Offender Rehabilitation Path: briefing by Department of Correctional Services

Meeting report

Offender Rehabilitation Path: briefing by Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
Ms Jenny Schreiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Offender Management Services, said that the Offender Rehabilitation Path (ORP) was based on the Corrections White Paper. Chapter 9 of the White Paper dealt with a needs based intervention plan for offenders. There was a new emphasis on rehabilitation plans specific to personal background and type of offence. Chapter 11 defined offender categories, including women, youth, the elderly and people with disabilities. Chapter 13 dealt with external partnerships with service providers, non-government organisations and other state departments. The ORP would be embedded in the Strategic Plan for the following year. The ORP had to inform alignment of structure and function in the Department. The ORP would be refined as offenders progressed. In case of problems, the offender could be moved back to earlier stages of the path. The Case Management Committee (CMC) and Correctional Interventions Officials (CIOs) were an integral part of the ORP.

Ms Schreiner noted that there was a need to prioritise staff utilisation. Shift systems had to be evaluated. The question was if the 2x12 hour shift system could deliver on the ORP. Overtime was currently not budgeted for, and corrections was not a field that kept to office hours. There had to be appropriate use of professional staff. Only one third of the number of psychologists required, was currently available. Ways had to be found of stretching resources. Other challenges included overcrowding; lack of adequate professional staff; the introduction of austerity measures, which hampered monitoring and evaluation visits, and budget and technology issues.

Discussion
The Chairperson told the Department that the Portfolio Committee was not so much interested in theories, as in what the Department was actually doing. The Committee was aware that if the DCS did nothing more than building prisons, it would be “stuck”. He drew attention to the plight of offenders sentenced to a period of less than 24 months. There were no sentence plans for such offenders. That implied that an offender would be expected to just sit, for up to nearly two years. If the Committee could help fast-track amendment to existing legislation, it would do so. Current legislation justified that 12 000 people were sitting idle, with no opportunity to work or study. He asked what the DCS was doing. The Committee and the Department had fine-tuned the budget recently. The Portfolio Committee would start to force reprioritisation through changes in the budget. He asked the Department to educate the Committee about challenges to rehabilitation. A higher percentage of the budget had to go towards rehabilitation.

 Ms M Phaliso (ANC) felt that the Committee had heard nothing new. The goals set out could not be achieved with a budget that did not speak to the Offender Rehabilitation Path (ORP). She asked why Correctional Service Plans (CSPs) were not available for those serving less than 24 months. She referred to Slide 8 and asked how the internship programme could be implemented without social workers. There was only one social worker at some centres. She asked how psychologists could be attracted.

Ms Subashini Moodley, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Development and Care, replied that there were 41 psychologists, 36 of whom were with Corrections, and 5 dealing with the community. Numbers had gone up from 22 in the recent past. As a retention strategy, salaries had been increased from level 8 to level 10. Tertiary institutions supervised practical work in the prisons. The moratorium on posts for psychologists had been lifted in August, and posts for psychologists were being advertised. Interns supervised by lecturers would be brought in during the current year. There was also the option of allowing offenders to consult outside psychologists at their own cost. The issue of social workers leaving the Department was indeed a challenge. Chapter 13 of the White Paper would be consulted to involve communities in providing social work services. There had to be optimal use of staff in strategic areas.

Mr Zach Modise, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Corrections, responded that the sections of the White Paper dealing with those with sentences of under 24 months, would be interrogated. There were in fact psychological and social work programmes for such offenders to attend. Most of them had not committed serious offences, and hence did not pose a security risk. Sections of the Act could be amended to their benefit. Statistics would be provided about the extent of their involvement in programmes.

Ms Screiner added that plans were being formulated to sustain relations with interns so as to encourage long term commitments.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked about the extent of the problem of re-arrests for parole violations. He asked when interventions started for offenders with sentences longer than 24 months. Oversight visits had indicated that it generally only commenced shortly before release. He pointed out that the Department made it difficult for external service providers because of the security checks. He knew people who said that the Department did not seem to want outside services.

Mr Selfe asked about work opportunities for inmates, whether that was restricted to cleaning the terrain or working in the kitchen once a week. The extent of workshop production and agricultural work in centres was pitifully low. Figures such as “743 people in workshops” had to be upped.

Mr Modise replied that the Department was hampered by the huge backlog on sentence plans. This was especially true for large centres such as Pollsmoor and Johannesburg. The Department did desire the involvement of NGOs and external service providers, but some found the process of accreditation difficult, as it involved the filling in of forms and the statement of credentials. Conditions could be made more flexible.

Mr Modise continued that some offenders had committed serious crimes like rape, murder or aggravated robbery. Such offenders could pose a security risk, and the Department had to make decisions about who could be allowed to go out and work. Workshop production and agricultural work was hard to sustain because certain offenders could only be taken out under strict supervision. Offenders who could perform work like carpentry or painting, were placed with Social Development. The Department was hamstrung by escape-prone offenders. Structures had to be aligned so that officials who guarded prisoners could get involved in helping offenders to work. There were limited work opportunties at the smaller centres in the form of agriculture, cleaning, food handling and chores like making tea. Some inmates were instructed in computer literacy to assist in the administration of centres. Abuse of sick leave by officials was a problem. He said that many offenders were from the townships, and were not skilled at or interested in farm work. They were drawn to skills like welding and carpentry, or plumbing.

Mr Selfe urged the Department to say what was being done to overcome challenges. He asked what was being done to reverse the drop in agricultural production. He stressed that inmates were not in a position to dictate what kind of work they would prefer to do. The important thing was to impart skills to inmates, and to at least keep them active.

The Chairperson said that the Portfolio Committee kept getting the same answers when it posed questions to the Department. He could not agree about the restrictions that were said to hamstring the Department. In Pretoria there was a massive warehouse that had closed down. He was convinced that even serial murderers could be taken there and given work. In Pretoria alone, 3000 people could be employed. In Rustenburg, the welding section was closed down. There had to be a balance between placing offenders close to their families, and finding a place were they could work. If the Boksburg centre was known to be excellent for bakery, an offender who could do that kind of work had to be sent there. Centres of excellence had to be developed further. He agreed with Mr Selfe that correction could not be based on the needs of inmates.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) referred to the development of a correctional programme addressing economic and theft related crimes. She asked if there were targets for each crime category to be addressed. The DCS had more than 240 centres to attend to, and a small number of interventions officials. She asked how access of available staff was spread across the centres, and whether it was ordinary officials or professionals who were employed. She asked about the budget for rehabilitation.

Ms Schreiner responded that categories were being developed, based on the type of crime committed. Crime-specific programmes would be developed. Figures for offenders per crime could be provided. She said that everything discussed under rehabilitation had been budgeted for, but not yet sufficiently. The matter would get attention during the mid-year strategic review. The total budget was too small. Resources had to be prioritised, and applications made to the Treasury.

Ms Schreiner continued that psychologists and social workers were needed in order for offenders to work. Rehabilitation was a people-driven process. Stretching resources was a real challenge.

Mr Modise added that a ministerial task team would conduct an audit of offenders sentenced to less than 24 months. By the end of September, there would be a report on who qualified for release, also in terms of the old Act. Currently, Heads of Centre made decisions on such offenders. The CMC made recommendations to the Head of Centre. Parole violations were in some cases penalised by adding time to the sentence. The ministerial task team had to look at parole. There had to be direct and proper guidelines, for instance that only the Parole Board could decide about parole violations, and when an offender was to be considered for release.

The Chairperson reiterated the question on how interventions officials would be spread across centres.

Mr Modise replied that master trainers were being identified to train other officials. There were training centres in the various regions. Each management area had to have a local training unit, for implementation of training.

Ms Ngwenya indicated that she was not happy with answers received. She again asked if intervention officials were professionals or not. She asked what kind of training was received.

Mr Modise replied that there were programmes tailored to different kinds of offences, such as anger management and substance abuse, and programmes for sex offenders. Details could be provided in writing. A team from Head Office had thus far monitored training already done in the Western Province, Kwazulu and the Eastern Cape. Other regions would follow.

Ms Moodley added that there were not enough professionals among the Corrections Intervention Officers (CIOs). The solution was to identify corrections officials with some qualification, at the level of Regional Commissioners, to be trained in the programmes and then provide intervention.

Mr S Abram (ANC) said that the number of offenders with a sentence of zero to 24 months, had increased rapidly over the preceding two years. There were 40 000 of them, most of them young and most of them guilty of comparatively minor crimes, which did not include violence. The DCS had suggested a way of dealing with them, according to different identified categories of crime. But possibilities such as community service had to be explored. The DCS had to state the case to policy makers. Backlogs had to be eradicated. It was expensive to look after petty criminals.

Mr Abram continued that he could not agree that a rural background was necessary to do agricultural work. Cows were no longer milked by hand. They were milked by machines, as at the Leeukop Centre. Prisoners were not VIP visitors. They were there to repay a debt to society, and they had to be prepared to participate. Figures for offenders employed in workshops and agriculture remained the same, whilst the taxpayer was paying board and lodging for inmates. Some offenders were said to be hardened and dangerous, and impossible to employ. The term “impossible” had to be erased from the corrections vocabulary. Anything to do with humans was humanly possible. Offenders had to pay for their keep. Each one was costing R200 per day. The DCS had to be innovative. Big supermarket chains were importing vegetables that could be grown locally. Other government departments had to assist so that inmates could do something positive.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) noted that the shortage of staff was a challenge. The Department had lost people that it had trained. She asked which provinces were Case Management Committees based. She referred to Slide 13 on HIV and AIDS and asked for the statistics of inmates who were victims of sexual assault. She asked where the psychologists were. They were certainly not where the Committee had visited during oversight trips.

Ms Moodley replied that psychologists were indeed clustered in the metropolitan areas. A statistical breakdown would be provided.

Mr Modise replied concerning CMCs, that there were large centres like Leeukop that had fully fledged CMCs. Fully fledged committees were headed by level 9 chairpersons, but at the smaller centres it tended to be level 8.

The Chairperson brought up Ms Nyanda’s question about victims of sexual assault.

Ms Screiner responded that figures would be provided. On the rollout of interns discussed earlier, tertiary institutions in the regions could supervise them. A pilot study done in Pretoria, would be evaluated, and reported on.

Ms Nyanda asked for detail about the intern project.

Ms Screiner replied that students were posted to work with DCS. It was not a budgeted project. The DCS would report back on the Sector Education and Training Agency (SETA) gratuity.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) referred to the Admission Risk Classification Tool, and the Assessment Tool, presented in Slide 20. She judged that to have been a good move. She asked when those tools would be implemented. There was more risk at admission. On the unwillingness of offenders to work on farms, she said inmates were in the first place, offenders against society. The Portfolio Committee could not act as their attorneys. Some had committed heinous crimes like the rape of children.

Mr Modise replied that it was not so much unwillingness, as that other kinds of work was considered more attractive.

The Chairperson asked about Slide 6, dealing with assessment, classification and profiling.

Mr Modise replied that different committees dealt with rehabilitation. There was an initial security analysis, following which an offender would be placed at a certain centre and get specific training. The Comprehensive Assessment Team (CAT) included psychologists, social workers, educators, health care workers, a social reintegration official and a security official. Offenders were classified according to the security risks they could pose. Offenders with a security background were deemed especially risky.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked whose fault the abuse of sick leave was. He asked about a time frame to bring transgressors to boot. He said that well trained officials were sitting behind desks, and asked whose fault that was. He suspected that the figures with regard to psychologists fluctuated.

Ms Schreiner answered that it was so that security trained officials were desk-bound. In terms of the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) for corrections officials, the Department could deploy trained people in core business. People would be migrated to centre base, so that talent could be utilised where it was needed. There were DCS posts that were prescribed by the Public Services Act, and others by the Correctional Services Act. Posts were advertised in terms of that distinction. Employment was appropriate to DCS core business. Correctional service people always dealt with core business, whereas finance and supply chain staff were employed in terms of the Public Services Act.

Ms Moodley replied that figures for psychologists could well fluctuate. Figures were given for the end of the year. During the year it could fluctuate. Psychologists from the community were coming in at all times. Outside people were given further training by the DCS. It was not possible to capture all the information.

The Chairperson said that the concern had to be not so much with the number of psychologists. What the Committee was asking was if all inmates were being reached. He reiterated the question of sick leave abuse.

Mr Modise responded that a strategy had been developed to deal with sick leave abuse. A head risk manager would henceforth assess sick leave applications. If it turned out that an official was in fact not sick, it would be treated as unpaid leave. The strategy had proved to work. Persons with sick leave of 1 to 2 years, had to report to work to be assessed. Officials on sick leave could be visited at home, for assessment. Managers were being made aware that they had to put monitoring in place. The sick leave culture had to be rooted out.

Ms Nyanda said that overtime was a strong incentive to motivate officials. Officials wanted it, and it had to be brought back.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would meet with the DCS after 15 September for Budget Review recommendations. The question would be whether the budget was to remain as it was, or change. The DCS had to bear in mind that the Portfolio Committee could change the budget. The Department had two weeks to prepare. ‘Influencing the budget’ was the way in which the Committee could change the way the Department did its business.

The Chairperson continued that ‘centres of excellence’ could acquire the meaning of ‘centres of expertise’. It would do well to prioritise placing offenders where they could work, rather than close to family. The National Commissioner had recently reported on his visit to China, concerning the use to which television was put in prisons. In China, television was used to screen rehabilitation programmes. He stated emphatically that he was dead against the constant viewing of television in prisons for recreation. If television was not employed for rehabilitation, he thought it best to remove it completely. In some centres inmates had flat-screen televisions. There was excessive spending on that. Television for recreation was not to be reconciled with developing centres of expertise. He asked if centres of expertise were feasible, and urged the Department to take that question seriously.

The meeting was adjourned.