Khulisa Crime Prevention Initiative: Department briefing

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
14 June 2005
KHULISA CRIME PREVENTION INITIATIVE: DEPARTMENT BRIEFING

Chairperson:

Khulisa Crime Prevention Initiative: Department briefing

SUMMARY
The Department’s Khulisa Crime Prevention Initiative gave a presentation on their rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates. The report focused on how the programme functioned and its challenges. Three ex-convicts also related their experiences to the Committee. The first talked about how Khulisa had facilitated restorative justice for his crimes, and the second talked about his successes after graduating from one of the Initiative’s programmes. The third ex-convict told the Committee how he had gone through rehabilitation without help, and how the Initiative had made a difference in his life and those of the children he counselled. After the Committee asked questions, the third ex-offender briefed Members on the extent and roots of gangsterism.

The Members had concerns over the methodology used when selecting eligible participants for the programme. Objections were raised about how some NGOs operated and competed with each other. Members asked where the Initiative sourced its staff and more on the fate of adult inmates.

MINUTES

Khulisa briefing
Ms L van Selm, Managing Director of Khulisa, gave a presentation on their rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates. The report focused on how the programme functioned and its challenges. In the ‘Make It Better Programme’, young adults were encouraged to implement community development initiatives. The youth were required to do their own research to assess gaps where such programmes were needed in the community. Khulisa secured government funds to support these initiatives, but youths were required to start and manage the initiatives. Khulisa facilitated with oversight and mentoring. The Initiative had only started catering for adults at the beginning of the year.

Ms Van Selm affirmed the importance of prisoners assessing themselves and proving that they could change. The homework given to participants in the ‘My Path Programme’ were creative writing assignments to do in their cells. The assignments had been designed by professional psychologists. An external evaluation was done on the assignments and the reports were handed over to the parole board when the inmates were being considered for parole. The homework assignments had been used by academics to make recommendations in their fields.

She told the Committee that specific research has been commissioned to determine the needs of female inmates. Khulisa has used this research to adapt the programme to their needs. The research report was available on Khulisa’s website. The programme for female convicts focused on teaching skills and crafts, and items made by the inmates were sold at an auction.

She gave an overview of the Initiative’s Drugs Peer Educators Programme. Ex-drug offenders had often been employed by SANCA as councillors. She described how drug education for Department staffmembers made them more aware of how drugs were being smuggled into prisons.

Many juveniles had successfully negotiated their release to the adult prison system, where they could choose an environment that was conducive to their development. She related how Khulisa has brought inmates and their families together and mediated between them during the reintegration phase. She also told the Committee how they approach community members to monitor offenders and to help them after they have been released. They have had an 80 percent success rate with ex drug users when they were tested as a prerequisite to have gained employment. She highlighted a shortage of staff within the Department as a major hindrance to their work.

Ex-convict anecdotes
Mr V West, a Khulisa Western Cape representative, gave a presentation on restorative justice. He told the Committee that inmates were given a chance to meet their victims. They chose from seven potential cases ranging from cell phone theft to a double murder. For instance, Mr Andrew Carstens had been convicted of sexual offences against his own daughter from a previous relationship. Mr Carstens related how the programme had allowed him to keep his house and his family. Mr West described how the Initiative had tracked down Mr Carstens’ daughter so that he could plead her forgiveness.

Ms E Cooper, a representative of Khulisa, gave a presentation concerning an ex convict she had employed. Mr S Mafondo related the details of this crime and arrest. He urged the Department to work closely with Khulisa. Through the programme, he had realised his dream of becoming a journalist and was now permanently employed by a leading newspaper in the Eastern Cape.

Mr M Wensel, an ex-convict and Khulisa councillor, told the Committee how he had gone from being a law student to a prison gangleader. He told how hard it would have been for him to be released without assistance. Khulisa has given him a job as a councillor and he saw what a difference the programme was every day. Other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) did nothing about the socialisation of inmates. He defined rehabilitation as ‘when people got back what they had lost’.

Mr Wensel said that gangsterism had been around South African prisons for over a hundred years. Gangsters had originally been freedom fighters and gangsterism was the continuation of the fight against the system. After liberation some people, like himself, decided to reform their ways.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked for a definition of ‘rehabilitation’ and how one knew when someone was rehabilitated. Ms Van Selm answered that through testing and studying inmates, they had developed a reliable way of determining when an inmate was rehabilitated. By giving prisoners things they had never had before, like employment opportunities and education, their chances of staying rehabilitated was greater.

Ms S Seaton (IFP) enquired what role that the Department should play, and how Members could participate in the Initiative in their personal capacities. Ms Selm welcomed the involvement of anyone at local level.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) wanted to know how they selected programme participants and how overcrowding had affected Khulisa’s work. Ms van Selm said that they have recruited people who had two years left on their sentences. The convicts wrote an essay to be considered by a selection panel. One determining factor was the inmate’s level of English literacy.

The Chairperson commented that the Initiative had to establish how many NGOs existed with the same functions to avoid ‘turf fights’. He asked how they could tell if a fraudster was rehabilitated, as s/he was unlikely to able to practise fraud in jail. Ms Van Selm said that one could only assess this after a prisoner’s release.

Mr M Phala (ANC) asked why the report omitted to mention older offenders. Ms van Selm said that there were programmes for adults, but it was easier to raise funds for youth projects. However, adult offenders generally had a lower chance of re-offending. Mr G Vine, a Khulisa representative, said that the Department could cut the cost of battling overcrowding by building more and better youth facilities. This would also cut the rate of repeat offenders, saving taxpayers billions.

Mr S Moatshe (ANC) asked about the levels of accountability and transparency within the organisation. He also asked whether social workers were employed by Khulisa or by the State

Ms van Selm replied that there was a need for greater dialogue between the Department and the Initiative. All programme reports were available on their website. Ms van Selm said that social workers were employed by Khulisa.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) asked how the Department could get programme participants to go on tour with the Committee. Ms van Selm answered that they had thirty people available and it could be negotiated with the Department.

Mr Tolo then expressed concern about how ex-inmates were treated by their communities. Ms van Selm told the Committee that this has been their biggest challenge. They have used convicts to tell schools and communities how people could change. Khulisa tried to have facilitated dialogues between offenders and their communities. The Initiative had only dealt with a small fraction of the prison population. The greatest cause of relapse into crime has been the community stigma against prisoners. She encouraged the Department to use ex-offenders for any valid purposes.

The Chairperson asked why the Department did not employ ex-convicts to talk to inmates.

Mr C Burgess (ID) asked about the staff compliment and annual budget of the Initiative. Ms van Selm said that their permanent staff was around fifty people, and their budget was R10 - R12 million.

Mr Fihla asked how rehabilitation was possible in overcrowded jails. Ms van Selm said that it made their work very difficult. Their programme focused on creative writing exercises to put inmates in touch with their emotions, but this required personal space.

Mr Fihla proposed better communication and co-ordination between NGOs as some prisons were ‘over-serviced’ and others were not even visited. Ms van Selm said that such ‘competition’ has been a difficult issue. They had been subcontracting varius NGOs and had agreements with others not to go into certain prisons. Mr Vine proposed that the Department assign organisations to different prisons.

Mr Moatshe enquired about the Initiative’s work with street children. Ms van Selm said that they had a programme for street children in Newcastle, KwaZulu-Natal.

The Chairperson concluded that more NGO briefings would be desirable before August, because a great number of prisonsers would then be released due to the pardon process. He wanted to hear what problems other service providers were facing.

The meeting was adjourned.