Department of Correctional Services: Correctional Centre Schools & Further Education Policy

Correctional Services

25 October 2011
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Portfolio Committee (PC) Members submitted reports to the meeting on their oversight visits to various correctional centres. A Member raised his concerns that when he visited a centre in Northern Cape, the Deputy Minister had been introduced in a manner that suggested this was an official ANC, rather than Parliamentary, visit. Another Member had made an unannounced visit to Douglas Correctional Centre, where she had noted good appearance and cleanliness, inside and out, good hygiene practices and some activities being followed. The old Kimberley Correctional Centre catered well for inmates, with female wards in good condition and a crèche provided for small children. Male and juvenile wards were not too full, and the centre was clean. However, there were some problems with an unannounced visit to the Bethal Correctional Centre, which was made following reports of problems by the Union. The Head of Centre had suspended 27 staff members, had dismissed one female member who testified that she had been involved in a relationship with him, and harassed another who refused his advances. It was clear that the disciplinary processes followed, after attempts to frame the official involved, had been grossly flawed. Members of the Committee debated the form that its recommendations in its report should take. The Department of Correctional Services was now limited as to what it could do in regard to the dismissal, as the official had not appealed the decision, and it was also not able to reinstate that person under the labour laws. However, it was finally agreed that the PC could express a view based on what it had observed, and should suggest the need for an independent and impartial investigation of the matter.

The Department of Correctional Services (the DCS) then briefed the Committee on its education policy and the Correctional Centre Schools. It offered programmes in literacy, Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET) to prepare for grades 10 to 12, and Further Education and Training (FET) programmes for grades 10 to 12, focusing on young offenders. It also offered Higher Education and Training (HET) to support higher learning through distance education, and programmes in engineering and Business Studies. Other skills development programmes were offered for entrepreneurial training, vocational skills, computer skills and basic occupational skills. There were currently six schools, but seven additional centres were in the process of registering as full time schools. There were, however, challenges related to finalising the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) for teachers, and the fact that the DCS could not compel inmates to participate in programmes.

Members were very concerned that education was not compulsory in the centres, pointing out that it was a government priority and that the DCS had been asked several years earlier whether it was complying with the Schools Act. The fact that no girls schools existed or were planned, was also interrogated. There were questions about skills development, and outstanding requirements for registration of schools. Members suggested that they would like to see a policy where an inmate would not be granted parole if s/he had not attended school or a training course, and noted that this should be stressed as a major factor currently to the granting of parole. The Members urged that the regulations must be amended to ensure that they were in conformity with other legislation. The possibility that the granting of parole might disrupt studies was discussed, and concerns were raised about those who were remand detainees, whose school-going status might not be determined. The lack of classrooms caused concern, and Members suggested that this should be addressed by inmate labour to erect prefabricated structures. Questions were asked as to how marketable skills could be taught, and it was noted that if OSD remained a problem, perhaps some retired teachers could be recruited to assist with training, and that the Department of Higher Education and the National Skills Fund should be approached. The possibility of areas like Limpopo falling out of the schools ambit was also discussed.


Meeting report

Committee Programme
The Chairperson noted that the Committee Researcher would brief the Portfolio Committee (PC) on 2 November, concerning the lack of overseas oversight. The Judicial Inspectorate would brief the PC on its Annual Report on 9 November. In the following week, the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department) would discuss its partnerships with civil society, and vetting procedures. There would be an annual discussion with stakeholders on 7 December, about torture.

Reports on oversight visits
Mr J Selfe (DA) told the PC that he had been on a visit to the Northern Cape, where the Premier had introduced the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services as “a foremost ANC cadre”, and he suggested that this ran counter to the correct protocol.

The Chairperson agreed and undertook to raise the matter with the Department. If the PC was present at a gathering, it was a government matter, not a party-political one.

Ms F Nyanda (ANC) reported that she and the Committee Secretary had visited Douglas Correctional Centre, on an unannounced visit, but had been warmly welcomed in by the Commissioner. They were shown around. The centre looked excellent on both the outside, and the inside. She noted that baking activities were being carried out, that mattresses were being ventilated, and that the hospital was clean and inmates were being taken to the hospital wing.

They had also visited the old Kimberley Correctional Centre. Although the Commissioner was not present, somebody had shown them around. . The centre catered well for inmates. There were female wards in good condition, with children playing in what resembled a crèche. Most female prisoners had been convicted of shoplifting, with sentences of under 2 years. The male and juvenile wards were not too full. The centre was clean.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) thanked Ms Nyanda for her energy, especially in such hot weather, and praised the work she had done.

Mr S Abram (ANC) expressed satisfaction about the fact that there was no overcrowding at both centres.

The Chairperson referred to an unannounced visit by Ms Nyanda and Mr V Magagula (ANC) to Bethal Centre. He asked Ms Nyanda to report.

Ms Nyanda noted that there had been a caucus with POPCRU members first. POPCRU was informed about a problem regarding Ms Van Zyl and Ms Magagula, formerly Sanderson. POPCRU maintained that there was a problem with the Commissioner. Ms Van Zyl had already been discharged, and Ms Magagula was experiencing problems as well. Mr Gina, the Head of Centre, had already suspended 27 people. No reasons had been given.

Ms Nyanda continued that Ms Van Zyl stated that she had been given unauthorised PIN numbers of other members, by Mr Gina, the Head of the Centre. Apparently, Ms van Zyl and Mr Gina had had a relationship, between 2008 and 2011. However, Mr Gina subsequently denied that he had authorised the PIN numbers to be given, nor used, and told Ms Van Zyl that he would not protect her. She had pleaded guilty to being in possession of these, and had been discharged. She had told her husband about the affair. The husband replied that he had heard about it. Mr Gina had launched an investigation into pornographic photographs, but Ms Van Zyl maintained that it had been instructed by him. Computers had been sent to Witbank. During the meeting with Ms Nyanda and Mr Magagula, Ms van Zyl broke down and cried. She said that she had told Mr Gina that her husband had divorced her on account of him, and her father had died, and now she had been discharged.

Ms Nyanda noted that Ms Magagula had also been charged. Mr Gina had previously made a proposition to her. She refused and threatened to tell her husband. Her husband went to POPCRU. It was alleged that Mr Gina then tried to set a trap for her, involving inmates in a plan to get her to bring dagga into the centre, with the intention that she would then be charged with smuggling. The inmate alerted Ms Magagula to what was going on, and they approached a shop steward. The inmate wrote a statement. He was transferred to Ermelo and had his sentence reduced by 6 months. Ms Magagula herself was transferred when she threatened to tell her husband about Mr Gina. POPCRU was not happy with the investigation launched. Mr Gina had been aggressive and had harassed interviewees. There had to be an independent investigation about the pornography..

Ms Nyanda said that she had felt embarrassed by the fact that although there was a Freedom Charter, people were still being treated in this way, and she said she had become emotional herself in the meeting.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) added that Mr Gina manipulated the centre to his own ends. He abused his authority. He had also lost control of the centre. Officials did not respond to his call for a parade. The DCS Head Office had not taken steps. The union had stepped in to defend people, but had no power over him.  He had told both women to do as he said or lose their jobs. He had a hostile attitude, saying that he knew that the Portfolio Committee was coming to fire him.

Mr L Max (DA) noted that this had been a fact finding exercise, and not a disciplinary hearing. Therefore, he pointed out that paragraph 3(2) of the recommendations in the report was ultra vires. It demanded that Ms Van Zyl be reinstated prior to the outcome of investigations, but the Portfolio Committee could not, in terms of the labour law, give such an instruction. It could be said that the victim had remedies at her disposal. The recommendation could, at most, state that the circumstances of the dismissal had to be investigated.

The Chairperson remarked that the Portfolio Committee would agree. He suggested that the wording of 3(4) be adjusted according to what Mr Max had suggested. The Committee could not insist that charges be withdrawn, but could only request a legitimate investigation, which must be impartial and independent.
The report could state that the initial investigations had not been fairly instituted, and it was the view of the Committee that Ms van Zyl should be reinstated.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) agreed.

Mr Abram noted that the first sentence of 3(4) did not instruct. If the qualifier “should” was brought in, it would be a matter of discretion. Labour law had to be taken into account. However, he urged that recommendations based on what the PC had found, not be done away with. The future of individuals with families was at stake. Mr Gina appeared to have acted vindictively, and although the PC could not prescribe what had to be done, he believed that it should bring to the attention of the DCS that this matter was not handled properly.

The Chairperson noted that all were agreed on that.

Mr Max remarked that whatever was said, not even the National Commissioner had the power to reverse things. There was no point in recommending something to the DCS that it could not do. He felt that the recommendations ought not to compromise the DCS. He suggested that it be noted that the investigation had not been fair, and that the process followed had to be reviewed.

The Chairperson added that the PC’s sentiment was that the person had already paid the price in a grossly flawed process. The PC could rightly say that the process had been manipulative. Mr Max had noted that Ms van Zyl could appeal, but she was already out of the system. It had to be said that it had been a flawed review, and that someone had also been prejudiced. There was no need to get technical, but concerns had to be raised.

Mr Max agreed, but insisted that the wording had to be such that the DCS could execute the recommendation.

The Chairperson suggested that the PC say it was cognisant that it could not instruct the DCS on this point.

Mr V Ndlovu (ANC) differed. The DCS reported to the PC.

The Chairperson said that there was a separation of powers. The PC could not micro-manage the DCS. The PC had to be upfront in saying that a wrong had to be reversed.

Mr Max suggested that wording be used specifying that officials had been treated unfairly, and that the process had to be reviewed.

Mr Abram remarked that it was commonly understood that the PC could not instruct, but he stressed that it had to be able to tell the DCS that it had erred.

The Chairperson reminded everyone that it had had to go through a Parliamentary legal process. He did not want the Chief Whip to say that the PC was overstepping its mandate. It was not the end of the road, and he thought the solution was not to dilute the recommendation, nor to unnecessarily disqualify it.

Ms Nyanda then reported on a visit she had undertaken to Barberton Centre, where she had attended a regional finance meeting. There had been an outbreak of violence at the centre. C-Max inmates had taken control. There had also been a food crisis. Inmates had complained that food came late. Food had been outsourced by the Area Commissioner, despite the fact that there was farming and cows there. There was also a lack of uniforms and medication, and there were no full-time nurses. One inmate had fallen ill, was taken to a nurse in the township, and had died.

Briefing by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) on Correctional Centre Schools and its Future Education Policy
Ms Nontsikelelo Jolingana, Chief Deputy Commissioner, DCS, noted that offenders were assessed in regard to their educational and training needs. The available programmes were literacy programmes; Adult Education and Training (ABET) to prepare for grades 10 to 12 and Further Education and Training (FET) programmes for grades 10 to 12, focusing on young offenders. The DCS also offered Higher Education and Training (HET) to support higher learning through distance education, and programmes in engineering and Business Studies.

Six centres were registered with the Department of Education as full time schools. Other skills development programmes were offered for entrepreneurial training, vocational skills, computer skills and basic occupational skills. Seven  additional centres were in the process of registering as full time schools.

There were challenges related to finalising the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) for teachers, and the fact that the DCS could not compel inmates to participate in programmes.

Discussion
The Chairperson expressed his concern that education in correctional centres was not compulsory. The President had singled out education and job creation as government priorities in the State of the Nation address. Compulsory education should therefore be a given. He could not understand how people could be given any latitude in regard to education. The PC would maintain its stance that if inmates either did not work, nor attended a school, there should be no parole, and then the choice would fall away.

Mr Selfe expressed agreement with that. He also pointed out that the Schools Act made education compulsory up to a point, and he had asked, years ago, if the DCS was complying with that. He noted that there were six registered schools and seven more were planned, and he asked if any of them catered for females, since girls at Pollsmoor had complained about the lack of education opportunities.

Ms Jolinganareplied that the existing six schools were all in male centres. Females received computer training, but could not be taken through to Grade 12.

Mr Selfe asked about the qualifications of subject specialists, pointing out that the provincial Departments of Education could render assistance.

Ms Jolingana responded that the DCS agreed with this. The Minister of Correctional Services had launched Operation Funda, and was in favour of compulsory education. The problem was that inmates knew their rights better than their responsibilities. They could take the DCS to court, so the DCS was working on a policy to make education compulsory.

Mr Luvuyo Gqili, Director of Formal Education, DCS, added that there were Masters and Senior subject specialists. A Senior was akin to a head of a department, and on salary notch 8. A Master was on salary notch 9. The DCS indeed worked with the provincial education departments. Accreditation was obtained through the provincial office. Educators were trained and paid for by the provinces.

Mr Selfe asked that the DCS must return to the PC with a plan for education for girls, pointing out that the plans up to 2014 did not cater for girls at all.

Mr Max asked that there must be a review of the DCS regulations to compel inmates to get schooling. The DCS had to avoid options, and must ensure that no regulations were in conflict with other legislation. He pointed out that regulations were secondary legislation, and the question was how they spoke to the Act. The PC had to be informed what it could do to help.

Ms Jolingana replied that challenges compelled the DCS to request amendments to the Act. Political support in Parliament would be necessary.

The Chairperson assured her that the PC would render support.

Ms Ngwenya asked about skills development, and how long each programme was. She asked how many classrooms were required for a centre to be regarded as a full-time school.

Ms Jolingana answered that the NCV programme was one year. Engineering studies took three months, and Business studies lasted for six months. The Department of Education insisted on five classrooms, but this was a difficult requirement to meet, since many correctional centres had not been built for that purpose. Dining halls were used instead, in some centres.

Ms Ngwenya asked what outstanding requirements there were to register each of the planned seven more schools.

Ms Jolingana responded that details could be supplied in writing. Some centres, like Kimberley, had no educators. Advertisements had been placed over the preceding weekend, for the beginning of the next academic year.

Ms Ngwenya asked about inmates who were about to write the Grade 12 exam, yet whose parole commenced before that time. She complained about the shortage of classes, libraries and stationery observed on oversight visits.

Ms Jolingana replied that it was a reality that parole could interrupt schooling. Two inmates at Durban-Westville had been successfully persuaded to stay on at the correctional centre and write the exam. They could not be forced to do so, but it was possible to reason with a person, and, in the case of a child, call in the parents. Some of those who had been released on parole had never written their exams. The lack of stationery could not be denied. The DCS was working with other partners. There had been a donation at Durban recently. Stationery requirements had to come from the budget for Development and Care, but stakeholders also helped.

Ms Nyanda related an instance where an inmate had qualified for study through University of South Africa (UNISA) but he had no parents to assist with the fees. She suggested that assistance through bursaries was needed. The Department of Public Service and Administration should also assist.

Ms Jolingana replied that the DCS tried to forge partnerships with the business sector. The Institute of Chartered Accounting had access to the best inmate matric results , and had funded twelve thus far. They were trained at the Nelson Mandela Metropole Centre.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that getting outside sponsors for people who had committed crimes could end up giving the DCS a bad name. She could not agree with it, in principle.

Mr Abram asked how many classrooms and teachers there were for the current six schools. He asked if only Grades 8 to 12 were offered. He asked if there was no schooling in regions where there were no schools.

Ms Jolingana replied that she would respond in writing about numbers. Grades 10 to 12 were offered.

Mr Abram referred to the statement by Ms Jolingana that inmates knew their rights better than their responsibilities. There was a dire need in the country for skills. Even those who were illiterate could still be trained as plumbers and electricians. Services were being contracted out at huge cost. The question was what was being done to create marketable skills. Skills could be used at the centre during training. Incentives had to be provided for inmates, by way of compensation for their services.

Ms Jolingana responded that there was a relationship with the Department of Higher Education and Training, and the sum of R66 million was allocated to train people in welding, building, electrician, mechanic, food services, carpentry and agriculture skills. Every inmate who worked inside or outside the centre received a gratuity. Over and above work and skills training, inmates were also involved in programmes that targeted their behaviour.

Mr Abram remarked that the whole parole regime needed to be overhauled. He suggested that a “carrot and stick” approach could be followed. The inmate could not be compelled, but could be made to understand that any qualifications obtained would count in favour at a parole request. He asked how many offenders were not involved in any kind of rehabilitation programme.

Mr Abram suggested that financial benefits of career-educators also needed to be examined. He suggested that pensioners could be encouraged to come temporarily out of retirement to train people. The R66 million funding could be used for that purpose also.

Mr Selfe noted that he had visited Malmesbury Centre and had attended a workshop class for mechanics. There were twelve inmates around one car but the rest of the huge workshop was empty. He asked why there could not be sixty people trained at once. The Department of Labour could fill in training shortages.

Ms Jolingana replied that there was a shortage of artisans in the DCS. Artisans migrated to official positions because these were better renumerated. The OSD for artisans had to be same as for officials. The DCS would look at how the Department of Higher Education and Training could help with trainers, through the National Skills Fund (NSF). When a trainer was “on loan”, s/he was taken back eventually, except when the contract was through the NSF.

Mr Ndlovu referred to the lack of classroom space observed during oversight.

Ms Jolingana agreed that it was a challenge. At Entongeni, there were many young people. The Department of Public Works was asked to assist with prefabricated buildings, but the request was not approved. At Westville, the Parole Board had occupied classroom space for a while.

The Chairperson remarked that it ought not to be a matter of provision of classrooms only, but also of the quality conducive to learning. He asked about remand detainees. A remand detainee could be lost to schooling and hence to society, for 2 years.

The Chairperson referred to the education management information system mentioned in Slide 5. He noted that decisions to fix the IT system had to be taken quickly, as this could also provide a platform for rehabilitation.

Ms Jolingana agreed that remand detainees had to be discussed. If they were arrested while in Grade 12, they were allowed to write their matric exam, under DCS supervision.

The Chairperson said that there had to be a system to identify such people. Many centres did not know that a remand detainee might be busy with matric, and some inmates lied about being at school.

Mr Magagula asked about the training as engineers, and whether inmates had to pay their own fees, seeing that this was post-matric training.

Ms Jolingana answered that the engineering training could commence at Grade 9 level, so it was not registered as tertiary.

Mr Abram remarked that classrooms were a burning issue. The Department of Public Works (DPW) could not be counted upon to assist here. He asked why inmate labour could not be used to erect prefabricated structures. It was unacceptable to leave thousands uneducated because there were no facilities. Education was a Constitutional priority. He thought that it was possible to make savings on other items of a less crucial nature. He pointed out that no particular skills were needed to erect a four-walled unit. Other avenues had to be explored. He reminded all that necessity was the mother of invention.

Ms Jolingana replied that inmate labour was used for maintenance. There had to be a permit from the DPW, however, to use inmate labour for buildings.

The Chairperson asked if it was correct that until 2014, there would be no school in Limpopo. Girls were also deprived until then.

Mr Gqili replied that there were certain prerequisites before basic education could take place, and there were some problems with the far-flung areas. A centre in Limpopo had been looked at. The DCS tried to establish what the needs were. Schools would be financed from DCS funds, channelled into the regions.

The Chairperson concluded that the role of education in breaking the recidivism cycle had to be explored.

The meeting was adjourned.



Present

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

Download as PDF

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

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: