Legislation Implementation, Parole Board, Hiv/Aids, Rehabilitation, Policy Formulation Costing, Unit Management, Electronic Moni

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

Update on HIV/AIDS Policy
Update on Parole Boards, Electronic Monitoring, Costing of Policy Formulation, Unit Management, Education & Training

DCS delegation included : Dr Hlongwane (Director); Ms Mabena (Acting Director : Health); Mr Strydom (Deputy Director : Education and Training); Comm. Schreiner (Chief Deputy Commissioner); Comm. Kriek (Director); Mr Cishe (Director : Parliamentary Services) and Mr Koekemoer (Administrative Secretary : Ministery) as well as various other support staff.

SUMMARY
The meeting consisted of a report-back by the Department on issues such as Parole Board Legislation, Electronic Monitoring, Unit Management, HIV/AIDS policy and Education and Training Provisioning : ABET Training.

MINUTES
The Chair thanked the Committee for attending the meeting and reminded the members that the purpose of the meeting was the discussion of details of proposals made to the Minister and the President. There were a wide range of considerations and the Chair had addressed a letter to the Committee on Security in order to nominate the suggestions already made. There was still a great problem of overcrowding in the prisons and the Chair believed that members of the Committee should work in a cluster where solutions could be found creatively. The Chair felt that more time should be spent on implementing the legislation - the failure to do this presented a worry.

Comm. Jenny Schreiner commenced with the presentation of the Update on Legislation Implementation. Comm. Schreiner did stress, however, that the DCS had tried to focus on particular areas, but stated that the DCS had been given a large brief to report back - the key areas as presented by Comm. Schreiner included:

Unit Management
This formed the basis of the structure of prison staffers which then feeds into area management. Matters which were briefly touched on included the fact that severe overcrowding continues to hamper implementation and that implementation was part of the restructuring of the DCS. Implementation was envisaged to be completed by March 2005.

Electronic Monitoring
Comm. Schreiner reported that there was a problem with the tendering process as this did not comply with Public Private Partnership process and essentially was placed on hold. There was been a re-assessment of the E-monitoring process and it was found that such monitoring was effective in 26% of urban areas and 19% of rural areas. However, the successfulness thereof is debatable and only once the infrastructure was up and running could the E-monitoring process be viable.

Costing of Policy Formulation
Costing was added to the implementation process and consisted of various steps, including the following : consultation of literature, draft policy, consult relevant stakeholders, consolidate comments, present to Management Board for recommendation, to the Minister for approval and finally implementation.
In the implementation process there is required development of a financial model and train staff in that model.
Steps that would have to be considered include : determination of what is required to be done, identifying the projects, list activities (ie. workshops, training etc), quantify the activities and present a detailed costing.

Policies in Progress
Comm. Schreiner then went on to list the various policies in progress (see presentation).
It was emphasised that it would be best not to rush the implementation of policies pending the finality of the White Paper. Rather, the current idea is an interim working document and ensure the content of the White Paper and then the appropriate policy alignment. It was stated that it is important to have interim policy approval in order that there be no policy vacuum.

Discussion
The Chair posed the question as to when would a policy conference be held. It would be appropriate to have a Policy Conference within the DCS. The biggest problem in the DCS was the culture of a 'free for all' because of the lack of policy.

Comm. Schreiner responded that the Policy Conference was scheduled for the end of the year when the White Paper was in its final phase. The Conference was earmarked to take place in February 2004 as this was considered to be a realistic timeframe.

The Chair then enquired as to whether the White Paper was still on track for the end of the year.

Comm. Schreiner advised that the White Paper was en route to the Commissioner and Minister for recommendation, as well as for public consultation. On this basis the deadlines should be met.

The Chair was concerned that public hearings should take place as soon as possible. The White Paper should then be publicised whereafter the public can then be invited to submit comments and proposals, if necessary. The Chair wished to know whether this process would be possible within the next two months.

Mr Durand (NNP) then posed the following questions to the DCS:
- Was the Youth Council consulted on the policy on youth prisoners?
- What will the policy position be in the interim, because the White Paper could be a lengthy process?
- Has the Department been successful in securing partnerships with business and the community, to promote community involvement?

Comm. Schreiner responded as follows:
Yes, there had been detailed discussions with the Youth Council regarding youth prisoners.

The Department is aware of the danger in leaving everything to the policy conference. The Department believes that policies should be signed off as interim policies so that there is at least a policy in place, and a policy gap is avoided.

There is a Development Community Corrections Forum which should have an integrated justice approach. There is also a Community Safety Forum, which has integrated policies with CBO's and other NGO's, and Service Level Agreements are in place with these bodies. However, there is still a long way to go and there is also a requirement that there be a shift in attitude within the community regarding crime.

Adult Basic Education and Training
Mr Strydom noted that rehabilitation is required from admission through to sentence and then release. Sect. 29 of the Constitution provides for education as a fundamental right.
General Education and Training (GET) is required in areas such as adult education, mainstream education, correspondence education, computer education and lifeskills. All programmes are provided in an interactive manner. In particular, ABET is flexible and targeted for specific needs. There is particular focus on the microcosm where large parts of South African citizens lack literacy skills and the challenge here is to change people and make them more involved.

Free education is provided to all adults from the 1 - 4 ABET scale, this includes youth offenders. Programmes are presented by trained scholars and offenders who have also been trained. The emphasis is on life-long learning and with this in mind, ABET does allow for access to further education and training. This is to be seen as a continuous process in order to prepare the offender for re-integration into society.

Resource programmes and initiatives to enhance the provision of ABET
Initially there was a lack of full resources but this has been overcome somewhat by making use of community skills. There is an agreement in place with UNISA regarding bursaries and many learners have benefited from this agreement. Currently there are 800 bursaries available whereby people (offenders and staff) are trained as ABET instructors. Such people are then utilised to train others. The bursaries are apportioned as to 80 - 85% offender bursaries with the balance available to personnel in order for the management of the programmes. Of 291 enrolled people in the programme - 268 were successful, including 8 honours. UNISA absorbs the trained person once they are released from prison. Such persons are then able to go out into the community with their knowledge.
SABC have also implemented teaching programmes aimed as support to the programme. These are at no cost to the learner.

Readucate is an NGO focussing on literacy in disadvantaged communities. According to this programme, illiterates are taught to teach others and in 2002, 224 people were trained as instructors.

A National ABET Tender was awarded to Project Literacy for an amount of R6.5 million for 2003-2004. The tender process complied with all the requirements.

Discussion
Mr Durand (NNP) asked how the convicted prisoner can participate in tertiary education programmes offered in prison.

Mr Strydom responded that there is an administrative process in place to enable such offenders to enrol at a tertiary institution. However, these tertiary institutions are mostly correspondence institutions. The offender must fund their own education fees, but bursary applications are available to them. NICRO is involved in this process, as well as some members of the community.

In reply to Mr A Maziya (ANC) asking if the tertiary institutions also award bursaries, especially to the unemployed, Com Strydom answered in the affirmative.

HIV/AIDS: Policy Implementation
Ms Mabena began by re-iterating the importance of aligning the DCS with the Department of Health and other international strategies.

Other factors that were touched on in addition to the presentation, included the fact that on admission to prison a screening occurs whereby if an offender has an STI then they are given special treatment and no longer an overall treatment as was previously practised. The British Council has funded projects within KwaZulu-Natal area and Pfizer, which had initially donated Difulcan for two years, but has now extended the donation of the drug to offenders and awaiting-trial prisoners until such time as the government makes anti-retrovirals available to all.

Another concern is that condoms cannot just be indiscriminately distributed without knowing exactly how the HIV/AIDS virus is spread in the prisons.

Prisoners as care-givers is also being explored as an option.

Discussion
The Chair asked whether the actual definition of a terminally ill person had been decided on. He believed that there is a legal requirement that there be a clear definition of the term. Another question is whether or not someone can be released from prison if they are declared terminally ill.

The Chair also noted it was discovered during a recent Committee visit to the various prisons that all the condom dispensers seemed to be empty. Either the prisoners very sexually active or no condoms were available to them. He stated that he heard that a prisoner must ask the prison's Health Officer for condoms. The Chair wondered if this was such a good process of obtaining condoms as not every prisoner is willing to reveal that they engage in management-to-management sex in prison. The Chair hoped that the condom dispensers should be continuously full.

The Chair also asked whether or not the 'slow puncture' did actually happen in prisons. Do gangs actually deliberately infect members of other gangs with HIV/AIDS? He suggested that the DCS conduct a survey in this regard as the Chair was not impressed about what has been recently written about this 'phenomenon' and asked why the DCS had not done something about this problem.

The Chair sought clarity on the status of the recent court case in which an inmate sued the Department when he contracted HIV/AIDS in prison. This case questions the level of HIV/AIDS awareness in prisons, including the availability of condoms.

Mr Van Deventer (NNP) expressed concern that the DCS may have moved away from its line function by making itself also responsible for the healthcare function. He wanted to know whether or not the DCS could not speak with the Department of Health in order to form some sort of partnership with them. He believed that the Department of Health must assist the DCS else there may be human rights violations levelled at the DCS.

Mr Durand (NNP) posed the following question regarding the policy of sex practices as actually being a voluntary act. Gangs do exist and assault does take place within the prison walls. He enquired as to whether or not there was any place where an HIV negative prisoner could be protected from an HIV positive prisoner - is there such a policy in place? Mr Durand also expressed concern about the fact that when a person is arrested during the evening, generally they are only attended to when members of the SAPS come on duty the following morning. What is the case where such person is sodomised during the night - would anti-retrovirals be available to such person the following morning?

The Chair asked whether there is a problem with this Committee discussing the details of providing compulsory HIV/AIDS testing of inmates. He is aware of the right to privacy defence used here, but the fact of the matter is that they are in prison because they have committed a crime. Furthermore, the urgency of the situation and uniqueness of the prison environment would, in the Chair's opinion, warrant the limitation of this right under Section 36 of the Constitution. They have to be tested.

Mr Maziya (ANC) brought attention to the fact that once sentenced the prisoner's status changes from that of awaiting-trial prisoner to a fully fledged prisoner. According to Mr Maziya there seems to be an unavailability of statistics regarding awaiting-trial prisoners as such person generally is not endowed with rights. Mr Maziya went on to question whether or not government actually has a policy on HIV/AIDS and if so, then that is the policy that must be implemented by DCS.

The Chair was not sure about this issue.

Mr Bloem (ANCasked whether awaiting-trial prisoners will also be tested, even though they are considered as civilians or suspects?

Ms Dlamini (ANC) then posed the following questions:
- If there is compulsory testing for prisoners, can their needs be provided for if they are found to be HIV positive? Will they be kept separately and be given anti-retrovirals?
- Will the issue of stigmatisation not be increased if these prisoners were kept in separate areas?
- At present the facilities do not complement healthcare, is there anything that is being done in the interim? What is the short-term solution to the healthcare problem?
- It also seems as though the statistics are not reliable. What is being done to provide reliable statistics?

Comm. Schreiner responded to some of the questions posed:
In respect of the statistics aspect, this is especially difficult as only small research projects are undertaken and some prisons have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS then others. Surveys are regularly undertaken - essentially a prevalent survey done on an voluntary and anonymous basis). It seems that such surveys only show trends, however, at least this is able to direct the policies.
Compulsory testing is extremely difficult to implement - but consideration must be given to the limitation clause as envisaged in the Constitution (sect. 36).

Ms Mabena went on to advise that as far as she was aware the issue of compulsory testing had been discussed and that the DCS had done representations on this and assumed that this had been thoroughly discussed. She wanted to know that if a prisoner is tested and given drugs and subsequently released, who will continue to give them medication? There are also considerations such as the right to privacy and the fact that consent must be given for such testing to occur (this is the position as it stands at present). According to Ms Mabena this was discussed when the Correctional Services Amendment Act was implemented.

Mr Dyani (ANC) acknowledged the importance of Constitutional rights to all, however, he felt in the case of most prisoners there is a use of force for sexual gratification. He wanted to know that when people arrive in prison must they be medically examined - what was the Constitution's view on this? He believed that this issue required discussion.

The Chair pointed out that prisons are an abnormal situation and that the DCS has a responsibility to save lives, especially where sex is not a voluntary act.

Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards
Mr Kriek (Director of DCS) presented. In addition to the presentation, he added that sections 74 and 75 of the Correctional Services Act must be implemented as this was not in place as yet. He also pointed out that the new Board was stronger on release then the previous board and that the new legislation was more harsh on release.

Discussion
The Chair asked whether or not there had been any previous integration within the Parole Boards.

Mr Bloem (NNP) pointed out that there seemed to be new proposals and dates all the time. In a previous meeting the Department had promised it would be fully implemented by 2003, and today it is saying 2004. It seems as if the process is going to take some time. He believed that there was a problem in that there are lots of people in jail who should actually be out by now but who are in actual fact still in prison. The Department is doing them a disservice.

Comm. Schreiner agreed that there is a delay. She advised that the Commissioner and the Minister has taken the whole issue very seriously, as also the inter-departmental task team as set us and running. The matter is on the Board's agenda and will remain on the agenda until the issue has properly been resolved. The DCS was aware and concerned about the urgency of the situation.

The Chair raised the issue that there seemed to be many complaints about the Parole Board.

Comm. Schreiner responded that the delay in the process in mid 2002 was caused chiefly by the parole process. There has been a major re-think on rehabilitation - as the Parole Board and rehabilitation do go hand in hand - however, the question is always when is a person sufficiently rehabilitated. There is now a move away from a mechanical basis of release (ie. you've served five years, now you can go) and rather a move towards the question as to whether the person is a threat to society.

The Chair also drew attention to the fact that meetings concerning the White Paper could continue during recess and work could continue without the Portfolio Committee being present. The Chair went on to commend the DCS on their work and stated that the relationship between the Portfolio Committee and the DCS was a healthy relationship.

Comm. Schreiner apologised on behalf of the Commissioner for his absence as he was away on a Youth Day event. She also went on to point out that the documents pertaining to legislation and the White Paper had been taken away for recommendations and comments but had not as yet been returned.

The Chair could not fully recall whether or not this had been done but did recall that there may have been a study group but not a Portfolio Committee response. He stated that he would find out and revert.

The Meeting was adjourned.