Department Budget Vote 2006/07 hearings: NICRO; JIOP; POPCRU submissions

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 March 2006
DEPARTMENT BUDGET VOTE 2006/07 HEARINGS: NICRO; JIOP; POPCRU SUBMISSIONS

Chairperson:

NICRO Presentation
Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons Presentation
Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union Presentation

SUMMARY
The National Institute of Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders, Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons and the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union presented submissions on the 2006/07 budget and strategic plan of the Department of Correctional Services.

Members’ questions related to rehabilitation of released offenders, overcrowding in prisons, minimum sentencing standards and the relationship between these organizations and the Department.

MINUTES
National Institute of Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) Briefing
Ms Y Pillay (Provincial Director, NICRO) delivered a presentation that dealt with the organisation’s comments on the Department of Correctional Services’ (DCS) strategic overview and key policy developments.

Discussion
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) identified a correction that needed to be made with regards to overcrowding in prisons. The legislation discussed overcrowding in Section 66 of the Correctional Services Act of 1997 and she added that Government had to enforce the legislation and make it work effectively.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) asked for elaboration of the term "reconstruction" used by NICRO, the role to be fulfilled by the DCS in relation to NICRO, and how NICRO would structure an inmate’s home upon his/her release.

Mr Fihla also asked why NICRO argued that minimum sentences should be scrapped and why it was said that minimum sentences increased the number of people in prison.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) asked for clarification about imbizos and whether the imbizos discussed referred only to the DCS.

Ms Pillay stated that reconstruction referred to the social services offered to the family of incarcerated inmates. This included therapeutic support, how to deal with anger towards the offender, and how to prepare and assist the family and community for the inmate’s release back into the home. NICRO offered economic support to family members of offenders by finding them a job or helping to improve their skills.

On minimum sentences, Ms Pillay said that NICRO proposed lighter sentences but sentencing power should be given back to the judiciary. They had faith in the judiciary system to punish those responsible for crimes. She added that NICRO were trying to alleviate overcrowding, and the imbizos referred to in the document concerned only the DCS.

Ms Ngwenya asked whether the resources available to the Department would be sufficient for the family reunification and restructuring process, and how much it would ultimately cost the Department if it needed more resources. She also enquired about the relationship between NICRO and the DCS and whether NICRO expected the Department to financially support them.

Ms M Makgate (ANC) asked where the imbizos had been held. How did NICRO reach out to the remote areas and did they provide support for those remote areas? What type of assistance did NICRO provide to HIV-positive offenders?

Mr Tolo inquired whether NICRO had discriminated against black prisoners during apartheid.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) wanted clarification on scrapping minimum sentences and how this related to overcrowding.

Ms Pillay replied that family restructuring and unification systems would have a financial impact on NICRO as more staff like social workers would be required. NICRO would like to discuss funding with the DCS.

On rural areas, Ms Pillay said NICRO was unable to be in every part of every province. If the inmate was part of a NICRO programme they would offer support to that particular inmate and his family. They were aware of the problem of inadequate rural coverage. HIV-positive inmates would be assisted by social workers when they were available.

Ms Pillay stated that NICRO had been in existence since 1910 and did not believe that they discriminated against black prisoners during apartheid. She added that minimum sentences enforced longer prison terms which increased the number of inmates and led to overcrowding.

The Chairperson asked if NICRO had an effective rehabilitation system. He was also interested in NICRO’s opinion of the Department’s initiative to build eight more prisons.

Ms Pillay responded that an ineffective rehabilitation system existed; however they were willing to establish a better system. With regards to the additions of new prisons, she added that they must focus on other methods before sentencing prisoners, as this would lessen the necessity for new prisons.

Ms Jabu Sishuba (Chief Deputy Commissioner, DCS) welcomed the positive remarks about the family of inmates and commented that developing the family of the inmate would lead to community development. She acknowledged that the Department had no formal agreement with NICRO and that they did not have additional funds available, but added that additional funding may be necessary. The Department had already discussed social integration with NICRO and an additional meeting was scheduled for next week on this issue. A programme was running to determine what supplementary information was needed for the 2005 White Paper on Corrections. She was concerned about the families of terminally-ill inmates and requested assistance from NICRO on how to deal with such cases. She did not want to comment on the issue of overcrowding but welcomed the research conducted by NICRO on the four categories of children that were affected by incarceration of their mothers, parents or family members.

The Chair asked the Department of Correctional Services why they had mentioned that NICRO was not doing enough, and why NICRO was prevented from attending certain Departmental meetings.

Ms Shishuga responded that she had had several sessions with NICRO and was not sure why the Department felt that NICRO did not do enough. However, she felt that NICRO had done enough. She added that NICRO should submit a full report to the National Commissioner.

The Chairperson commented that he would invite NICRO to another Portfolio Committee meeting where they would be given an opportunity to further discuss their issues.

Ms Pillay replied that NICRO would like a formal relationship with the Department and that there were procedures in place to achieve this.

Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) Briefing
Mr Gideon Morris (Director in the Office of the Inspecting Judge) delivered a presentation on behalf of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) that dealt with their comments on DCS’ budget and strategic review.

Discussion
Mr Fihla mentioned that the number of long-term prisoners was increasing and the rate of awaiting trial prisoners were decreasing as the safety and security of prisons increased. Alternative forms of sentencing needed to be addressed as some prisoners continued to stay in prisons because they had no other form of accommodation. He added that prisoners who had longer sentences added to overcrowding and costs. He wanted clarification as to whether the JIOP implied that long-term sentences should be decreased, and argued that minimum sentences should be increased and used as a deterrent.

Mr Mahote agreed with Mr Fihla that minimum sentences, in particular minimum sentences of seven years and more, needed to be harsher.

Ms Mgwenya asked how money that is "wasted" on non-sentenced prisoners could be saved.

Mr Morris responded that the JIOP suggested that discretion should be given to the courts on sentencing; thus enabling the court to determine what cases should be receive harsh or light sentences. He added that the court must not confuse the merits of the case with the nature of the offense. He commented that the Government has had great success in bringing down the numbers of prisoners and that they were continuing to reduce the numbers to the 1995 level.

Mr Tolo was concerned with the increase in the prison population from 1997 onwards, and suspected that prison officials were not doing their jobs properly which contributed to overcrowding.

Ms Makgate added that legal aid workers did not visit prisons and that the internal mechanisms of prisons needed to be monitored. She asked for a better explanation of the classification of crimes and different types of offenders.

Ms L Chikunga (ANC) mentioned that no relationship existed between long-term sentences and the number of prisoners sent to jail for those crimes. She added that she was unsure whether South Africa had a fair sentencing system.

Mr Morris responded that the JIOP needed to reduce costs and that the community and press needed to help rehabilitate the released offender. He was concerned about the funding available for monitoring and caring for prisoners, as the DCS budget was not sufficient to provide these funds. JIOP had made an agreement with the Legal Aid Board that they would have field workers at the prisons. The growth in the South African population contributed to the growth of inmates, and the JIOP were looking at the statistical information to determine the reasons for the increase in the prison population. The JIOP should use their resources and compare statistics of prison populations with other countries.

The Chairperson asked why the JIOP lacked a comprehensive rehabilitation program, and why the JIOP predicted an increase in the number of inmates for the forthcoming period.

Mr Morris responded that the JIOP based their information on the lack of rehabilitation on information obtained from the community. He added that the JIOP should use organizations such as NICRO to help with the rehabilitation programs. The JIOP had not adequately dealt with the issue of overcrowding and they needed to address the root causes of overcrowding.

Mr Patrick Gillingham (Chief Deputy Commissioner of Finance, DCS) stated that the JIOP needed to revisit their classification systems and categories of prisoners. He mentioned that the baseline allocation system used in dividing the budget was not scientific, because the entire budget could not be divided according to each individual inmate.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Gillingham on the classification systems and baseline allocation methods.

Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) Briefing
Mr Abbey Witbooi (General Secretary, POPCRU) delivered the presentation. (See document attached).

Discussion
Mr Mahote asked if there was a contractual agreement between the Department of Correctional Services and POPCRU.

Ms Chikunga mentioned that service delivery was not of a high standard and needed improvement.

The Chairperson was interested in finding out where the biggest part of POPCRU’s budget was spent.

POPCRU’s representative replied that the contractual agreements had not been formalised as yet. He added that they had engaged the SAPS (South African Police Services) in trying to improve service delivery. The biggest part of their budget was spent on administration.

[The remainder of the discussion with POPCRU will follow shortly]