Partnerships with other government departments towards rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders; Commission for Gender Equality on implementation of the Victim Charter; Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report

Meeting report

Consideration and adoption of the Portfolio Committee Budget Review and Recommendations Report
The report was read through and duly adopted with amendments. The only addition was to urge the Minister to ensure implementation of Ministerial Task Team recommendations. The task team was set up by the Minister to assist the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and the labour unions to reach solutions to urgent issues.

Briefing by the Department of Correctional Services on partnerships with other government departments towards offender rehabilitation and reintegration
Dr Joey Coetzee, Deputy Commissioner: Personal Development, DCS, noted that the DCS had sent out letters to government departments to encourage them to purchase articles made by sentenced offender labour. There was a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Department of Basic Education (DBE) to manufacture school furniture and facilitate the continuation of offender studies. The DBE would ensure that offender literacy skills were addressed, and that full time schools were registered.

The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) would assist with the delivering of adult education and training for offenders. The Department of Communications assisted DCS with the rendering of basic computer literacy programmes. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development would approach the DCS first when procuring furniture, look at alternative sentencing options, and administer expunging of criminal records. The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform would rely on the DCS for the supply of furniture. The South African Police Services (SAPS) would provide protection and monitoring of parolees and probationers. The Department of Public Works (DPW) would allocate unused buildings for halfway houses. Home Affairs would issue IDs to offenders to help with participation in programmes and employment. The DCS was currently doing business with the Department of Water Affairs and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). The Department of Arts and Culture would provide offenders with arts and culture programmes as part of the rehabilitation process.

There was a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Zululand to provide third year Criminology students with experiential learning opportunities. The Department of Social Development would look at the needs of mothers and babies and detained children. The National Department of Health provided support with the development of health care and nutrition policies and guidelines, and the training and development of health care professionals. Skilled offender’s names were sent to the Department of Labour to put on their database for job seeking purposes.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) said that it was good if government business was extended. He asked who delivered on education, whether it was the Department of Correctional Services or the Department of Basic Education. There was a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Basic Education, which had to lead to the construction of schools. He asked how many offenders were in schools, and whether there was a rollout plan.

Dr Coetzee replied that the DCS was responsible for education delivery. The DCS had 465 educators, but it was enough in terms of national department guidelines. 13 full time schools were planned. 11 had been established. The school at Rustenburg centre had been partially approved, as it lacked the required number of full time teachers. Schools would be established at Kalakabusha and Groenpunt centres. The number of teachers needed was submitted to the human resources component.

Mr James Smalberger, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Incarcerations and Corrections, DCS, replied that two committees had been formed, one each from the DCS and the DBE, in March of that year. They had spent three to four months putting measures in place. Orders were coordinated. It was a teething process. Eventually there would be an established process.

Mr Selfe remarked that there was no skills fund for higher education. He asked what sort of training was given, and whether there were bottlenecks.

The Chairperson asked whether the DCS or the education departments were paying teachers. He asked if it was not problematic for the DCS to do its own teaching. He asked why teaching could not be handed to the Departments of Education. The DCS was unable to fill its own posts. The Department had to say if it was not working.

Mr Selfe remarked that the DBE did not employ many teachers. Memoranda of Understanding had to be with the provinces. It was not necessary for the DCS to recruit and train teachers; they could be borrowed.

Dr Coetzee replied that R66 million had been received from the DHET. 5300 offenders would be trained. There was a five-year protocol agreement with the DHET for funding. The business scope of the MOU with the DBE was to build 100 schools over a period of 18 months. There were outreach programmes and exchange of teachers.

Mr Selfe noted that the Department of Public Works (DPW) would allocate unused buildings for halfway houses. As far as he knew there was only one halfway house. He asked about rollout.

Ms Pumla Mathibela, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Community Corrections, DCS, replied that the halfway house had been a pilot. The DPW had to provide a building rollout. They were looking for an NPO to partner them. The DPW was moving away from partnership with government owned bodies. The DCS had visited the Eastern Cape and had seen an unused school building prepared for a halfway house. The DCS had signed six service level agreements for halfway house rollout that year. There was a steering committee. Regions ran halfway houses.

The Chairperson asked about targets.

Ms Mathibela replied that the target was six, one for each province.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that the DCS had to report on how halfway houses were working. The Portfolio Committee would have preferred a report before it was rolled out to other provinces. Challenges had to be stated. There had to be a report before the elections.

Ms Mathibela replied that there were evaluation reports of the pilot, which would be submitted.

Mr Selfe asked about the scope of involvement with the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Defence.

Mr Smalberger admitted that the report centred on departments engaged in rehabilitation.

Mr Selfe remarked that the Department of Social Development (DSD) had to answer to the need to increase probation officers. Offenders had to be diverted into community service. He asked if probation officers were from the DSD.

Ms Ngwenya asked if offenders had to pay when photos of them were taken for the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). During oversight there was a student without an ID, who said that he had applied for an ID but had no money for the photo. There had to be a programme for IDs.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that there was a shortage of personnel and funded vacancies in the DHET.

Ms Ngwenya referred to social grants by the DSD for children. It had to be clear how to get money.

Mr L Max (DA) referred to the statement that the South African Police Services (SAPS) would protect and monitor parolees and probationers. It was not in the nature of the SAPS to make such contributions. He was sure that such duties did not appear in the SAPS operational and strategic plans.

Mr Max referred to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Zululand, concerning third year Criminology students. He asked how long the MOU had been operative, and if there had been impact.

Mr Smalberger replied that the partnership had been formalised in the recent past.

Mr Max referred to names of offenders sent to the Department of Labour (DOL) to help them find work. He asked how long it had been done, and whether there was impact.

The Chairperson said that the report was short on area challenges. It was mentioned that the police did not sit on the parole body. He had been to Leeukop centre on the previous Monday. In the juvenile section, inmates had to pay R120 for a duplicate ID. There were young men who could not go on parole, because they could not afford that amount. One could not expect such people to vote if the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) was not sent there.

Mr Smalberger replied that a committee had been set up to prepare for the elections. A 13 digit ID was needed to register for skills programmes. The Department of Home Affairs was trying to waive the cost of IDs. The DCS could not do that.

Dr Coetzee added that there was a task team from the DCS and DHA to deal with ID issues. The DHA was aware of the challenges. The DHA Deputy Minister drove the process. There was attention to internal processes. Absence of an ID excluded inmates from participation in programmes.

The Chairperson noted that the relation with the DPW was described as good. Yet the DCS was always saying that the DPW did nothing.

The Chairperson asked how expunging was done.

Ms Mathibela replied that the DCS only came in at the end of the sentence. It was the first port of call for ex-offenders. The DCS tried to familiarise them.

The Chairperson advised that the DCS had to look at relations with local and provincial governments. He said that the SAPS were saying that officials had to go to college or higher learning centres. Minister Sisulu was saying that public servants had to go to college. Training centres at prisons were closed. The DCS had to up-skill its own officials.

Mr Smalberger replied that he could not respond on skills development.

Ms Mathibela replied that officials were being trained. Trainees were sent out on an annual basis, based on development plans. In the past, State Information and Technology Agencies (SITAs) trained learners. Junior managers had graduated from management development courses. Colleges were mainly for training of leaders.

Ms Ngwenya referred to DCS challenges of funded vacancies. The DCS was saying that there was a struggle to recruit professionals. Doctors had to come from the Department of Health, and social workers from the Department of Social Development. Challenges had to be looked at. Social workers at centres were not satisfied with the salaries they were receiving. Heads of Centres were saying that professionals did not want to work for the DCS, because they were paid less than those employed by the Department of Health (DoH). The DoH had to be involved to provide doctors and nurses. The recruitment process had to be made effective.

Mr V Magagula (ANC) noted that the DCS was part of the security cluster. Security operations were not to be affected. If teaching posts were given to the Department of Education, not only teachers would have to enter prisons, but supervisors as well. Operations were not to be affected. The environment could not be made free for everyone. Standalone teachers, as he phrased it, could be good. He agreed with the DCS having its own teachers. The scale of pay had to be upgraded so that such teachers would earn more than teachers on the outside.

Mr Smalberger replied that some people might agree with Mr Magagula. The matter had been raised before. The question was whether there had to be two centres of power. Currently the Health Act was saying that the DCS was responsible for the health of inmates. The Development Act also held the DCS responsible. The responsibilities of sister departments had to be negotiated with reference to what the Acts were saying. There were MOUs in three regions with the provinces to regulate relations. There were discussions at the national level with the Department of Health. Smaller centres had no nurses, and a list was given to the DOH. The Act gave responsibilities to the DCS to see to it that services were rendered. The Minister’s address would be in the following week. An indaba had to be prepared. Social workers might have to treat people who were very dangerous. There was a need for changes to legislation. 

The Chairperson said that matters had to be opened up to the Minister. There was legislation affecting other departments. The Department of Health was saying that matters belonged to it, and the two departments talked past each other. Mr Magagula’s suggestions would make corrections a state on its own. There had to be a move away from departments being states in themselves. 

Mr Azwihangwsi Nesengani, Director: Community Liaison, replied that there was an MOU with the City of Johannesburg for the training of parolees. 128 parolees had been trained. There was cooperation on a police initiative to look at the rate of re-offending. There was collaboration with the DPW through the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) to train parolees for fire fighting. 16 female parolees were recruited in August for working on a fire project.

Ms Veliswa Kokong, Deputy Commissioner, DCS, said that there was a baby-mother unit. When the baby reached two years, it was placed in foster care through the Department of Social Development.

The Chairperson asked about the training skills fund in the Department of Labour.

The Chairperson asked about cooperation between local government and the provinces.

Mr Magagula said that stigma was never discussed. It was still there in government. Government realised problems with absorbing prisoners. In the Western Cape parolees were brought back until they found work. The perception might grow that it was good to be an offender because it was easy to find work. Many employers did not want to employ criminals. It was not advisable to seek work for offenders.

The Chairperson remarked that things had to be thrown into the hat. The aspiration to rehabilitate had to be balanced against the anger of the people out there. The mandate of the DCS could not be inward looking. He cautioned the DCS not to make itself a state.

Mr Smalberger replied that Mr Magagula had referred to day parole, where those who were still sentenced offenders slept inside prison and only went out to work. Those were usually offenders with long sentences. Day parole was an old concept. When Staggie was released, people said he could not be on day parole. It was a complex situation. Part of social reintegration was to help people with criminal records. People who had to go back to society could not be ignored.

The Chairperson concluded that at some point there had to be action. What was valid in 2005 was not necessarily valid today, like the Public/Private Partnership (PPP) centres.

Briefing by the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) on implementation of the Victim Charter by the Department of Correctional Services
Dr Thabo Rapoo, Head of the Research Department, CGE, said that the Victim Charter (VC) set minimum standards for service providers when rendering assistance to crime victims. The Victim Charter conferred rights on crime victims like the right to offer and receive information; the right to protection, and the right to compensation. The Charter coordinated specialist services for victims of sexual assault. Prior to the adoption of the Charter in 2004, statements were taken without counselling and that often led to secondary victimisation.

A study was undertaken in 2012 to assess the implementation of the Victim Charter by the DCS. It was found that DCS officials had adequate knowledge of VC provisions. Crucial skills necessary for DCS personnel included recognition of trauma, gender sensitivity, and victim debriefing skills. There was a lack of staff dedicated to the implementation of VC related functions. There was inadequate staff and resources to keep regular contact with crime victims, and to track victims for parole hearings. There was lack of funds to assist victims with transport.

Not all centres could provide victim-offender mediation services. It was recommended that the DCS institute a system of regular on-the-job training and skills development of officials tasked with implementing the Victim Charter.

Discussion
Mr Smalberger said that the DCS welcomed the presentation. The DCS had indicated that victims of crime would be involved. The DCS could not ignore its legal mandate. There were expectations from the Victim Charter side. The core department was the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJCD). The DCS was at the end of the chain. Sentencing judges had to inform victims of their rights. The problem was that people were not ready to claim their rights right after a criminal hearing. At a later stage in the parole process reactions became strong. That was undesirable. There were 150 000 people jailed and 63 000 on parole. The DCS did not have a large role in the victim-parole process. The amount of victims involved in parole hearings was reported to Parliament. A study had been done before the Minister’s drive to involve victims. Victims would show up in mass, but as individuals they were reluctant. Sometimes great distances separated victim and offender. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) was brought in to help. In New York victims and offenders were kept apart, they did not see each other. In South Africa the statement of a victim in a parole hearing presented a challenge. If victims opposed parole, they expected it to stand. If an offender was then released, there was a reaction.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that the document did not indicate how many victims attended parole hearings. More had to be said about challenges of victim transport. Some victims accepted an apology. The question was how to cure a victim who had had no counselling. There had to be workshops with the community, and interviews with officials. The DCS had to think thoroughly about their resources, before committing to the offender-victim programme.

The Chairperson asked how a victim was defined. The question was whether a third or fourth relative could stand as a victim. The briefing had excluded the offender as a victim. The Portfolio Committee had fought with the DCS about core business. The question was whether the bar had perhaps been set too high. The Constitution was celebrated, but it would not do to run before being able to walk. It was not advisable for South Africa to try and do what even the First World could not do. When the DCS relied on the SAPS, they failed to reach their targets.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that there had to be discussion about victims who did not want to attend parole hearings. She asked what the Correctional Services Act prescribed when a victim was opposed to parole. Hearings had to unite people. She asked about the status of objections to parole.

Ms Portia Loyilane, CGE Commissioner, said that their study concentrated on victims outside. But offenders as victims would also be looked at. The CGE mandate was to monitor organs of State on what they said they would do. Tracking of victims was hard. The CGE had to look at what the DCS had promised to do, with regard to the Victim Charter.

Mr Mfanozelwe Shozi, CGE Chairperson, said that the DCS could not have hospitals. The question was how to apply health findings for victims inside, and how to use information to deal with the offender inside. The DCS did not respond at times. Communities had to be educated about parole. Victim status had to be explained.

Ms Venessa Padayachee (NICRO) said with regard to voluntary participation, that it was an opportunity granted in terms of restorative justice. The assent of the victim was not a condition for parole. There could not be back end reconciliation. There were victim support offices at court. It was not the role of the DCS to track victims. Offenders sometimes knew where victims lived, and they wrote to them. Sometimes it took 20 years for the victim to get involved.

Mr Rapoo remarked that the CGE accepted that offenders could be victims. The DCS had said in an interview that there was a programme for victim-offenders. The DCS showed documents of available funds, but did not give expenditure information.

Mr Smalberger noted that in 2010/11, there were 253 victims involved in parole board hearings. The figure for 2011/12 was 684, and for 2012/13, 1215. He agreed with NICRO that victim participation was complex, and had to be treated professionally. In the United States the initiative had to come from the victim. In South Africa offenders were encouraged to apologise. It could not automatically be a condition for release. The DCS would follow up on its promises in terms of its mandate. A clear message had to go out to departments that interdependency was needed to iron things out.

The Chairperson remarked that the DCS mandate required that gender equality be respected and promoted. The Committee had grappled with gender equality. Some were saying that it was not acceptable for a female to be a warder at a maximum centre. The gender activists said no to that. Sometimes it was necessary to be humble and admit that one had been mistaken. There was a challenge related to the position of gays, lesbians and transvestites. The Portfolio Committee would forward its position. In Port Elizabeth two remand detainees wanted to get married. The Constitution allowed it. The question was how it was to be handled. Correctional Services was a difficult environment.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.