Inmate Labour, Privileges and Social Reintegration: Public hearings

Meeting report

Inmate Labour, Privileges and Social Reintegration: Public hearings
Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) submission
Mr Lucas Muntingh, Project Coordinator, CSPRI, said that very few inmates in South Africa were engaged in labour, and fewer still were engaged in meaningful labour, to prepare them for a life after release, or to equip them for economic activity. Enforced idleness had a negative impact on inmates.

Mr Muntingh noted that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had undertaken to overhaul corrections three years previously but there had since been a reduction in the re-integration budget. There were resources for the re-integration into society, but people were often unaware of them. Substance abuse had been a problem for many inmates, and yet people did not know where to find Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. People were leaving prisons without having obtained ID documents. Organisations formed by former prisoners were not funded from DCS. That hampered community development.

Mr Muntingh pointed out that correctional centre inmate labour was supported by the Constitution and the Correctional Services Act. He said that since the late 1980s, prison work had declined, when a system of farm work for parolees was phased out. Since that time, the DCS had not succeeded in finding other work opportunities. There was international agreement that, as far as possible, work for inmates had to be meaningful and purposeful.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) referred to the concept of meaningful and purposeful work. He asked what was to happen if practical circumstances did not allow for that, and if that would imply that no work be done at all. In the United Kingdom, inmates have been put to work to knit socks, and at least that kept them busy.

Mr Muntingh responded that boring work was bearable, when one could aspire to purposeful and meaningful work to come.

Mr Selfe agreed that gratuities for inmate work were very low. However, the practical realities were that 112 000 inmates could not be paid a minimum wage. There would be arguments with unions, and criminals would be taking jobs away from honest unemployed people.

Mr Muntingh replied that he thought differently, but the real issue was that there had to be some purpose in money earned, and that this should be organized better, so that, for instance, families of inmates could also benefit.

Mr A Fritz (DA) drew attention to Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Service (JICS) reports of inmates losing a leg or an arm in farming accidents. It seemed that protection was lacking and had to be guaranteed by law.

Mr Muntingh agreed that this posed a great risk, and that trouble could be expected.

Mr Fritz said that during the oversight tour of the previous week, it was evident that security classification at prisons was chaotic at the New Kimberley centre. A prisoner with five life sentences could clearly not be permitted to work in someone’s garden. Maximum and medium security had to be clearly distinguished.

Mr Muntingh responded that security classifications had to be individualised, but the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) used a formula. The formula did deal with the question of how risky an inmate really was.

Mr S Abram (ANC) said that inmates were locked inside for 23 hours per day. They were idle, and an idle mind was the proverbial devil’s playground. A cell had been burnt out at Kimberley centre the week before. He asked Mr Muntingh if there was a systemic problem. Passionate officials were needed to run the corrections mission with integrity. He asked if these qualities were indeed there. He added that self-sufficiency would result if inmate labour could be used to grow food. An ethos had to be created among inmates that would cultivate a desire among them to contribute by being productive. That was currently lacking. The question was how to cultivate something that could not be enforced by law.

Mr Muntingh agreed that systemic problems ran deep in the DCS. The ratio of officials to inmates had improved, with 1 official to every 4 inmates. However, there was lack of progress. One solution was to devolve responsibility to the Head of the Centre. That official should not be in a position to say that it was the responsibility of the Regional Commissioner. Mr Muntingh said that there had to be performance criteria for self-sufficiency. The DCS had an enormous budget. Security and escape prerogatives had caused a drop in farm produce.

Ms Ingrid Koch, Director of the God Parent Project, asked if a practical model for youth reintegration had been found.

Mr Muntingh answered that the best models focused on keeping youth out of prison. There were many models to deal with marginal youth. Parole could help but the DCS had to overhaul itself.

The Chairperson remarked that to his knowledge, there had been no legal challenge to inmate labour.

Mr Muntingh suggested that labour and training should be adjusted to market changes. Female prisoners did virtually nothing besides sewing, yet the garment industry was in trouble. Agricultural technology kept changing, and the question was whether someone who had been trained would later be able to get employment. He suggested work release programmes, where parolees would be placed to work in a supervised place to help them in particular during the crucial first six months.

Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) submission
Mr Nkosinathi Theledi, General Secretary, POPCRU, stated that POPCRU was in favour of inmate labour as a means to contributing to the running costs of correctional centres, and to help offenders become better citizens upon release. He drew attention to the difficulties experienced by offenders in surviving outside prison, with very limited technical and life skills. Many offenders feared the implications of seeking work when they had a criminal record. POPCRU would like to send out a call to the business sector to provide work opportunities to ex-offenders who had acquired skills and competencies while incarcerated.

Mr Nkosinathi was critical of Public Private Partnership (PPP) correctional facility ventures. He noted that those consumed the DCS budget, whereas more intervention from that Department was in fact required. POPCRU had recommended that the Department review its human resource deployment, so that there would be sufficient staff members at correctional centres who would be capable of implementing policies. The DCS was placing emphasis on the building of more correctional centres, at the expense of restructuring the justice system . The government had to spend more money on the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.

Mr Theledi was convinced that PPP projects had brought distortion, and that agricultural and other productive projects in centres had suffered, with negative implications for whether inmates could be used effectively and thereby render them employable at a later stage.

Discussion
The Chairperson emphasised the need for a sentence plan for inmates. Current experience indicated that it could take 20 years to get sentence planning up to speed, at the current rate. The question was how to deal with sentence plan backlogs. The Portfolio Committee (PC) wanted to be brutally straightforward with the DCS, about who had to do what, to improve the situation.

Mr Fritz opined that sentence plans had to guide the process of deciding who had to work, and who had to study.

Mr Muntingh responded that NICRO still had a study scheme. He wondered why the DCS did not have a fund for study.

Mr Fritz asked what Mr Theledi really meant about the negative impact of Public Private Partnerships (PPP). The Committee had heard sweeping statements about that. He agreed that the use of inmates by Bosasa in the kitchens amounted to slave labour. However, this did not mean that this example should be used as a generalisation to cover all labour. Currently, vegetables were being taken from Bloemfontein to Rustenburg, while Losperfontein was also producing vegetables close to Rustenburg.

Mr Theledi insisted that statements about PPPs were not sweeping. In his opinion the PPPs were “monsters”. PPP facilities like the one at Mangaung had taken up half the DCS’s budget.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that sentence plans were a problem, there were certainly no plans in place at Kimberley centre. Criminal records had to be part of a system. It might be necessary to review the Correctional Services Act. She agreed that the public feared those with criminal records, and released prisoners could not get work, which caused them to land in prison again. An Act that compelled names of prisoners to be taken up in a government system would help.

Mr Muntingh referred to page 5 of the POPCRU presentation, regarding the need for more officials. He asked what could be called sufficient staff. On paper, the rate of officials to inmates was 1 to 5, but in practice there could be 170 inmates to one official. There were not enough social workers to implement the Children’s Act. He said that there had to be a move away from the expectation that social workers could save the situation. Officials on the ground were what really mattered. Interaction with officials was of crucial importance.

Mr Theledi responded that social workers were part of the solution. He commented on the inmate to official ratio, saying that the DCS was top-heavy. There were too many chiefs and duplication of jobs. Figures did not reflect the situation at the point of interaction between inmate and official.

Mr Abram agreed that one member might be assigned to guarding 300 people, whilst five could be crammed into an office doing paperwork.

The Chairperson said that the important question was where people were deployed. People might have to be moved to the ground.

Mr Muntingh said that sentence plans were based on a long and detailed document. He questioned whether all this information was really important. The document could be streamlined. Sentence plans were currently only in place for those sentenced for over 24 months, but most of the inmates affected had sentences of over 12 months only.

Mr Abram asked about the percentage of backlogs with regard to sentence plans.

Ms Venessa Padayachee, National Manager: Advocacy and Lobbying, National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders, asked if she might respond on the issue, although the NICRO briefing was yet to come. She said that a special task force or project was required for sentence plans. There was a variety of options, ranging from contract staff to university interns. She said that there was a 70% backlog on sentence plans. NICRO would insist that it had to be dealt with. Lack of sentence plans contributed to idleness. There had to be pre- and post release plans. She disagreed with Mr Muntingh about social workers. She remained convinced that they were a much needed scarce resource that had to be developed.

The Chairperson asked if NICRO could come up with a proposal about sentence plans that could be taken to the DCS. DCS’s assertion that it was not affordable had to be challenged.

Mr Gideon Morris, Director, Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services, said that the DCS could not give effect to the sentence plans that it had, or focus on the plans itself.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) drew attention to the fact that weekends were taken off in terms of the 7-day establishment, which made fewer officials available. She referred to a factory in Langlaagte, Johannesburg, which had consistently employed former offenders in the past. She asked why that practice no longer existed. Problems with finding work could make an ex-offender think longingly back to his incarceration as a place where he at least received three meals a day.

Mr Morris responded that staff numbers had gone down over the preceding six years, but could still be seen as adequate. The staff to inmate ratio currently stood at 1 to 3,5. The ratio for the PPP centres was 1 to 6. The problem was that there was no inspection of production levels. It was a challenge that 60% of the staff were involved in administration, and not at the coalface. The DCS diluted resources. There would be one or two educators for an entire correctional centre, and they had to teach everything. Resources could be pooled to transfer inmates to the proximity of schools, in every province. Basic skills could be learnt at a later stage.

Mr Abram said that the land reform and restitution plan had failed. He asked if POPCRU had tried to place people on land.

Mr Abram said with regard to reintegration, that a towel factory in Pretoria had turned out towels and facecloths manufactured by people with little literacy. Various commodities could be manufactured with government assistance, to create a form of sheltered employment.

Mr Theledi said that POPCRU would make a proposal.

National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) submission
Ms Venessa Padayachee, National Manager of Advocacy and Lobbying, NICRO, said that NICRO had tried various interventions, including the running of factories, to promote inmate labour and post-release employment. An organic farm at Pollsmoor had been proposed to the DCS, as well as a call centre run by inmates. Nothing had come of that. A national framework for prison labour had to be developed. The question was what the Department and the Ministry had done in that regard.

Ms Padayachee said that work was crucial to rehabilitation. It built inmate morale and taught discipline. A seminar on best practice was in order. Inmate labour could reduce crime in future. The question of paying market related wages to inmates remained a controversial issue. However, it was certain that social capital was developed when inmates interacted with others through work. Interaction with non-offenders was also necessary, to help offenders cope with stigma on the outside. Practices like the use of inmate labour to run kitchens for a private agency did not comply with the international consensus that the labour opportunities had to be provided by the correctional centre administration. Inmate labour needed to operate on business principles and work ethics. The theme of reintegration had to be central.

NICRO recommended that inmates must be paid a fair wage for work. A percentage of that wage could go towards prison costs, a percentage to the family of the offender, and another towards savings for the offender upon release.

Inter-sectoral partnerships had to be developed. The DCS could form partnerships with industry to create employment for inmates and ex-inmates. The Departments of Arts and Culture, of Labour and of Social Development could contribute towards employment opportunities and social skills development. All inmates had to be released from correctional centres with a written reintegration plan. Partnerships between social service organizations and the business sector had to be encouraged. The interests of inmates were not to be subordinated to making a financial profit from an industry in the institution.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the suggestions about inmate labour, set out on page 30 of the presentation, struck him as revolutionary. He had a problem with inmates as part of the regular workforce. There could be toyi-toying. People were striking for a fair wage at that very moment. Industrial action in prison would present problems. Part of re-integration was the principle of paying back for help received from the State. DCS staff and organisational capacity had to increase. A norm for determining staff needs had to be established.

Mr Selfe noted that the debate about a fair wage had to include estimates of the cost of inmates to the State. Estimates varied from R100 to R200 per day. On the outside, released prisoners would be part of wage-type work. Ideally inmate work had to be productive and meaningful. The question was whether every inmate could be provided for. If the bar was set too high, correctional centres could end up doing nothing. Fresh air and exercise was part of any work. The question was how practically all concerns could be addressed. Proposals to Pollsmoor had been ignored. The Portfolio Committee had to follow that up. People were prepared to commit, but there was bureaucratic stonewalling.

Mr Fritz said that he had found the briefing detailed and informative, but wondered how practical it was. He questioned why the organic farm project at Pollsmoor did not get off the ground. Nothing came of proposals. The Committee had to give effect to them.

The Chairperson remarked that written reports of bureaucratic stonewalling were in order.

Mr Morris said that the experience of the Judicial Inspectorate suggested that it was unrealistic to call for a living wage for inmate labour. However, the gratuity proposed was too small. It could not provide an incentive. Young inmates came from poor backgrounds. At a centre like Rustenburg, they would earn R10 per month for work in prison. That could compel some to throw in their weight with the gangs to earn money. The gratuity had last been adjusted in 2004. Potential ways to help inmates earn some money had to be explored.

Mr Muntingh remarked, with regard to incentives, that the issue was to create value from the work opportunity. There had been inmates employed to prepare food in kitchens for years, without receiving any formal training. There had to be value-adding.

Mr Abram said that the role of bureaucracy had to be investigated. It had to be known if this stood in the way of achieving the objectives of the White Paper, and the Correctional Services Act.

Ms Padayachee responded that a fair wage was synonymous with equitable remuneration. She alluded to page 19 of her briefing, where it was suggested that a part of the remuneration for inmate work should go to the family, and part towards building up savings for the inmate.

Ms Padayachee said that the DCS would get excited about suggestions, but would not come back to NICRO. The staff ratio had to improve, but what was really needed was DCS officials who could show entrepreneurial spirit. She said that even menial tasks could be meaningful work, and this depended on how it was interpreted. Work cultivated a sense of self-worth.

Catholic Bishops Conference Parliamentary Liaison Office submission
Advocate Mike Pothier, Research Co-ordinator, Catholic Bishops Conference, said that the stance of the Catholic Church was that punishment had to seek to achieve the rehabilitation of the offender. That approach stemmed from the understanding that no-one was beyond salvation, but also a recognition of the legitimate self-interest of society, seeing that all inmates would eventually be released. He said that the Church believed that locking up inmates for 23 hours in a day was an affront to human dignity. It was also unacceptable both in terms of Constitutional requirements and the provisions of the Act. It led to high recidivism rates. Inmate labour could develop a healthy work ethic and a sense of social responsibility. The Catholic Church had an extensive network of prison chaplains and visitors, and would be happy to explore ways of co-operating with the DCS. Mere routine tasks like cooking and cleaning would not be enough. What was required was imaginative and challenging work that could develop dormant potential.

Discussion
Mr Oscar Cupido, a psychology graduate attached to NICRO, suggested that crafts practiced in prison could lead to work obtained. The private sector could, for instance, come into correctional centres with job lots at a fee. Products could be sold on the market for remuneration. This could overcome the problem of prisoners not feeling the impact of what they have produced. Paid work could be outsourced.

Ms Ngwenya commended the fact that the Church saw the need for inmates to work.

Mr Mike Pausent, Regional Manager, Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services, said that in his community, public opinion was in favour of inmate work.

Mr Abram noted that churches interacted with inmates pastorally. Interaction with the DCS had to be explored. He asked if Adv Pothier was satisfied that that pastoral work was bearing fruit, and whether he could concretise his ideas. The church had a role to play.

Advocate Pothier replied that there was indeed a pastoral network. It was composed of pastors, laypersons and the prisoners’ network. However, the resources were too limited. The Catholic Church had to pay more attention to this, but could certainly assist the DCS. The chaplain and laypersons’ network was willing to meet with the DCS. The Church was willing to provide an outlet for products of inmate labour. The Catholic Church viewed that as a charitable act.

Ms Padayachee added that the consequences of crime were not removed by rehabilitation. Contribution to society was important. Structuring of work was a priority. The Catholic Church had a body to assist prisons. It had offered work to ex-offenders, especially in the form of screen printing. The extent of offender skills was generally not known on the outside. Community confidence in inmate work had to be built. The Church could play a critical role on the outside.

Godparents Project submission
Dr Ingrid Koch, Project Leader, Godparents Project, introduced the project as one directed to intervention on behalf of youth offenders who were under correctional supervision. It was based on a family reintegration model, with the values of wellness, belonging and bonding seen as paramount. It was linked to the Emoyeni farm project.

Mr Alastair Bulley, Representative, Godparents Project, stressed that interventions were especially necessary during the first six months after release, to prevent recidivism. There was a viable farm on the West Coast, and a small village was envisaged, with half of the 100 to 150 inhabitants comprised of ex-offenders. Candidates for inclusion would be interviewed twelve months before release, so that there could be a support plan  put in place ahead of time. Work done in the correctional centres could be recreated on the farm, to create a sheltered environment. The DCS, Parole Board, South African Police Service (SAPS) and employers would co-operate. An employer could visit the farm and check a candidate’s progress. He would be helped to plan his own future.

Mr Archie Jefthas, Representative, The Lord is Here Christian Community Centre, introduced himself as a Drakenstein Corrections official who had become involved with the Godparents Project in his private capacity. He called for more community involvement and stakeholders. The Project had enabled youths to finish matric in prison. When there had been reconciliation and forgiveness, the community could accept the offender. There had to plans in place for parolees, either to work or to study.

Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) submission
Judge Deon van Zyl, Inspecting Judge, JICS, said that he had dealt with issues of inmate labour and privilege for some years. He disagreed with the notion that work for inmates was a privilege. Inmate labour could improve conditions generally. Less lock-up space would be needed, if inmates worked. Work was seen to be essential. Lock-up time had to be limited. The JICS inspected correctional centre conditions, and had seen for itself that it was not acceptable for inmates to be cooped up in cells. This was an affront to dignity. The Act endorsed the need to work.

Judge van Zyl was convinced that the DCS did not need more people, but that those who were already employed had to do more. DCS officials were not properly deployed in terms of the White Paper. The Head of Centre had custody of inmates, and that obligation had to be put into effect. A total restructuring was needed. The DCS was obliged, in terms of Section 40 of the Correctional Services Act, to provide sufficient work for a normal working day. The Act could compel the offender to work. The White Paper prescribed that work opportunity had to be linked to reintegration.

Judge van Zyl stressed that only a very small percentage of inmates were involved in work and training, and lame excuses were made for that. There were huge workshops where machines had not even been taken out of the delivery boxes. Budgeted money was not being used. He said that any work provided an opportunity for fresh air and exercise. He did not think it necessary to build more correctional centres. Awaiting Trial Detainees (ATDs) could be reduced by half through holistic action. Section 32 of the Correctional Services Act endorsed self-sufficiency of correctional centres, but inmates had to be taken out of cells to be corrected, and that required supervision. There had to be incentives for overtime, to secure enough officials for that. New appointments, rather than the building of more correctional centres, were needed.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had not meant to make the connection that inmate work could be seen as a privilege. “Privilege” implied a perception that life was easy inmates and that many of them would, on their release, want to be incarcerated again. The Committee had interacted with inmates at Kimberley Correctional Centre. One of them had been angry because of the way the TV monitor had been placed during the World Cup, so that games could not be watched. A cell had been burnt down. It was not good that televisions were on all day, especially since no rehabilitative material was being screened. The Committee wanted people to talk to that.

Mr Fritz remarked that it was good to hear about post-imprisonment experience. There was no net to catch the inmate upon release. A partnership between the churches, civil society and business had to be cultivated. It was encouraging to hear that the Catholic Church could provide a market for inmate products.

Mr Muntingh said that NGO involvement was dependent on donors. Departments had to be questioned about how people who supported their mandates, could in turn be supported.

Mr Cupido pointed out that the Drakenstein Correctional Centre could stand as a model for its region. It produced woodwork, chickens and beef.

Mr Theledi asked if the DCS had been properly informed of the need to take action on the issues discussed.

The Chairperson replied that the DCS knew about this and could not claim ignorance.

Pastor Moses, a visitor attached to the Godparents Project, told the Committee in Afrikaans that he had spent 11 years and 6 months in prison. People sometimes said that correctional centres were like hotels, and talked about the length of sentences, but he assured the Committee that a single day in a correctional centre could seem incredibly long. He was  grateful that these discussions taking place. It was good to ask what could be done to improve the situation. He said that he was illiterate, and the only book he was familiar with was the Bible. He had been converted whilst imprisoned, with the help of Pastor Jefthas, and that made him want to leave and not return. He said to himself that if Pastor Jefthas could live in the outside world, he could do so as well. His experience had been that if a person helped others, God would help that person.

The Chairperson told Pastor Moses that it was a pity that he had to spend 11 years imprisoned and had still emerged illiterate. He said that he could not conceive of violent opposition from any quarter to the suggestions that had come from this meeting. The route was clear. The DCS could not oppose it. Inmate labour, and the work situation after release, had to receive urgent attention. The backlog in sentence plans had to be addressed. Deployment of DCS staff was at the heart of the problem. The possible support of the DCS to Non Government Organisations (NGOs) would be raised with the Department. The Committee believed that it was on the right track, and could count on the support of the Minister. The DCS would be told that civil society had been lobbied, and what the results of these discussions had been.

The meeting was adjourned.