Case Management Committees, Correctional Supervision, Parole Boards: status report by Correctional Services

Meeting report

DCS status report on Case Management Committees, Correctional Supervision, Parole Boards
Mr Lucky Mthethwa, DCS Acting Chief Deputy Commissioner, took the Portfolio Committee through the case management cycle; the capacity of Case Management Committees (CMCs); training of CMCs; the capacity of Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards (CSPBs); training of CSPBs; the processing of parole cases; and DCS efforts to promote public awareness on parole and involve the community to reduce recidivism (see document).

Discussion
The Chairperson asked that the organogram of the Case Management Committees (CMCs) be explained. He asked how many people made up a CMC, whether it was a Chairperson, a secretary and a clerk.

Mr Mthethwa replied that it consisted of a chairperson, a secretary and clerk, and any other additional members that could assist.

The Chairperson noted that tin Gauteng there were 36 chairpersons, 44 secretaries and 109 clerks. He asked if one chairperson had one secretary. There were 30 CMCs and 36 chairpersons. He asked if that meant that there were six chairpersons without CMCs.

Mr James Smallberger, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Incarceration and Corrections, noted that the discrepancy was due to challenges related to the lack of a permanent shift structure. Where a certain shift system had been agreed upon, alternative members were needed to stand in when the usual chairperson had to work a different shift. The DCS wanted a permanent shift structure, with CMCs working from Monday to Friday.

The Chairperson asked if that was an ideal.

Mr P Cele (ANC) referred to Slide 9. He asked why there were only two people trained in the Northern Cape. He asked when the 63 vacancies advertised (page 11) would be filled.

Mr Smallberger replied that the Free State and Northern Cape had started last with training. Some appointments had been postponed, but appointments were being proceeded with.

Mr Cele asked about the DCS public awareness measures about parole. He asked if Parliament had visited community meetings.

Mr L Max (DA) asked why KZN had trained secretaries and clerks, while the other provinces had not.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked what was meant when it was stated that for some inmate parole had not been granted, and it would be reconsidered at a later stage. He asked how many such offenders there were.

Mr Smallberger answered that it applied especially to lifers. Various factors had to be considered for lifer parole. It was possible that the inmate still had to attend certain programmes. Each case had a date on which the CMC had to submit an application for parole to a parole board. On 14 March there had been 222 such dates. The Minister had given reasons why she had referred the cases back. Cases affected by the Van Vuuren judgement had to be considered by the Minister alone, without intervention from the National Council for Correctional Services.

Mr S Abram (ANC) told the DCS that the Portfolio Committee appreciated the enormity of the problems they had to deal with. Still there were troubling issues. There were allegations going around that large numbers of people incarcerated for political crimes, were not being considered for parole. He asked about delays in creating public awareness about parole.

Mr Abram referred to the statement that offenders had been involved in the building of low cost housing, to combat recidivism. He asked if it had been done by inmates, or people on parole.

Mr Abram asked about the basic terms and benefits of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU).

Mr Abram remarked with regard to involvement in agriculture, that a military veteran had recently told him that the government had bought farms where nothing was happening. Land was lying fallow. When the Committee visited Zonderwater prison, they were told that inmates did not want to be involved with agriculture because they were from an urban background. But at Modder B, they were told that inmates were keen to farm. There they received certificate of recognition for what they had learnt, at the end of their term. The DCS was entering into memoranda of agreement. He advised that they also enter into agreements with the Rural Development and Agriculture Departments.

Mr Abram continued that government departments were still working in silos. Directors General met at certain forums, but the benefits were not to be seen. At a place like Harrismith, there were children who had to sit on the floor at school, because there were no desks. It was a very cold region. He suggested that the DCS cooperate with the Department of Basic Education, to make school desks in the correctional centre workshops. The DCS had to go beyond locking offenders in or out. Inmates had to be involved. The DCS had to come up with initiatives to do something for the country, so that they could ask the Committee to help obtain a budget for projects. The lack of inmate involvement in work, had an impact on parole. They left prison with nowhere to go. It was time to enter into MOUs that would produce outcomes.

Mr Smallberger replied that letters had been sent out recently to provide information about what the DCS could produce, and to invite entities to make use of DCS workshops. The establishment of a trading entity would encourage the process. The DCS wanted to release law abiding citizens.

Mr Mnguni (COPE) asked at what organisational level the CMC chairpersons were. If a chairperson was employed at the policy level, he had to interpret DCS policy. Clerks and secretaries performed administrative work. The chairperson had to make the decisions, based on interpretation of policy. Capacity to interpret was need among chairpersons. The chairperson had to decide on his own.

Mr Mthethwa responded that DCS members at the level of assistant director, were appointed as CMC chairpersons. Decisions were made on the basis of Case Review Team (CRT) recommendations. Inmates had to be classified within a certain time. A profile was established on admission. Case assessment officials compiled a Correctional Sentence Plan (CSP). The offender was then placed in an appropriate unit. The Case Review Team interacted with the offender on a three-month basis. Chairpersons were unit mangers, just below the level of assistant director.

Mr Mthethwa continued that secretaries had to advise chairpersons. They had to have experience. There was ongoing intermittent training. Basic training was according to the Correctional Services Act. Secretaries were at a level that required five years experience. The chairperson could request a review of the Correctional Service Plan. He had to see every offender assessed. If an offender were to get involved in a fight, for instance, his status would change. In the past, there was one unit manager to 720 inmates. However, the DCS was reviewing that down to 480. If that number was approved, every centre could have a CMC. The DCS had engaged with the community on a number of platforms, to promote awareness. There had been a joint visit with the Department of Justice to Klerksdorp the previous Monday, about victim empowerment. Lotsha Ministries contributed to spiritual programmes for offenders.

Mr Mnguni asked what happened when the chairperson worked another shift. He asked if cases were placed on hold for that period.

Mr Mthethwa replied that due to 12 hour shift challenges, there had been a circular to avoid making CMC members part of the shift system. One had to avoid CMC members working night shift.

Mr Ndlovu asked if the availability of CMC chairpersons was an HR problem. Were there areas where they still had to work night shift?

Mr Mnguni referred to the capacity of CMCs, and training. It seemed that there were large numbers of chairpersons who had not attended training. He asked if they still handled cases. He asked about the credibility of courses, and whether the DCS trained chairpersons.

The Chaiperson asked about roving CMCs. If there was no regular contact, the question arose if things were merely being done for the sake of complicity.

Mr Mnguni asked if roving CMCs travelled between Kimberley and Johannesburg, for instance.

Mr Mthethwa replied that roving CMCs were confined to small rural centres.

The Chairperson asked about the appointment of parole boards. He asked if interviewing for parole board positions was done by the public, and whether it was still appropriate to make anyone a parole board chairperson. The Act had to be changed, if necessary. There was lack of internal control. The DCS had been doing the same things for 18 years, and still expected things to change. Letters had been sent to other departments, but it did not bear fruit. The DCS had told the Committee that it had no labour for workshops. The DCS could not argue that the Department of Labour would not give them people. He agreed that there was a silo approach. It would not help to do things just for the sake of doing.

Mr Smallberger responded that the letters were in the process of being sent, to create awareness of DCS activities among other government departments.

Mr Ndlovu remarked that Mr Smallberger had changed his response. He had said at first that the letters had already been sent. That showed a lack of respect for the Portfolio Committee. If nothing had been sent, he had to say so.

Mr Smallberger replied that he respected the Committee, but if he had offended them, he wished to apologise for that.

The Chairperson asked that examples of Memoranda of Understanding be sent to the Committee.

Ms Pumla Mathibela, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corporate Services, replied that examples would be given of MOUs with Human Settlements, where houses had been built by offenders and parolees. There were MOUs with schools to work on gardening projects.

Mr Cele asked about the training of parole boards, whether they were being trained sufficiently or just given refresher courses.

Mr Mthethwa replied that it was a refresher course.

Mr Abram said that he was disappointed with DCS responses. The media was reporting that there were many APLA and IFP people still incarcerated. He told the DCS that they did not know their customers. Some of those incarcerated were high profile people. He asked about the current status of these processes.

Mr Abram asked for more information about the contents of MOUs. Houses had been built by parolees and offenders. He referred to a recent news item that showed people busy plastering in Paarl, that was not very convincing. The Committee had to be shown what was going on. If the DCS was willing to consider a plan such as building school desks for children, the Committee could help with resource problems. The Portfolio Committee was willing to prod the powers that be to spend less on air travel, and more on work for offenders. The DCS had to move away from warehousing offenders. Inmates who were idle for 23 hours a day, were going to re-offend when released. The DCS had to think out of the box.

Mr Abram remarked that the DCS had him worried about CMCs and parole boards. The rights of inmates were being disregarded, which compromised the Constitution. Offenders could not be deprived of their liberty, beyond the prescriptions of the law. “Dysfunctionality” had to be described. The DCS had nice mechanisms on paper, but lacked the human beings to carry them out. The Department had to tell the Committee what the challenges were, so that they could put pressure on the Executive. The Committee could hold the Executive to account. If their mechanisms were failing, the Committee had to point that out to the Executive.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked about parole board capacity, with regard to vacancies. She asked if SAPS were also involved in the parole process.

Mr Smallberger responded that the DCS wanted SAPS to be part of the parole process. SAPS could especially be helpful with reports about offenders serving longer than 10 years.

Ms Phaliso asked if the Minister had been told of how the 12 hour shift system compromised the CMC workflow.

Mr Mnguni remarked that there was insufficient information about special remission to spread to stakeholders. He asked if Lotsha Ministries had been made aware. Lotsha could assist the Department.

Mr Mnguni asked how the rank of CMC chairpersons and Case Review Teams corresponded to police ranks. He asked about the powers of Case Review Team (CRT), and whether it was possible for them to say that they were not satisfied.

Mr Mthethwa replied that the CMC Chairpersons were at the level of assistant director. Above that were the ranks of Commissioner; Chief Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner; Regional Commissioner; Director and Deputy Director. The Chairpersons were senior correctional officials.

The Chairperson asked who the CMC chair reported to at centres like Johannesburg where each section had its own Head.

Mr Smallberger replied that it was to the Head of the section.

The Chairperson asked about the status of the Case Review Team.

Mr Mthethwa replied that the Chairperson of the CRT submitted to the chair of the CMC, but held a higher rank.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked for a report on the halfway house established at Midrand. It was not known if it was functioning or not.

Ms Mathibela replied that it had been completed pillar to post. There was currently a pilot project for juveniles, but it would be rolled out to women.

The Chairperson asked if the rollout would happen in 2013/14.

Ms Mathibela replied that a policy on halfway houses had to be developed.

Ms Ngwenya asked about progress with the registering of schools at Kimberley and Rustenburg.

Mr Smallberger replied that there were currently eight schools. The DCS wanted to push that up to 11. Schools would open in 2013. Sponsorship from local government was awaited.

Ms J Ngubeni-Maluleka (ANC) said that the community had to be educated about how CMC and parole board decisions were reached.
 
The Chairperson remarked that the Committee was fighting for work opportunities for inmates. That included maximum offenders. The Committee believed that they also had to work.

The Chairperson said that during an oversight visit to Leeukop, it had come to light that the CMC chairperson was otherwise employed in making tea. The DCS was saying that five years experience was needed. He asked if that was indeed the case on the ground. The Wits Justice Project had seen something quite different. He told the DCS that the focus of South Africans on correctional matters had reached an unprecedented level. Four judges had declared that they did oversight at prisons, someone like Constitutional Court Judge Cameron did that on a regular basis. The Wits Justice Project could not be fooled. The DCS had to put the true facts on the table. If a visiting judge had to find that a CMC chairperson was a relative or girlfriend, it would come out. The Leeukop situatiuon was a fact.

Ms Ngwenya asked what powers victims had, and whether the family of a victim could veto parole, for instance.

The Chairperson cited the instance of a Leeukop inmate having his parole halted, because the community at Chatsworth in KZN had complained. The offender was from Gauteng, and would be released there. He asked to what extent victims could paralyse the parole process.

The Chairperson asked if chairpersons of CMCs were a challenge.

Mr Smallberger replied that there were CMC capacity challenges. There were insufficient sentence plans. At Leeukop there was the challenge of an interim structure. There had to be a permanent structure. At smaller centres there were CMCs working different shifts.

The Chairperson remarked that a community could see a known murderer on the street, without being aware that the man was qualified to be there, having served his time and done programmes.

Ms Mathibela replied that the Minister had advised that victims be called to a parole meeting. They could be made aware through stakeholders.

The Chairperson said that the church or another entity could let it be known that a man had served his time, and would commit crime again if the community refused to accept him. It was not just the victim who had to be informed.

Ms Ngwenya said that there was a lack of planning to engage communities. The Community Corrections Forum had to be made active.

Ms Ngubeni-Maluleka agreed that people only looked at the crime committed, and not at what the offender had done towards rehabilitation. Some releases had to be justified to the community.

Mr Smallberger responded that victim representation was new to South Africa. It was being rolled out through the Community Corrections Branch. The CMC worked through the parole board to notify victims and invite them to make representations. Sometimes victims were unable to attend hearings because they resided in another province. Presentations from victims had to be with the parole boards. It was not right for a parole process to be halted because of an outcry about the release.

Mr Abram said that the DCS was unable to say what kind of interventions were required. There were major capacity constraints. The problem was that the Committee did not get to know about it. The DCS had to approach the Committee with what they were willing to undertake.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Abram. He assured the DCS that the Portfolio Committee was not a watchdog. It was not a matter of having to please the Committee by doing certain things. He advised that the Department be up front with their problems.

Adoption of minutes
Minutes of meetings held on 29 August; 4 September; 5 September and 12 September were adopted.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.