Restorative Justice Programme; Family Reunification Programme: successes and challenges

Meeting report

Restorative Justice and Family Reunification: Department of Social Development briefing

Mr Mzukisi Gaba, Director: Social Crime Prevention and Support, Department of Social Development (DSD), said the Child Justice Act defined restorative justice as “an approach to justice that aims to involve the child offender, the victim, the families concerned and community members to collectively identify and address harms, needs and obligations through accepting responsibility, making restitution, taking measures to prevent a recurrence of the incident and promoting reconciliation.” In other words, restorative justice was based on the tenet that young people in conflict with the law should focus on restoring societal harmony and putting right the wrongs by being held accountable, accepting responsibility and, where possible, making amends. The policy on reunification services of the DSD defined family reunification as “the reunification of family members who have been separated from their families due to various reasons”. In the context of children in conflict with the law, this definition compels the reunification of the child to the custody of his or her immediate family or other family members through interventions to promote an environment conducive to the development of the strengths and skills of the parent, guardian, care-giver, family members and the child.
           
The plan of the Crime Prevention and Support Programme was to reduce recidivism through an effective probation service to all vulnerable children and adults by March 2020. The objective statement of the programme was to reduce the extent of recidivism and vulnerability to crime by providing psycho-social and statutory services to children, youth and adults within the criminal justice process by March 2020 for 19 040 beneficiaries. In order to achieve this, the programme included as one of its focus areas in the annual performance plan (APP), the provision of a range of reintegration interventions to children in conflict with the law who have completed community-based and/or residential programmes, to promote stable, social and family relationships and reduce their chances of relapse and repeat offending.

There were a number of reunification/reintegration programmes for children in conflict with the law, such as Usiko in the Cape Winelands. Usiko in Stellenbosch rendered reunification programmes to children who have completed diversion programmes. For the 2017/18financial year, 60 children were referred by the DSD’s Stellenbosch local office for family reunification services for a period of one year.
Family reintegration services include psycho-socio services and support in the form of an accredited wilderness-based therapeutic intervention camp, parenting workshops, linking with job opportunities, and provide assistance to go back to school or study at college.
           
Mr Gaba added that Khulisa rendered reunification and reintegration programmes to children and parents/caregivers who have completed the diversion programmes in Paarl and Worcester. In the 2017/18financial year, a total of 54 children and 55 parents were referred by probation officers at the two DSD local offices for family reunification and after-care services. Youth Impact and Sustainable Solutions (YISS) was an organisation based in Hanover Park and rendered reunification and reintegration services to children and youth released from child and youth care centres, and those who had completed other probation service programmes. For the 2017/18 financial year, a total of 36 candidates were referred from DSD’s Metro South regional office. The beneficiaries reside in high-risk areas, such as Hanover Park, Manenberg, Lavender Hill, Mitchell’s Plain and Gugulethu. The project consisted of a 35-week skills-based training programme in hairdressing, barber, bakery and hospitality, and business skills. These training packages consisted of theory, practical, events, competitions and inter-generational community services.

A total of R415 543 had been allocated for Usiko, R415 801 for Khulisa, and R709 000 for YISS.

DSD was experiencing human capacity challenges to provide optimal services. Although the need for this service was growing, the expansion of services was hampered by budgetary constraints.
 
Restorative Justice and Family Reunification within a centre context

Ms Leana Goosen, Director: Facility Management and Quality Monitoring, DSD, said the Department had a number of centres in the Western Cape. These included Bosasa Horizon in Faure for sentenced and awaiting trial boys, and Vredelus in Elsiesriver for sentenced and awaiting trial girls. There was also Bonnytoun in Kraaifontein, and Outeniekwa in George, for sentenced and awaiting trial boys.

The vision of restorative justice and family reunification in a centre context was to create a conducive and enhanced residential environment for children at risk through a multi-programme and specialist service model, where empowerment and development assisted in the reintegration of a well balanced and equipped citizen for society. The objective of restorative justice was to ensure that offenders were able to learn the ability to gain insight into the behaviour that causes harm to others, and to rectify these behaviours in a centre context in order to enhance restoration with the family, community and victims.

Ms Goosen said that apart from capacity and budget constraints, other challenges included the omission of youth parole in legislation, parents not taking ownership of their children, and community resistance to children who offend.

Discussion

Ms M Wenger (DA) asked for more information on the Child Justice Forum, as this had not been explained clearly in the presentation. It had been indicated that the child was being referred to the DSD and then the Department referred that child to the non-governmental oOrganisations (NGOs). However, the main concern was that the reach of these three NGOs was very limited, while these reunification services were needed across the province. How did the Department deal with reunification services outside of those three NGOs? It was clear that the total orders issued under the early release programme were in decline, and the important question was whether this was something that the Committee should be concerned about. There was an indication that one of the constraints was legislation regarding parole. Could more information on this be provided?

Ms D Gopie (ANC) wanted to know who was responsible for training the people in the Child Justice Programme. Who was doing the actual training at these centres? How long was the training? Where was it taking place? There seemed to be shortage of centres for girls. What was to be done to address this problem? What was the meaning of the levels in the early release programme? What were the plans in place to extend centres to other areas?
           
Ms P Lekker (ANC) asked if there were any instances where offenders in these centres became defiant and unruly, and failed to comply with the rules. What was being done if this was to happen in one of the centres? What measures were in place to refer those unruly offenders to other institutions? It would be important for the Committee to hear about steps that were being taken to reintegrate those children from families who were failing to take ownership of them.

Ms P Makeleni (ANC) wanted to know about the assessment intake. What should be done with those children in Pollsmoor? Were there any programmes for those minor offenders in Pollsmor? What were the reasons for revoking parole? What were the alternative placements provided to children if it was not safe to live with their biological parents?

Ms M Gillion (ANC) enquired about the timeframe for the rollout of these programmes to other area. How did one identify the NGOs that were being considered for this programme? How was the success rate of the Child Justice Programme measured? Was any monitoring and evaluation being undertaken to ensure the success of these programmes? What was the success rate of the Child Justice Programme?

The Chairperson wanted to know about the approval process for the 60 children at Usiko, the 55 children at Khulisa and the 35 candidates at YISS. Was there any partnership with the Western Cape Education Department (WCED)?

Mr Gaba responded that the Child Justice Forum was meeting on a monthly basis, and was chaired by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). All the departments in the criminal justice cluster attended and participated in this forum. This was a forum to canvass bottlenecks in operational issues and find ways to resolve those issues amicably. The complicated matters were referred to the development committee that was chaired by the provincial head of Justice.

The Chairperson asked for more information on the diversion programme in place. What were the rules of engagement for individuals who underwent this programme? Was a second chance provided if the first chance was squandered? Was there any instance where a sentence had been overturned for an individual because of this kind of programme?

DSD’s response

Ms Goosen replied that an employee who was injured on duty was immediately registered on the register, and there was a person who would deal with that process.

There were levels of care within the Department. Level 1 care was within the family; level 2 was for the children who were dealt with in terms of the Child Justice Act; level 3 was for the child with disturbing behaviour that could not be managed by parents; and level 4 was for children who were dealt with under the Child Justice Act, who were awaiting trial or sentencing.

The early release programme applied only to sentenced children. The average sentence of these children was two years, and some of the children were given half a sentence. The three cases where the parole had been revoked were because some of the children had tested positive for drugs. The offenders were first given a chance, and the second time was when the decision was taken to revoke the parole. The conditions that were stipulated were that the children should not use drugs, attend school and adhere to a curfew.

There were independent living programmes for those children where it was not safe to live with their biological parents. The children were able to go school and attend other programmes.

The centres of the Department were not over-populated, and the demand and the provision was more or less the same. However, the demand at the level 3 care was increasing.

Ms Goosen indicated that a full assessment had been done over 18 months to determine the demand for the centre in Bonnytoun. The report had been provided by the DSD, and funding was in excess of R500 million. The decision on funding was still to be made. There were at least some centres in the main metros, and another in the Karoo. The demand for centres in the middle Karoo was extremely low, and therefore it was not cost effective to provide a centre in those areas. Bonnytoun currently fell under Winelands, and most of the children that were accommodated there came from the Winelands.

Ms Ruwayda Carloo, Deputy Director: Social Crime Prevention and Support, DSD, added that the justice custer stakeholder referred to representatives from the South African Police Service (SAPS) who were responsible for the assessment of children. There was a constant communication with the NPA and this was to address challenging issues. The forum was also to address issues where the offender was not progressing in the programme within the ambit of the Child Justice Act. The forum also identified the training of other role players dealing with children. For example, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DJCD) arranges training for the Child Justice Act on a regular basis, which includes all role-players. There had been a challenge where the new staff of other stakeholders had not been trained, and this was a challenge that the DSD would need to deal with.

Ms Goosen said that all staff undergo legislative and operational training during the induction so as to have an understanding of the legislative framework they were working under. The resident staff of the Department had to receive formal education as well skills development-based training and other offence- related programmes. Regarding the scholastic training, the DSD was following the framework of the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS). It was also following the adult basic education and training courses, which made it easier for offenders to return to community-based education following release.

There were only five sentenced girls in the centres of the DSD. One was from the Karoo, and the rest were from the Cape Town Metro areas. The need was mostly for girls with behavioural challenges. The legislation allowed offenders who were defiant and unruly to be transferred within the centres, and not in prison, and children were aware of this. The Department was working very closely with the NPA as well as the DJCD for the early release of some of the children. There had been stabilisation in the defiant behaviour of offenders. There was also an emergency response team that was always ready to respond when the incidents occur so that the centres did not always have to call the police.

There were only nine children in Pollsmoor prison, and this was remarkable. Most of the children were awaiting trial because of the seriousness of their offences. The decision by the magistrate had been that they must be detained.

The Department did not stop, even if families did not accept ownership of the child, but there was an effort to communicate with the family of offenders so as to reintegrate the offenders with their families. The probation officer played an important role in bringing parents to the centres. It was important to make parents part of the plan, as they might be ashamed, disappointed or angry over the conduct of the offenders. There was an effort to ensure that each and every child was able to communication with his/her family every week.

Ms Carloo said that the Department was doing quite well at Pollsmoor, because there was a probation officer visiting every week and there was an NGO that was doing a once a week programme with children who were awaiting trial. The DSD was hands-on with children who were at Pollsmoor. The Department expedited the process of relocating these children, because this was not a good environment for them, but some had to be there because of the seriousness of the crime committed. The statistics showed that most of the children in Pollsmoor were there for murder, armed robbery and rape, and most were aged between 17 and 18. There are cases where children are wrongly sent to Pollsmoor, and the Department was dealing with these cases immediately so that they were transferred to other areas.  

Mr Gaba said that the purpose of the assessment was stipulated in section 35. A whole range of issues were taken into consideration, all of which were in the assessment form.

The Department was coming from a three-year funding cycle, and it then issued a call for a proposal which was published in the media. There was then a gap analysis to identify the services that were not being rendered because of capacity constraints. The Department would then issue a proposal guided by the norms and standards of the existing programmes. A team was sent by the Department to monitor the NGOs that had shown an interest in rendering the services, and this was to determine if there was an existing board, facilities and business plan in place. It was then the responsibility of the Minister and the team to make a decision on the NGO to be given funding for rendering the service. The Department would then monitor if those selected NGOs were adhering to the stipulated norms and standards. A partnership was created between the DSD and the NGOs so that there was adherence to the agreements.

The Department was measuring the success of the programmes on whether the annual performance targets were achieved. There should also be a clean audit report from the Auditor-General (AG). The DSD also ensured that there was value for the money that had been spent. The annual report was the document that fully answered the question as to whether the programmes of the Department had delivered. The annual performance targets were linked to the allocated budget.

Ms Goosen added that each child was released on conditions, and those conditions were monitored by the probation officer, together with the family of the child. There were many children who were returned back to prison because of a failure to adhere to those conditions. Only three children had returned to prison since the inception of the Child Justice Programme. The Department did not have the right to interfere in the life of a child once the sentence had expired.

Ms Gillion said that she was not been given a sufficient answer on how to measure the success rate of the programme. The success rate of the programme was not linked to the annual reports and financial audits, but to the outcome of the aims and objectives of the programme.

Ms Lekker said that she had once read an article where the employees in Bonnytoun, Kraaifontein, had been attacked. The Committee should be told what had happened in that incident and whether any assistance was provided to those employees. What had happened to the minors who were involved in that kind of attack? Was there any form of compensation that had been offered to their families?

Ms Goosen responded that there had been an engagement with the employees who were involved in that attack, and some of them were still being supported. The Department had strengthened its ability to deal with similar kinds of incidents. The Department of Public Works (DPW) had awarded R64 million for an emergency outreach in the centres of the DSD so as to address security and emergency measures.

The probation officer played an important role after the release of the offender. Children were also taught how to live independently so as never to go back to crime. The DSD had a Memorandum of Understand (MoU) with the Western Cape Education Department (WCED) to employ teachers to render the curriculum in the centres.

Ms Carloo said there was usually a pilot programme to determine its long-term success potential. The piloting of the programme had been based on the gap analysis, and had been rolled out based on the success of the pilot. The Department was planning to arrange a function where the actual beneficiaries related their success stories themselves, rather than the Department reporting about them.

There were currently nine accredited diversion programmes for children that had been diverted. Every child received a different programme, based on the crime that had been committed. For example, there was a specific programme for substance abuse.

The Chairperson asked if there was any accommodation for people with a different sexual orientation.
           
Ms Makeleni wanted to know how it was possible that drugs managed to enter these centres without being detected. If there were not enough resources for children to become better adults, this was a concern that needed to be addressed. How would this problem be addressed?

Ms Gillion still wanted the Department to come back with an answer on the success rate of the Child Justice Programme versus the amount of money that had been allocated.

The Chairperson asked about the number of beneficiaries in these centres in the previous financial year. How many children had successfully completed the programme?
           
Ms Goosen replied that there was a self-declaration process regarding sexual orientation. There were currently two transgender children, and they had been accommodated.

Every child was searched in terms of the guidelines for admission, and some children ingested the drugs which then passed out naturally through the body. The Department conducted daily and weekly searches, including unannounced searches, and this was to prevent cases where children could bring in weapons or drugs. There were family members who smuggled drugs to children during visits, and the DSD had opened criminal charges against them. There were also staff members and security members who sometimes got involved in the smuggling of drugs, and some had lost their jobs because of this.

Ms Makeleni said that the Committee had visited Bonnytoun, and the woodwork class did not have the material to continue working, and this was something to be concerned about. When was this going to be addressed?

Ms Goosen replied that programme material was part of the budget, and maybe the material was about to be delivered to those areas. The woodwork educator had just resigned and the DSD was about to appoint a replacement.

The early release programme was supposed to indicate success, and the fact that there was an early release programme showed that success was being achieved. The Department was offering a number of programmes, including developmental programmes.

Mr Gaba said that 2 939 people were referred to the diversion programme, and 1 413 had completed it in the 2017/18 financial year. This was a 48% completion rate.

Draft Committee oversight visit report

Ms Lekker felt that the Committee had not been taken very seriously when it visited Ikamva Labantu, and perhaps the Committee should write a letter to the organisation expressing dissatisfaction about the manner in which it had been treated. A senior member of the DSD had also not been present, and this was a major concern to the Committee.

The Chairperson noted this input and promised to write a letter to Ikamva Labantu expressing this dissatisfaction.

Ms Lekker moved the adoption of the report, and was seconded by Mr D Mitchell (DA).

The Committee adopted the report with amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.