PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES’ BUDGETARY REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT ON THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES’ PERFORMANCE IN 2010/11, AND THE FIRST HALF
OF THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR, DATED 20 OCTOBER 2011
INTRODUCTION
1. The
Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act (2009) provides for,
amongst others, a parliamentary procedure to amend Money Bills, thus granting
parliamentary committees greater opportunity to influence the allocation of
funds to the departments they oversee. Section 5 compels the National Assembly,
through its Committees to submit annual Budgetary Review and Recommendation
(BRR) reports on the financial performance of departments accountable to them.
The BRR report must be informed by a Committee’s interrogation of, amongst
others, national departments’ estimates of national expenditure, strategic
priorities and measurable objectives, National Treasury-published expenditure
reports, annual reports and financial statements, as well as observations made
during all other oversight activities. Essentially, the BRR report is a
committee’s assessment of a department’s service delivery performance given its
available resources, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency with which its
programmes are implemented.
2. According
to Section 2 of the Correctional Services’ Act (CSA), the Department of
Correctional Services (DCS) is mandated to
contribute towards maintaining and protecting a just, peaceful, and safe
society, by enforcing court-imposed sentences in the manner prescribed by the
CSA, detaining inmates in safe custody while promoting social responsibility
and the human development of all offenders and persons subject to community
corrections.
3. The
Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services (“the Committee”) is mandated to,
amongst its other statutory obligations, support the
DCS in delivering on its mandate through rigorous monitoring of the
implementation of, and adherence to, policies such as the White Paper on
Corrections (“White Paper”) and legislation such as the CSA. The Committee
furthermore oversees the delivery of services to all inmates incarcerated in
4. At the start of its term in May 2009, the Committee had
agreed to six focus areas that inform its oversight activities. Most
importantly the Committee agreed to intensify oversight of the DCS’
administration and financial management, as weaknesses in that area impact
negatively on, amongst others, the implementation of the rehabilitation and
reintegration objectives contained in the White Paper. To this end, the
Committee receives quarterly financial and administrative reports from the DCS
which are closely scrutinised, in order to detect weaknesses and recommend remedies
in good time. The Committee is not merely a watchdog over the DCS and its
entity, the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS), but a
strategic partner in ensuring that the vision of a better life for all South
Africans which it shares with Parliament, and which is enshrined in the
Constitution, is vigorously pursued. The Committee’s oversight must therefore
be driven by ensuring service delivery to both sentenced offenders and remand
detainees i.e. humane conditions of incarceration, effective rehabilitation and
reintegration programmes, and adequate care and development. The successful
delivery of these programmes will ensure that by the time an inmate is released
his or her offending behaviour has been “corrected”, thus ensuring successful
reintegration of offenders, and ultimately that South Africans feel, and are
safe.
5. The
JICS receives its budget from the DCS. As was the case in 2010, the JICS had at
the time of the compilation of this report, not yet tabled its 2010/11 Annual
Report and therefore their performance in the 2010/11 financial year could not
be interrogated for inclusion in this report.
6. In preparing to report on the DCS’ financial
and service delivery performance for the 2010/11 financial year and the first
quarter of the current financial year the Committee considered, amongst others,
all previous reports and recommendations related to the DCS’ service delivery
and financial performance, the 2010/11 Annual Report and Financial Statements,
National Treasury-published expenditure reports, reports of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) and the Auditor-General of South Africa
(AGSA), DCS briefings to the Committee, as well as stakeholder-input on the
DCS’ performance.
7. The Report comprises four parts detailing
analyses of DCS’ 2010/11 Annual Report and Financial Statements (Part A); and
its strategic objectives, budget allocation and financial performance to date
(Part B); the Committee’s recommendations (Part C); as well as the Committee’s
concluding remarks (Part D).
PART
A: THE DCS’ 2009/10 ANNUAL
REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. Performance across programmes
1.1 Administration: The
DCS reported a 15,28% vacancy rate and had thus failed dismally in meeting the
targeted 3%. The 4,7% under expenditure in the year under review is directly
linked to its inability to fill vacancies. Most programmes reported vacancy
levels exceeding 10%. At 28,7% the Administration programme had the highest
vacancy level, a staggering 56,4 being in the financial and related fields.
While it had targeted a 60-day turnaround time for the filling of vacancies, it
took the DCS 158 days to fill those vacancies it could fill.
1.2 Security: Despite this programme having been allocated R5,1
billion in the 2010/11 financial year, the DCS succeeded in meeting very few of
its key security targets. At 51, unnatural deaths remained high, assaults
increased from 137,7 per 10 000 offenders in 2009/10 to 317 per 10 000
offenders in the year under review, and at 6,65 escapes per 10 000 inmates, the
escape target has also not been met. Electronic access control systems were
fully functional at only 80% of the centres at which they had been installed..
The remaining 20% reported challenges following the expiry of the Sondolo IT
contract. Alarmingly the DCS did not set any targets for the vetting of
officials: only 6.15% of the DCS’ officials were vetted in the year under
review. The DCS’ explanations for the slow pace of vetting are unconvincing,
and inspire little faith that security clearance will in future enjoy priority.
1.3 Corrections: Though the DCS succeeded in improving on its 38% offender
population management target, it failed to ensure that all newly admitted
offenders with sentences exceeding 24 months had correctional sentence plans
(CSP), and it is not clear whether it has succeeded in developing CSPs for all
those with less than 24 months to serve before becoming eligible for parole
consideration. While the target for participation in corrections programmes was
met, it is unclear whether the quality, sustainability and effectiveness of the
programmes have been improved because the target set was too vague. Though the
DCS reports that the draft White Paper on Remand Detention was widely consulted
on, and that therefore that target had been met, the Committee and stakeholders
were unaware of such a consultation process having taken place.
1.4 Care: While the DCS succeeded in concluding service level
agreements for health care services in all
1.5 Development: The DCS reported that most of the Development targets could
not be met largely owing to capacity constraints resulting from the
implementation of the 2x12 shift system, and the artisan-shortage. Unlike
previous reports which assessed self-sufficiency levels, the 2010/11 report was
silent on agricultural production. In 2010/11 2 906 offenders worked on
correctional centre farms, and 1 693 worked in production workshops. Five
additional correctional centres were registered with the Department of Basic Education
(DBE) as fulltime schools in the year under review, thus bringing the total number
of such schools to six. Correctional centre-schools however achieved only a 73%
matric pass rate, 24% lower than in 2009/10.
1.6 Social Reintegration: Of the 20 411 offenders who became
eligible for parole in the year under review, 17 630 were considered and only 9
978 were placed on parole. The number of probationers increased marginally from
9 265 in 2009/10 to 9 370 in 2010/11. The judiciary’s reluctance to hand down
more community corrections sentences may be ascribed to the Department’s
challenges as far as monitoring probationers: in 2010/11 3 050 violations were
reported per 10 000 parolees, and the 746 violations per 10 000, was not met by
far. The poor rollout of pre-release programmes and insufficient pre-release
centres further hamper reintegration efforts as inmates, especially those who
have served long sentences, are released without having been adequately
prepared for their return to free society.
1.7 Facilities: As construction projects suffered
numerous delays, the DCS was unable to meet the target for increasing bed
spaces by 965. The feasibility study to determine what the size of a cost
effective facility should be, could not be conducted.
2. Financial Information
2.1 The
DCS was allocated an adjusted budget of R15, 43 billion in the 2010/11
financial year. The increase from the R13,8 billion received in
the previous financial year resulted mainly from an additional R300 million per
year allocation over the medium term expenditure framework (MTEF) period, to be
utilised for the Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD) for correctional
officials, and the R10 483 billion adjustment to the compensation of employees
allocation which was expected to grow at an average annual rate of 7,6% from
2009/10 to 2012/13. The DCS spent 95,3 % of its budget, 3,6% less than the
98,9% it spent in the 2008/09 financial year.
2.2 Only the Corrections and Social
Reintegration programmes spent 100% of their allocations, while the
Administration, Security, Care, Development and Facilities programmes spending
94,5%, 97%, 96%, 97,9% and 85.5%
respectively.
2.3 The Administration programme received a
total of R370 159 million in virements from other programmes to fund the purchase
of vehicles.
2.4 The DCS received R115 418 million in
revenue from amongst others fines, penalties, sales of goods and services and
dividends on rent and land.
2.5 The DCS’ expenditure on compensation of employees increased
from R9,1 billion in 2009/10 to R9,5 billion in 2010/11. Most of the allocation
was spent on salaries. Performance bonuses increased from R18,262 million in
2009/10 to R80,875 million in 2010/11. There was also a notable decrease in the
expenditure on compensative/circumstantial payments.
2.6 The
DCS’ expenditure on Goods and Services increased from R3,5 billion in 2009/10
to R4 billion in 2010/11. Expenditure on infrastructure and planning showed a
massive increase from R441 000 to R2,247 million. Expenditure on consultants
and outsourced services, contractors and business and advisory services showed
a decrease to R520 million, R44 012 million and R24 669 million respectively.
This improvement notwithstanding the Committee remains deeply critical of the
DCS’ over-reliance on consultants. The DCS’ Government Information and
Technology Office (GITO),for example, employed 83 consultants in 2010/11, at a
cost of a staggering R58 million. This is unacceptable particularly given that
the DCS appears to have put no measures in place to ensure skills transfer from
consultants to its own officials.
2.7 The
DCS’ expenditure on computer services amounted to R142,922 million. R130,652
million of this amount was paid for services rendered by the State Information
and Technology Agency (SITA) which is more than double that spent in the
previous financial year. The expenditure on external computer service providers
was reduced from R26, 757 million in 2009/10 to R12 270 million in 2010/11.
2.8 Transport
assets to the value of R258 920 million were transferred out of the DCS,
destroyed or scrapped and only R768 000 of that amount was recovered.
2.9 The
DCS again spent its budget irregularly in 2010/11. The irregular expenditure
reported includes R50 000 for the “transformation of an office into a video
remand site”, and R944 000 paid to suppliers who failed to declare their
employment by the state, their connection with a person employed by the state
or their relationship with persons involved in the evaluation and/or
adjudication of the bids as per the requirement of Practice Note 7 of 2009/10.
2.10 The
DCS reported R68 000 in fruitless and wasteful expenditure, the bulk of which
was incurred when delegates failed to attend an employee assistance programme
(EAP) conference. Investigations into this, and four other incidents are
pending.
2.11 The
DCS reported claims against it amounting to R1,3 billion. This amount included
those carried over from the previous financial year. In 2010/11 only R34,855
million was claimed, comprising amongst others R7,665 million from
assaults/bodily injury claims; R7,417 million from unlawful detention claims;
and R1,941 million from motor accidents.
3. Audit outcome
3.1 The DCS yet again received a
qualified audit opinion resulting from the addition and disposal of movable
tangible assets. Discrepancies are related to the weaknesses in the LOGIS
accounting system which does not allow separate processing of internal
transfers and therefore transactions are duplicated. The weaknesses were being
addressed.
3.2 Matters of emphasis included
unauthorised expenditure to the amount of R483 million incurred in the 2008/09
financial year, which resulted from implementation
of Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC) Resolution No.1 of
2007 on the improvements in salaries and other conditions of services for the
2007/08 to 2010/11 financial years. Since the publication of the audit outcome
SCOPA has recommended that the unauthorised expenditure be funded through
savings in the DCS’ budget.
3.3 The
DCS incurred material losses amounting to R3,387 million. This amount comprised
R2.9 million for significant losses in state vehicles, losses from claims
amounting to R218 000 and R247 000 from other sources.
3.4 Inadequate
internal control was also identified as a matter of emphasis. Weak leadership
had resulted in poor reporting on financial and performance information, poor
human resource management that failed to ensure the availability of adequate
and sufficient skilled resources especially in the area of asset management, ineffective
monitoring of the development and implementation of action plans to address
internal control deficiencies, and the failure to establish an effective
information technology (IT) governance framework to support and enable the DCS’
business, deliver value and improve performance.
3.5 Inadequate
financial and performance management resulted in, amongst others, the
submission of inaccurate and incomplete financial statements and other
information, the unavailability at times of regular, accurate and complete
financial and performance reports which were supported and evidenced by
reliable information, and insufficient review and monitoring of compliance with
applicable laws and regulations.
3.6 Governance-related
weaknesses included that controls were not carefully selected and appropriately
developed to mitigate risks in financial and performance reporting. Ongoing
monitoring and supervision were not always undertaken to allow an assessment of
the effectiveness of internal controls over financial and performance
reporting.
PART B: THE DCS’ STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES, 2011/12 BUDGET ALLOCATION
AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AS AT 30 JUNE 2011
1. Overview of the DCS’ Key Strategic Focus Areas
1.1 According to its strategic plan the DCS’ mission is to contribute to maintaining and protecting a just, peaceful and safe society by enforcing court decisions and sentences in line with relevant legislation, detaining all inmates in safe custody while ensuring their human dignity, and promoting the rehabilitation, social responsibility and human development of all offenders. The DCS’ strategic planning has, since 2005, been informed by the White Paper.
1.2 The following three policy priorities will be pursued over the medium term:
-
strengthening
the remand detention system through the creation of a Remand Detention
Management Branch (RDMB) responsible for coordinating the provision of services
to remand detainees wherever they may be held, and ensuring the effective
implementation of the White Paper on Remand Detention;
-
improving
the parole system through the implementation of legislative reforms aimed at strengthening the parole
system thereby ensuring the protection of inmate rights and minimising the risk
parolees posed to society; and
-
ensuring
the rehabilitation of offenders by
recruiting suitably-qualified staff, upgrading facilities to manage
overcrowding and strengthening partnerships with non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and communities, so as to strengthen and complement rehabilitation
efforts.
2. Overview of the DCS’ 2011/12 Budget
2.1 The DCS received R16,6 billion in the 2011/12 financial year i.e. 3,3% of the total national budget and 13,7 percent of the allocation to the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster which received 24% i.e. R120,8 billion of the national budget.
2.2 The
DCS’ budget has increased by R1,3 billion i.e 8,7% in nominal terms. In real
terms however the budget shows an increase of only R568,3 million.
2.3 Expenditure
is expected to increase at an annual rate of 6,9%, reaching R18,8 billion in
2013/14. The projected increase is due largely to increased spending on the
compensation of employees which in 2011/12 amounts to R10,97 billion, or 66% of
the budget. It should be noted that this allocation has increased at an annual
rate of about 14,7% between 2007/08 and 2010/11 and is expected to grow to
R12,2 billion in the medium term reflecting an annual average rate of 6%.
2.4 As
was the case in 2009/10 and 2010/11 the Security and Administration programmes,
receiving 34% and 27% of the total budget respectively, account for the largest
part of the total budget. The Development and Social Reintegration programmes
jointly receive only 7%, thus remaining the programmes with the smallest
allocations. The Care allocation has however increased by 1%, to 11% in
2011/12.
3. Financial Performance as at 30 June
2011
At the end of June 2011 the DCS had
spent R3.5 billion of its budget. Though 2,7% less than what was projected, the
21,3% that was spent is a marked improvement on the 19.9% that was spent in the
first quarter of the previous financial year. Expenditure on the
Administration, Security, Corrections and Social Reintegration programmes was
slightly below target. Expenditure on programmes Care, Development and
Facilities was considerably lower than what was projected.
3.1 The
Administration programme only spent
R1,033 billion i.e 23,4% of its allocation. This is 1% lower than expected.
That the allocation towards staff accommodation had at the end of the first
quarter not yet been spent is a cause for concern. Under-expenditure is
attributed to unfilled posts and delays in the processing of SITA accounts.
3.2 The
Security programme reported that R1
267,5 billion i.e. 22,6% of its allocation was spent. This is 0,6% lower than
the approved 23,2% that should have been spent. Under-expenditure is related
mostly to unfilled posts.
3.3 The
Corrections programme spent R360,3
million i.e. 23.4% of its allocation. The 1,4% lower than projected expenditure
is a cause for concern. Under-expenditure is related mostly to unfilled posts.
3.4 The
Care programme spent R348,7 million
i.e.18,8% of its allocation. This is 5,4% lower than what was projected.
Under-expenditure is mainly attributed to the still outstanding OSD for
psychologists which was approved after the end of the quarter, and unfilled
posts.
3.5 The
Development programme reported R111,9
million i.e. 18,9 % expenditure, 4% lower that the approved 22% that should
have been spent. Under-expenditure was due to unfilled posts, and low spending
on workshop and agricultural materials.
3.6 The
Social Reintegration programme
reported R129,6 million i.e. 22,5% expenditure, 0,7% lower than what was
approved. Under-expenditure was mainly due to unfilled posts.
3.7 The
Facilities programme spent R277,8
million i.e. 14% of its allocation. This is 10,8% less than the approved
expenditure. Under-expenditure was mainly due to low billing from the
Department of Public Works (DPW)
PART D: RECOMMENDATIONS
4. The
DCS must put in place measures for ensuring compliance with all relevant
legislation, particularly the CSA, and service delivery in line with its
mandate, as a matter of urgency. As reported in 2010 a turnaround strategy has
been developed, but it has to date not yet been submitted to the Committee.
This strategy must contain clear performance indicators, be clear about who is
responsible for functions, and about the sanctions should those functions not
be performed. The detailed turnaround strategy should be tabled before the
Committee by no later than 30 November 2011.
5. The
DCS’ excessive use of consultants, particularly in relation to IT must be
addressed immediately. It was agreed that:
- The DCS should provide a detailed report on
the its management of IT consultants in particular how appointments are made,
how the duration of contracts are determined, and exit strategies in place when
contracts expire. The report should be submitted by 23 November 2011.
- The DCS should have developed a strategy
for skills transfer from IT consultants to DCS officials, as well as for
recruiting, training and retaining appropriately skilled officials by 31 March
2012.
- The DCS should in all future monthly and
quarterly reports clearly indicate expenditure on outsourced IT services.
- The DCS should provide the Committee with a
costed implementation plan for the overhaul of the DCS’ IT systems to ensure that
it supports and enables business thereby improving performance. This report
should be provided by 23 November 2011.
-
The
DCS should submit a report detailing how much of what had over the past five
years been spent on IT, amounted to fruitless and wasteful expenditure. This
report should be submitted by 23 November 2011.
6. The
DCS’ inability to fill even its most critical vacancies remains a major cause
for concern. This failure to attract and retain employees seriously impedes
service delivery, and limits the Department’s contribution to
7. The
R2,9 million losses related to damage to state vehicles is unacceptable. The
DCS’ future quarterly reports should include a performance indicator for the
downward management of damage to, and the writing-off of state vehicles.
8. The
Committee emphasises its extreme concern about the DCS’ leadership instability,
particularly at regional level. Resignations and suspensions in key management
positions are too frequent and impact negatively on the DCS’ leadership
stability. This must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
9. The DCS’ attempts at realising the
rehabilitation and reintegration objectives contained in the White Paper are
undermined by its continued administrative challenges. Leadership instability,
lack of discipline and corruption seriously impede service delivery and must be
addressed as a matter of urgency.
10. It remains a matter of serious concern that programmes
responsible for the welfare and rehabilitation of offenders consistently receive the smallest share of the DCS’
budget. It remains to be seen whether, without sufficient funds having been
allocated to these programmes, the DCS will achieve Government’s objective of
reducing serious and violent crime through rehabilitating inmates and equipping
them with skills to be used after release, thus reducing the recidivist rate,
and thereby contributing to South Africans being and feeling safe. The high
rate of repeat-offending is indicative of the DCS’ limited success in the area
of social reintegration. If a significant improvement is to be made, a radical
shift in the budget allocation to this programme would have to be effected.
11. As recommended in previous reports on the DCS’ budget
allocation, the budget must be aligned with its rehabilitation and
reintegration objectives. The DCS must reconsider and increase its targets for
developmental interventions and make the requisite allocations to its Care and
Development, Social Reintegration and Corrections programmes. These programmes
are integral to the reduction of recidivism, which is the only measure for
determining the DCS’ success in “correcting” offending behaviour and
rehabilitating offenders.
12. The Committee received disturbing reports that when the DCS’
Operation Vala, which is aimed at increasing security and minimising escapes
over the festive season, commences, oversight bodies such as the JICS are
denied access to inmates and correctional centres. The DCS should ensure that
all heads of correctional centres (HCCs) are aware that independent correctional
centre visitors (ICCVs) should be permitted access to centres, even during
Operation Vala. The JICS should report all cases where access is denied.
13. Given that the DCS is a security institution vetting should
be prioritised. All new recruits should be vetted, and a strategy should be
developed, and timeframes established for the vetting of all centre-level and
office-based officials, at all levels. This strategy should be submitted to the
Committee by 31 March 2012.
14. The
DCS reported that 4 074 disciplinary and misconduct hearings were finalised in
the 2010/11 financial year. The most serious types of misconduct included
failure to comply with prevailing legislation, regulations or legal obligations
(438); absenteeism (1 418); dereliction of duty (400), theft, bribery, fraud,
corruption (172); intoxication while on duty (110), assault/attempted assault
while on duty (208); and breaching of security measures (400). All of these are
serious offences in any work environment, but even more so in a security
environment, where they should warrant dismissal. The sanctions imposed in the
cases that were finalised contained only 88 dismissals however. The Committee
is puzzled that despite the large number of officials charged with, and found
guilty of these offences, very few were dismissed. The DCS should ensure that
their proclamations of zero tolerance for all types of corruption resonate with
every official from the most senior to the newest recruits, and that the types
of sanctions meted out should match the offences committed. All cases that
warrant criminal investigations, in addition to internal investigations, should
be reported to the South African Police Service.
PART D: CONCLUSION
The Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, having
considered the DCS’ performance in the 2010/11 financial year, and the first
quarter of the current financial year, acknowledges improvements made, but
remains concerned about its financial management, service delivery performance,
poor monitoring and control, and severe staff constraints. The recommendations
made in this report are aimed at addressing these concerns, and echoes earlier
recommendations for the alignment of the DCS’ budget with its rehabilitation
mandate.
Report to be considered