIES
·
Recruitment levels
In terms of recruitment, adequately staffed business units, are
identified as a key output.
In terms of this Report recruitment levels at Justice Centre Level were 92% and
at National Level were 93%, for 2006/07.
·
What strategies are being utilised to attract and
retain legal practitioners who have achieved good performance?
·
Candidate Attorneys
I terms of candidate attorneys the identified output is to re-align the
number of candidate attorneys used to deliver legal services in order to impact
on quality and to improve sustainability.
During the reporting period concerted efforts were made not to increase the
number of candidate attorneys employed and to employ legal professionals and
supervisory staff. Motivation was submitted in the Medium Term Expenditure
Framework for the allocation of additional funds to employ more professionally
qualified staff.
·
It is not clear to what extent this target was
achieved. The number of Candidate Attorneys employed in contrast to other years
is not indicated. It is also not indicated how many more professional and
supervisory staff have been employed.
·
It is unclear how this goal was met as the Report
states that continuous motivation was submitted for the allocation of
additional funds in the Medium Term Expenditure Framework. It does not indicate
whether these allocations were approved.
·
There is no indication of the ratio of candidate
attorneys to professional staff that the LAB has as a target.
·
There is no indication of a clear programme
stipulating logistics needed and timeframe for implementing such a goal.
·
The Strategic Plan does not indicate how the need to
reduce the number on candidate attorneys will be balanced with the need to LAB
to provide employment opportunities for graduates especially those who are
previously disadvantaged.
·
What percentage of legal staff are candidate attorneys
and what percentages of courts are serviced by them?
·
In light of the LAB seeking to increase the number of
professionally qualified legal staff, will the number of candidate attorney be
reduced at district court level and what are the budgetary implications of
this?
·
What is the LAB's plan in respect of logistics and
timeframes in implementing such a plan?
6.3 DEVELOP THE INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY TO SUPPORT THE
DELIVERY OF QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES
6.3.1 BLACK ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT (BEE) MONITORING SYSTEM
The implementation of a BEE Monitoring System was identified as an output.
The BEE Monitoring System was not implemented, during the reporting period due
to capacity constraints. This programme will be implemented in the 2007/08
financial year.
·
These obstacles are not explained and no further
details are given.
Questions
·
What measures have been taken to remove the capacity
constraints that prevented this programme from implemented?
6.3.2 IMPROVEMENT OF EMPLOYEE SKILLS
Improving employee's skills and development was identified as a key output.
A total of 2 752 hours non-legal training was conducted during the reporting
period.
·
It is reported that due to time constraints, the
training target was not achieved.
·
It is impossible to assess the degree of
underperformance as the target is not revealed.
·
The reason for the non-achievement of the training
target is elaborated on.
Questions
·
What measures have been taken to improve planning so
that this programme is not hampered by time constraints in the 2006/07
financial year?
6.3.3 NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE DELIVERY OF
LEGAL SERVICES
The LAB seeks to match staff capacity with court demand. This will be done by
enhancing Ad Infinitum (computer programme that collects data) to assess demand
emanating from each Court. At present the ratio of practitioner per court is
inadequate to meet demand and quality standards and motivation for additional
funding for this purpose as been forwarded.
·
This is the plan of action adopted by LAB but is
reported as an outcome achieved.
Questions
·
What is the average ratio of legal practitioners per
court?
6.3.4 MANAGING JUDICARE
The Legal Aid Act will have to be amended to allow for the extension of
attorney client privilege to allow LAB employees to conduct quality reviews.
However the efficiency of Judicare was monitored.
·
The LAB reports that it was unable to monitor and
evaluate the quality of the legal content of the work undertaken by Judicare
practitioners. It did however monitor the quality of the work of its cooperation
partners. It is unclear how attorney client privilege was dealt with in this
instance and why this was possible with co-operation partners but not with
Judicare practitioners.
·
It is not report as to the measures taken to amend the
Legal Aid Act, to allow for such monitoring.
·
Further it is not reported as to why alternative
measures were not taken to facilitate such monitoring, such as asking clients
to content to such monitoring when the Judicare practitioner is being
allocated.
6.3.5 BUDGETS AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING
The controlling of expenditure with the parameters of the 12 month expenditure
plan and ensuring expenditure was within 99, 5% if budget or overspend, was
identified as a key output.
The LAB was successful in this respect with expenditure being within 95% of
budget and no overexpenditure recorded.
6.3.6 LEGAL AID BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURE
The enacting revised Legal Aid Act to ensure better access to justice to
indigent people was identified as a key output.
The LAB has submitted a draft policy on Legal Aid to the Minister of
Justice in respect of amendments to the Legal Aid Board Act. The Department
will finalise the first draft of the Bill in the 2007/08 financial year.
·
Updating Legal Aid Guide
The LAB identified the aligning of the Legal Aid Guide to operational
and client needs as a key output.
The Legal Aid Guide submitted in 2005 to the Minister is still awaiting
approval. Revisions to policy were dealt with on the basis of circulars.
7. HUMAN RESOURCES
7.1 Employment and Vacancy By Region
While the LAB notes an average vacancy rate of 8, 52%, both the National Office
and the Kopanong Region have relatively high vacancy rates of 12, 05% and 15,
54% respectively. The Kopanong region deals with the largest portion of Legal
Aid matters.
The vacancy rate in critical occupations averages 11 %. In four out of eight
critical occupation areas, namely Legal, Finance, Human Resources and Legal
Development have vacancy rates all above 10%. Finance has a vacancy rate of
40%.
7.2 Staff Turnover
Out of an average of 1 941 employees in the reporting period, 532 staff
terminated employment. The average staff turnover rate was 2, 27% for the year
with a notable increase of 19% in February 2006. On average 44 employees left
the LAB each month while 59 were employed per month. Of the 532 staff that left
50% resigned and in 46% of cases their contracts had expired.
·
Staff turnover rate is low and below average compared
to other public entities and government department.
·
However half of staff turnover is due to resignations.
It is not indicated as to the category of staff with the highest turnover rate.
·
What steps are taken by the LAB to retain experienced
and qualified staff?
·
As the LAB ascertained the reasons as to why the
majority of staff leaving are resigning?
·
What are those reasons?
7.3 Employment Equity
RACE |
AFRICAN |
COLOURED |
INDIAN |
|
WHITE |
|
|
|
||
GENDER |
M |
F |
M |
F |
M |
F |
M |
F |
M |
F |
Legislators senior officials & managers |
28% |
19% |
5% |
4% |
6% |
4% |
20% |
14% |
59% |
41% |
Professionals |
44% |
21% |
6% |
9% |
3% |
5% |
6% |
6% |
59% |
41% |
Technicians & associated professionals |
42% |
22% |
10% |
3% |
5% |
0% |
10% |
8% |
67% |
33% |
Clerk |
28% |
40% |
3% |
9% |
2% |
4% |
3% |
11% |
36% |
64% |
Total |
39% |
26% |
5% |
9% |
3% |
4% |
6% |
8% |
53% |
47% |
Table 9: Breakdown of staff for 2006/07 according to race and gender
In all categories the representation of African females are not in line with
equity targets. In the first category (Legislators, senior officials &
managers), African people are underrepresented while white people are
overrepresented. Women are underrepresented in all categories with the
exception of clerks. Disabled people make up 0,5% of employees.
A comparison of equity in term of occupational level reveals that women
especially African women are underrepresented in every category except the
lowest category of semi-skilled and discretionary decision making,
administration officers. At top and senior management level only 1 out of 13
and 1 out of 17 positions are occupied by African females. At senior management
level less than 20% of employees are female. At professionally qualified,
academically qualified workers and junior management level only 32% of
employees are female and 8% are African female.
Of all employees 26% are African female and 39% are African male. However of
the 535 employees who left the LAB, 31 % were African female and 42% were
African male. The LAB has clearly as a problem attracting and retaining staff
in these groups.
Recruitment figures for the reporting period indicate that although efforts are
being made to reach equity targets, the recruitment of African women in most
categories lags seriously behind.
Questions
·
What steps have been implemented by LAB to attract
candidates in the underrepresented equity categories?
·
What targets and timeframes have been implemented to
meet equity targets?
7.4 Training
1 510 out of 2 500 employees attended some form of training i.e. 60,4% of
employees.
·
There are no details of the type of training
conducted?
·
There is no indication of the average number of hours
of training received by employees?
Questions
·
What was the average hours of training received by
employees, especially candidate attorneys?
·
How will the LAB increase the number of employees
trained, as only 60,4% of employees received training in the last financial
year.
8. REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The Report of the Auditor General for 2006/07 indicates the LAB received an
unqualified audit. The Auditor did draw attention to ancillary matters relating
to human resources and payroll functions. The Report identifies
"significant control deficiencies" in the SAP R/3 system (a software
package) used for human resources and payroll that arose due to special
attention not being paid to the risks presented by the change in the human
resources and payroll application. The AG Report notes that LAB resources are
inadequate relative to the requirements of this software application. Further
key duties and responsibilities in this regard were not always appropriately
divided or segregated to reduce the risk of error, waste or fraud. The AG
Report states that these deficiencies would be addressed by LAB management in
the 2007/08 financial year.
9. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The LAB was allocated an amount of R 501 409, 00. At the end of the reporting
period, expenditure was within 99% of budget and there was no over-expenditure
reported.
The Report notes the concern of the Auditor General in respect of SAP R/3
system. An internal audit also raised concerns about this system. The LAB seeks
to address these gaps in the next financial year.
10. CONCLUSION
In order to ensure more accurate evaluation of performance, the LAB needs to
set specified quantifiable and measurable targets. There is a need for clear
targets and clear reporting of the extent to which it has been attained. This
will assist not only the Portfolio Committee but the LAB itself to gage
performance and improve in areas were necessary.