Department of Correctional Services Strategic Plan & Budget 2006/7: public hearings

Correctional Services

15 March 2006
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
15 March 2006
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES STRATEGIC PLAN & BUDGET 2006/7: PUBLIC HEARINGS

Chairperson:

D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) submission
Public Service Association (PSA) submission
Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) submission
South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) submission

SUMMARY
The Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, Public Service Association, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and the South African Human Rights Commission made public submissions to the Committee on the Department of Correctional Services’ budget for 2006/2007. Concern was expressed by the organisations who gave submissions about the lack of cohesion between the Department’s Annual Report and its Strategic Plan, the number of unnatural deaths in prisons, the controversial new generation prisons, the lack of social reintegration and rehabilitation programmes. The Committee discussed these matters at length and the Department provided responses.

MINUTE
Introduction


In a comment on the murder of Judge President Bernard Ngoepe’s four-year old granddaughter, he said that something needed to be done about the rape and the abuse of women and children. These were serious offences and should be treated as such. Since 1994 rehabilitation was the cornerstone of DCS and a thorough rehabilitation programme should be developed for sexual offenders. While such offenders’ constitutional rights should still be respected, their privileges should be reviewed. The Committee would definitely be considering the review of their privileges.

Commissioner Linda Mti (DCS: National Commissioner) said that public hearings were a very important process. Since allocations had already been made (taking into account the submissions that were made in the public hearings the year before) this year’s submissions would be helpful when allocations for the next financial year were made. He pointed out that it was difficult to make changes to the budget within the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Perhaps one could consider making adjustments after the end of this MTEF. Commissioner Mti emphasised that submissions should be done to assist in the next budget and not as an analysis of this coming financial year’s allocation. As far as sexual offenders were concerned he said that DCS would wait on the Committee for guidance.

Department's Summary of Budget
Mr Teboho Motseki (DCS: Chief Deputy Commissioner) briefly summarised the Department’s budget for 2006/2007 which had been presented the previous week's meeting. He pointed out that social reintegration would be one of Department's key focus areas.

The Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, Public Service Association, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and the South African Human Rights Commission were invited to comment on the Department's budget for 2006/2007 [see the submissions for detail].


Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) submission
Mr Lucas Muntingh a researcher at the CSPRI reported that the CSPRI welcomed amongst the DCS’s other achievements the phasing in of the 7-Day Establishment, as well as the phasing out of overtime payment. CSPRI was particularly concerned about the number of deaths in prison, the lack of progress with the Anti-Gang Strategy as well as the problems experienced with DCS functions that had been outsourced. There also appeared to be very little activity in terms of research on corrections. It was suggested that the DCS be called upon to submit regular reports, which would assist the Portfolio Committee in its oversight duties.

Public Service Association (PSA) submission
Mr Pierre Snyman reported that PSA focused on the issues affecting the morale of DCS officials. As far as safety was concerned the PSA was particularly concerned about the recent increase in violent escapes. The proposed amendments to the Guidelines to the Relationship Agreements would negatively impact upon communication between the union, shop stewards and management. It was dissatisfied with the lack of progress made in terms of career pathing and the sporadic incidents of misconduct. It was committed to being a constructive role player in improving the DCS.

Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) submission
Ms Alison Dissel, Programme Manager of the CSVR Criminal Justice Programme, complained that some elements of the budget were vague and that sometimes there was no coherence between the strategic plan and the objectives mentioned in the annual report and the budget. The CSVR raised concerns about delays in expenditure, poor unit management and the slow progress in the implementation of risk assessment and profiling, facilities available to women prisoners and the lack of progress in the anti-gang strategy.

South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) submission
Ms Judith Cohen pointed to the financial and human resource constraints the DCS faced and its will to address the challenges within the Department. Also perturbing was overcrowding and safety issues in relation to unnatural deaths, gangsterism and corruption. The SAHRC advocated for minimum sentencing legislation, alternative sentencing, improved nutrition (while noting the DCS’s efforts in this regard) and medical treatment. It also noted the still high number of children who were in correctional facilities.

Discussion

Mr N Fihla (ANC), in response to the CSPRI’s statement that one should not put a target on the number of deaths in prison, said that one had to be realistic. The DCS could not expect zero deaths in prison and therefore should set a target aiming at reducing the number of deaths. He pointed out that being imprisoned was ‘abnormal’ and that unnatural deaths did happen especially since officials could not monitor inmate activities at all times.

Mr Muntingh responded that from a human rights perspective, the DCS’s strategy should ensure that there were no unnatural deaths in prisons. Imprisonment was marked by violence and sometimes coercion from officials. Whether one should accept that unnatural deaths occurred in prison, was a philosophical point.

Ms S Chikunga (ANC) pointed out that if the CSPRI expected the number of deaths in prison to be naught, it should also expect that the number of escapes from prison should be naught.

Mr Muntingh did not think that such a comparison could be made. The DCS viewed escapes as a bad reflection on the Department but unnatural deaths should also be considered a bad reflection on them. In 2005 the target had been 48 unnatural deaths, yet 71 had occurred. A target set for unnatural deaths was not merely a numerical issue but dealt with human lives.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) said that because DCS did not have structures such as the community policing forums that existed in the Department of Safety and Security (DSS), communities could not be of much help to the DCS.

Mr Muntingh said that post release and alternative support structures were necessary. The provision for community supervision structures in the legislation should be revived.

Mr Xolo mentioned that in Douglas in the Kimberley area, the relationship between the DSS, the magistrate and the prosecutor was such that if the police could not provide sufficient evidence an alleged offender would not be sentenced to prison. Alternative sentencing would assist in reducing the prison population.

Mr Muntingh agreed that at local level, intersectoral cooperation was a key factor as far as alternative sentencing was concerned.

Ms Chikunga asked how the CSPRI expected the anti-gang strategy to be re-prioritised.

Mr Muntingh replied that despite the anti-gang strategy being in the White Paper on Corrections (2005) as well as having been in the strategic plan for some time, he had seen no widespread evidence of it. It had been developed and implemented in the Western Cape where gangsterism was a problem.

Commissioner Mti in his response to the submission said that DCS invited detailed suggestions for how it could improve. He agreed that there should be no unnatural deaths in prison but said that DCS had to be realistic in its expectations. Many people were in prison because they had committed murders and had no scruples about taking a human life. Many South Africans were not "only articulating human rights" but had fought for them. One needed to understand the context in which the DCS functioned. He agreed that DCS had taken some time to develop a firm approach to gangsterism in prison, and was keen for further development of their strategy.

He denied that DCS did not conduct its own research. Despite not having much capacity, DCS did conduct its own research. In response, Mr Muntingh said that the DCS‘s research capacity was not apparent in its budget.

Commissioner Mti agreed with the CSPRI’s comments regarding the need to evaluate the privatisation models used by DCS. He pointed out that the DCS had raised noble ideas in the White Paper on Corrections but simply did not have the capacity to implement all of them.

Mr Muntingh commented that other non-profit organisations (NGOs) would also be interested to have answers to the queries raised about privatisation of some of DCS’s functions.


As far as community corrections were concerned, Commissioner Mti assured the Committee and the organisations present that their concerns would be addressed by the DCS’s social reintegration programme. DCS took the problem seriously.

Mr Muntingh responded that community corrections had not been clearly mentioned in the strategic plan or in the budget.


The Commissioner said that the DCS would not have a problem submitting the quarterly reports CSPRI had suggested they should. It would actually be helpful to them too. He wondered whether the CSPRI had another motive for requesting such reports. Mr Muntingh responded that in light of the contentious new generation prisons, the CSPRI suggested more regular reporting. He assured the DCS that his organisation had no other motive for suggesting this. The Chairperson said that at the last parliamentary Chairpersons Forum it had been decided that quarterly or six monthly reports would be the new approach.

The Commissioner requested clarity on what the CSPRI referred to when they called for greater stability of the strategic plan and greater coherence between the strategic plan and the annual report. Mr Muntingh responded that annual reports were important in terms of oversight. They should follow the structure of the strategic plan, as this would make comparison of goals and achievements easier. Coming up with new five year plans every year made monitoring and oversight virtually impossible.

Commissioner Mti answered that Government prescribed how annual reports had to be written. He added that he was not sure which aspect of the Act had, according to CSPRI, not been funded.


The Chairperson welcomed the interaction between DCS and CSPRI. The Committee too would engage with CSPRI submission.

Ms Chikunga agreed that high morale among DCS officials was very important. She asked what PSA was doing to assist DCS in maintaining a high level of morale among officials.

Mr Snyman replied that it was not easy for PSA to contribute to high morale in the present environment. DCS officials had lost out due to the 7-Day Establishment. Over-time pay had been the "bread and butter" for many of these officials. PSA was doing all it could to promote high morale. Mr Koos Kruger, (PSA: Provincial Manager) added that the annual increase in misconduct cases gave an indication of the level of morale in the DCS.

In reply to Ms Chikunga asking what the PSA’s Labour Relations Task Team’s structure and achievements were, Mr Snyman explained that the Task Team was a PSA initiative to address issues of employee safety and health, especially officials who were women. The PSA was non discriminatory and was in favour of gender transformation within DCS.

Ms Chikunga noted that the PSA had indicated that the Minister’s Consultative Forum was still to be formed. She had thought that it was already in existence. She asked what its achievements were.

Mr Snyman agreed that the forum did exist, but pointed out that only one meeting had been held since its launch. There was a need for more meetings.


Ms Chikunga asked why PSA had indicated that since 2005 no career pathing had been implemented. She had thought that there had been some promotions.

Mr Snyman replied that Resolution 2 of 2005 provided for some promotions. Resolution 2 indicated that Levels 2-12 would be considered for promotions and that this would be negotiated in the National Chamber. Since the resolution was made only a few service levels had been promoted. Labour had engaged the DCS but the latter refused to budge.

Commissioner Mti assured the PSA that the career pathing initiative was still ongoing.


Mr Xolo asked what the relationship between PSA and DCS was. PSA had indicated that each time it approached the DCS, no progress was made. He asked what the reason for this was.

Mr Snyman said that the relationship was good at times and at other times, it was bad. One had to move forward. The DCS had an open door policy and was always available to the PSA. The PSA was a positive organisation and wanted to be constructive. He added that there was always room for improvement as far as their relationship with DCS was concerned. Mr Kruger added that the relationship could be described as bittersweet. He also agreed that there was always room for improvement. No major problems could be reported and PSA did not feel alienated.

Commissioner Mti said that PSA was professional and easy to work with. He added that it would be nice if they were the majority union. The DCS needed to develop strategic partnerships with unions.

The Chairperson asked what the PSA’s relationship with other unions within the correctional environment was.

Mr Kruger replied that the unions agreed on some matters while disagreeing on others. Diversity and different views were necessary. The relationship was not adverse and cooperation was what it should be.

Ms N Makgate (ANC) asked whether there was any conflict due to the fact that officials were shop stewards as well as members of DCS.

Mr Kruger responded that shop stewards and managers had to choose an alliance and support that side. He said that he had never heard of shop stewards engaging in discussions on behalf of employers.


The Chairperson asked why the PSA was silent on the matter of suspensions. During the Committee’s oversight visits, officials complained that the suspension process was very long. The DCS sometimes blamed unions for postponing hearings.

Mr Kruger noted that suspensions for the purpose of investigations were often used as "short and effective" punishment. The new disciplinary code would address the issue.

Due to the restrictions placed on communication, the renewed Relationship Agreement was not very constructive. The PSA believed that correct and current information was important for morale.

The Chairperson was pleased that the PSA behaved in a professional manner. Since 1994 unions had been legally allowed to participate, but they should not abuse that right. One needed constructive participation. He urged PSA to represent their membership accurately and not to merely to praise the DCS.

In response to Ms Chikunga asking at what stage of the budget process, civil society should exercise some influence, Ms Dissel responded that their submission was part of the budget process. Hopefully the suggestions made would be considered when the budget for the next financial year or the next MTEF was discussed.

Ms Jabu Sishuba (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Care and Development) reminded the Committee that Chapter Three of the White Paper on Corrections addressed societal responsibility. Funding for community based organisations (CBOs) and NGOs was dwindling. DCS did not have the same funding that the Department of Social Development had at its disposal and was moving towards formalising strategic partnerships through service level agreements.

Ms Chikunga asked whether the CSVR had a policy idea for how issues around the mental health of offenders could be addressed. Since there was a staffing shortage, the DCS did not have the capacity to address issues related to the mental health of patients. As she understood it, rehabilitation aimed to bring all inmates "as near normal as possible". Mr Fihla suggested that many prisoners became mentally ill due to their resistance to being imprisoned. After their release they might return to ‘normal’. He felt that the isolation of mentally ill inmates from ‘healthy’ inmates might make their condition worse.

Ms Dissel replied that there were many mental conditions other than depression. Many of these could not be addressed via a thorough rehabilitation programme only. People with severe mental conditions could not be transferred to institutions or treatment centers because there was a shortage of these too. She agreed that a lack of skills resulted in punishment being meted out when treatment was needed. To date she had not seen a comprehensive policy. Prison conditions could exacerbate mental conditions. She assured the Committee that she was not in favour of isolation either, and pointed out that a policy was needed.

Ms Chikunga was concerned that the CSVR might be suggesting that DCS had to employ psychiatrists. Mentally ill inmates would still need to be referred to the Department of Health.

Ms Dissel commented that there were degrees of mental instability. Not all cases of mental illness resulted in institutionalisation.


Ms Sishuba said that there was an entire Chief Directorate that dealt with mental health. The Health Department had provided community health psychologists to assist DCS. Severe cases were referred to a psychiatrist outside of DCS. A new mental health policy, which was in line with what Health Department had already done, was en route to approval. Since mental health institutions were fully occupied, DCS might design some areas as mental health facilities.

Ms Chikunga wondered why the CSVR felt that the DCS pilot studies potentially discriminated against prisoners. There was also a request for CSVR to explain what its comments on prison assaults meant.

Ms Dissel responded that prisoners at centres of excellence (COEs) benefited from all the programmes that were piloted at these facilities. Only about 36 out of about 224 prisons were COEs. Everyone had the right to safety. DCS had set different targets for centres of excellence and ordinary facilities. COEs had more stringent safety and security measures in place and thus inmates at these facilities were better protected. This could be seen as discriminatory.

Ms Sishuba said that COEs had to be put in context. The DCS aimed to test the implementation of the White Paper at COEs. This would be a 10 to 20 year project. DCS was determining how much resources would be needed for implementation. The CSVR submission appeared to imply that in prioritising COEs, the DCS was neglecting other facilities. This was not the case. The Commissioner had said that improved services would be rolled out to all facilities. She assured everyone that other facilities would follow.

Ms Chikunga pointed out that not all provinces had to address problems with gang activity in prisons. Gangsterism outside of the prison environment needed to be addressed before one could adequately address the problem within DCS.

Mr Fihla asked what solutions the CSVR could offer about gangsterism.

Ms Dissel agreed that gangsterism outside of prison should be addressed. DCS must have a plan in place to address the issue inside prisons. A study on how to prevent sexual violence in prison had been conducted in a Boksburg prison and the CSVR was working on a study aimed at dealing with gangsterism.


Mr Fihla noted that for unit management to be effective, certain structures needed to be in place. DCS’s facilities were not yet structured for this. Only the latest prisons were equipped to apply unit management effectively.

Ms Dissel agreed that ideally unit management should be implemented in a facility that could accommodate it. She pointed out that since DCS was rolling out unit management system in some facilities, it should be able to manage it.

Ms Sishuba commented that unit management has been a problem for DCS for some time. When the White Paper on Corrections came into being, DCS had to revisit issues around unit management, especially since rehabilitation would, from then on, be at the center of corrections. This was not just lip service. New systems have been put in place in COEs. The DCS’s activities were in line with the White Paper.

Mr Xolo noted that the tone of CSVR’s submission suggested that it had almost no communication with DCS. It was very critical of almost everything the Department had embarked upon. He wondered how CSVR could state that Treasury would not increase DCS’s overall budget without having done the necessary research.

Mr Xolo pointed out that imprisonment meant loss of freedom and harsh discipline. Punishment needed to be harsh to facilitate rehabilitation.

Mr Xolo commented on the CSVR’s statement that the findings of the Jali Commission were not included in the DCS’s Strategic Plan, Annual Report nor Budget. If they had consulted with the DCS, they would have known what the reaction to the recommendations had been.

In response to the CSVR comments on female prisoners, Mr Xolo said that most women prisoners were in prison for no reason. DSS should be held responsible, not DCS. Mr Fihla added that violence was not as common in female prisons. These facilities were largely peaceful.

Ms Dissel said that the correctional facilities for women were generally smaller. Although discipline was less harsh, not enough was being done to control stress and monitor the mental health of inmates. Although violence was less common in female prisons, it was not unheard of. The violence took a different form but it was definitely a feature of facilities for women. She emphasised that women were entitled to the same rehabilitation facilities as men.

The Commissioner agreed with Mr Xolo. The CSVR submission contained a number of statements that were not factual.

Ms Dissel responded that CSVR used the same information that the public had access to. It should not need to directly approach the DCS for accurate answers. The public should have access to accurate information.

Ms Chikunga agreed that DCS should make accurate information available to the public.


Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked whether provision was made for prisoners’ spiritual care. Could the DCS allow churches to assist prisoners?

Ms M Makgate said that she agreed that DCS should be more concerned about the number of unnatural deaths in prison but added that it should also pay close attention to the number of unnatural deaths among officials. Many officials were committing suicide due to the pressures of their career. There were no resources to provide care, and employees who were stressed could not achieve their targets. How were NGOs assisting with this so that a balance could be achieved?

Ms Dissel replied that CSVR was concerned about both inmates and officials. Measures to assist inmates would result in a reduction of assaults on officials. She said that officials came from the same environments as inmates and need support systems too.

Rev L Tolo asked what the CSVR would propose as a measure to prevent unnatural deaths in prison. NGOs and CBOs should not merely highlight problems, they should also propose solutions.

Ms Dissel responded that many inmates acted out aggressively due to mental conditions. DCS needed to put measures in place to address this issue. She felt that the 7 Day Establishment would go a long way towards improving security.

Rev Tolo felt that "talk was cheap". CSVR did not entirely explain its stance on unnatural deaths.

In response to CSVR queries in its submission about resources allocated to HIV/AIDS and donor funding, Ms Sishuba said that Cabinet's social sector cluster would look at a future framework structure. DCS had received donor funding, which was used for training, peer education for officials and inmates, educational material aimed at prevention as well as the HIV/AIDS prevalence study (which received the bulk of the funding).The DCS ‘s HIV/AIDS programme was aimed at prevention, treatment and support.

The Chairperson said that he hoped that the SAHRC would support the Committee in its request to review the privileges of rapists.

Rev Tolo asked how the SAHRC could assist in eradicating the popular public opinion that prison was a "five star hotel". Ms Cohen replied that the SAHRC was often criticised for addressing the needs of the inmates who had committed the crimes rather than the innocent victims. She agreed that more education was needed to create awareness around what conditions in prison were like. These conditions were not conducive to rehabilitation. The Committee was in a position to lead the public debate. Educating the public and rehabilitating offenders would be in everybody’s interest. Without it South Africa’s constitutional ideals would not be reached.

Mr Nathi Nhleko (Regional Commissioner: KZN) said that society’s perception that prisons were "five star hotels" was abnormal and was an indication of the problems that existed in society itself. Prisons were confined spaces in which inmates had no freedom at all. They were not supposed to be seen as "five star hotels". More work needed to be done as far as the relationship between DCS and society was concerned. He added that research had shown that no matter how punitive the system, deterrence was not guaranteed. There was no scientific proof that harsh treatment was corrective. It was important to not lose hope in human potential.

Mr Fihla commented that he believed in restorative justice. The SAHRC input spoke to the humane treatment of prisoners. The facility at Durban Westville did very good work in terms of the training of inmates. The Committee had been shocked to learn the nature of the crimes some of the inmates at this facility had committed. He wondered how one could rehabilitate prisoners who had committed heinous acts. And how could one treat them humanely when they had shown no humanity when committing their crimes? Mr Xolo asked how the SAHRC could assist in ensuring that offenders were rehabilitated.

Ms Cohen realised that this was a very difficult situation. There was a likelihood that an inmate would be released after serving a sentence for a particularly violent crime. How these offenders were treated in prison would reflect in how they responded to society upon their release. It was important to remain hopeful and to believe in the human capacity to change. Rehabilitation was our collective responsibility. To live with dignity one needed to have necessary skills. In keeping with the goals of restorative justice, the DCS needed programmes that would enable offenders to productively engage within society upon their release.

Ms Sishuba said that SAHRC had raised very pertinent issues and she appreciated their offer of assistance. She pointed out that confidence in the judicial system as well as the active participation of civil society was necessary if one were to overhaul the social reintegration programme. Rehabilitation had to be complemented by activities aimed at moral regeneration.

Mr Xolo said that more conferences such as the Conference to Develop Strategies to Combat Overcrowded Prisons, held in September 2005 were needed. Offenders who were released from prison without having been adequately rehabilitated caused many problems upon their release.

Ms Cohen said that all stakeholders needed to work together to combat overcrowding in prisons. They needed to come up with more creative answers to the problem.

Ms Sishuba added that children were becoming perpetrators of serious offences. No matter how severe the crime, children did not belong in prison. The President's State of the Nation address was clear as far as the reduction in the number of children on prison was concerned. An intersectoral committee would be working towards finding a solution to this particular problem.

Ms Chikunga noted that the SAHRC’s submission referred to shortage of personnel as well as quality of service. It was clear that training needed to be addressed.

Ms Cohen answered that the skills shortage could be addressed through training, monitoring of officials as well as through research.

The Chairperson concluded that public hearings such as these facilitated a debate among people who did not necessarily share the same opinions. He was encouraged and impressed by the contributions the Committee had heard. It would be up to the Committee to assess what had been presented. He assured all present that the Committee was not a "talk shop". Much that had been raised in the past two years had been implemented.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

 

The Chairperson pointed out that financial support would be very important in order to reach the targets set out for the Department Correctional Services (DCS) in the President's State of the Nation Address. However, DCS could not achieve its goals alone and all advice and contributions were appreciated.


Ms Dissel responded that religious services were held in all correctional facilities. The Annual Report mentioned a number of spiritual advisors who visited facilities regularly. While the CSVR did not do such work, it acknowledged the role of spiritual guidance in terms of support and reintegration.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

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: