Electronic Monitoring Process & Management of Parole

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
10 October 2000
ELECTRONIC MONITORING PROCESS AND MANAGEMENT OF PAROLE

Chairperson: Ms R Capa

Documents handed out:
Management of Parole (see Appendix 1)
Overcrowding (see Appendix 2)
Electronic Monitoring (document awaited; e-mail [email protected])

SUMMARY
The desirability of the Electronic Monitoring Process in preventing awaiting trial prisoners and parolees from absconding was discussed. The National Commissioner of Correctional Services Reverend Mbete discussed the progress made and work which had been done to date and anticipated that this process would be implemented in all five regions within three years of its introduction. The second issue discussed was the management of parole with specific emphasis on the structure and function of Parole Boards in terms of current and proposed legislation. The proposed new legislation aims to ensure the effective functioning of the parole system. The nine-month early release of 800 parolees starting on 9 October was also discussed.

MINUTES
Electronic Monitoring Process
The Commissioner stated that electronic tagging would be implemented on offenders who had either been paroled or were awaiting trial. These individuals were generally, when placed back into the community, in need of constant surveillance by Community Corrections Members due to the risk of them absconding. It was precisely because of the potential for these offenders absconding and the inability of Correctional Services to always recapture them that the Portfolio Committee for Correctional Services had first taken the decision to introduce tagging as a preventative mechanism. Due to reasons unknown to the Commissioner the program was halted. However, in June the Portfolio Committee decided to resurrect the process and start preparing the way forward.

The Commissioner proceeded to read the document on Electronic Monitoring. He stated that it was evident from the document that the implementation of this process was on track. He anticipated that the process will be implemented in each region at six month intervals. He stated that three years after the introduction of Electronic Monitoring, it will be implemented in all five regions with a total of 8 850 offenders being monitored.

Discussion
Mr Durand (NNP) stated that the Portfolio Committee had previously been assured that the process would apply to 30 000 offenders and asked from where the figure of 8 850 suddenly came. He also complained about the telephone and satellite-based electronic monitoring process which had been attempted and had proved to be a waste of tax-payers' money.

Mr Bloem (ANC) interjected that the Commissioner was attempting to deal with the problem now and that the March deadline promised by the Commissioner should be accepted.

The Commissioner pointed out that the figure of 8850 represented a starting point and was "merely to get their feet wet". He pointed out that the concept of telephonic tagging discussed three years ago had been abandoned due to the fact that not all offenders who needed tagging had access to telephones. The Commissioner had then promised to investigate alternatives and had done so by getting various companies to do presentations to the Department.

In this regard, such companies have moved beyond the telephone. South Africa represents one of the highest cell phone users in the world. Thus, companies have brought in the GSM system and are currently doing presentations to the Department. The Commissioner stated that the Tender Board will then choose the company which would do the work for them. He stated that this process will be completed by March 2001 and reassured the meeting that they had progressed beyond telephone constraints.

With regard to the satellite-based process, he stated that they had decided against it as it was too expensive. He stated that they would first see how the GSM based system served them and would then take the next step.

Dr P Jordan (ANC) agreed that "foot-wetting" was a good idea in the event of anything going wrong. He asked whether, although applying initially to minor offences and those eligible for parole, it could later be introduced in the rehabilitative process of reintroducing serious offenders into the community.

The Commissioner responded that, like Zimbabwe, he wished to close the revolving door into prison. He hoped that the Electronic Monitoring Process would relieve overcrowding and in this way, the rehabilitative process in prison could then take place more effectively. In addition, the community then had to be engaged to receive these prisoners and in this way the revolving door would be closed

An ANC member stated that overcrowding was a major problem which could only be solved if work was done with the Department of Justice who had to be persuaded to use the option of sentencing offenders to correctional supervision more often. In this way minor offences would be dealt with by the Electronic Monitoring Process.

The Chairperson asked if there would be a process of review for offenders who had already been sentenced.

The Commissioner replied that there was but that this group was not the priority as they would be starting with awaiting trial prisoners. This is because there are currently 63 000 unsentenced prisoners in SA . The second group which would be receiving priority were prisoners who had been sentenced to 6 months or less imprisonment. There are currently 4 000 such prisoners all over the country. Thereafter they would focus on prisoners with sentences of one year or less. The rationale behind this is twofold: On the one hand, having these people in prison was unduly clogging the system. .Secondly, he argued that these people should not have to serve time with hardened criminals who would then have a negative influence on them. He proposed that the Department, the Portfolio Committee and other stakeholders begin to talk about this policy.

Management of Parole
The Commissioner read the document dealing with this issue. The document provides statutory definitions for the term 'parole'. Referring to Section 65 of the Correctional Services Act of 1969, a prisoner must be released upon the expiration of the term of imprisonment but prior to this, the prisoner may be placed under correctional supervision on day parole or on full parole. A prisoner serving a determinate sentence will only be considered once he has served half of his prison term. The consideration date may be brought forward by credits earned by the prisoner for good conduct. This is only possible if at least one third of the sentence has been served.

The body considering whether or not to grant parole is the Parole Board. In this regard he outlined in detail the structure and functioning of the Board in terms of current legislation. By referring to the document, he highlighted the weaknesses of the Board which are a direct result of the way in which the Board is currently structured. He stated that an important weakness is the fact that it is an internal body comprising of members of Correctional Services. The weakness exists in the form of possible bias, favouritism and subjectivity which may be present in a structure which excludes members of the community.

Thus in terms of proposed new legislation members of the Board may be co-opted from the community. This new system would attempt to involve the community, Department of Justice and the police. This, he argued would allow for greater objectivity.

The Commissioner referred to the procedures to be followed by the Parole Board and stated that its powers had already been delegated to the provincial and area managers since his appointment. This applied save in exceptional cases e.g. the Boesak case where the prisoner had not served the required quarter of his term which would allow him to be granted correctional supervision. In such cases there is a recommendation by the Parole Board after which the decision is further referred to the Commissioner for approval. The decision is thus delegated upwards in these exceptional cases while remaining at provincial or area level in all other cases.

In cases dealing with life imprisonment the decision is referred beyond the Commissioner to the National Council after which recommendations are made to the Minister who then makes the final decision.

In his application the offender appears before the Board without legal representation. Thus, in the Boesak case, lawyers were not even aware that he had applied for correctional supervision.

He also discussed the use of the credit system as a means of determining a consideration date for parole placement. The following factors could in terms of this system earn an offender credit: his behaviour, useability in prison, rehabilitation or change of behaviour. In some cases, where ideal prisoners are well behaved, the parole board is compelled to grant such applicants parole.

In terms of this new parole system, the decision to grant parole lies solely with the parole board i.e. there will be no referral upwards. In addition, dangerous prisoners would not qualify for parole. Another amendment proposed is that offenders will be able to be legally represented at proceedings.

The Department of Correctional Services said that they will be asking the Portfolio Committee to give their support for these proposals. The Chairperson commented that discussion on these proposals would take place at a future date where members will then be able to give their input.

The Commissioner stated that there are currently 23 690 male and 850 female prisoners under correctional supervision. Thus, it was evident that the implementation of Electronic Monitoring cannot be delayed any longer. He stated that had it been possible to implement it before March 2001, he would have done so. He referred to the figures regarding the number of offenders who had absconded and stated that the burden lay with Correctional Services to get these prisoners back. He stated that even though 3 155 of them had been recaptured, this was an unnecessary waste of energy and thus he reiterated the need for Electronic Monitoring.

Discussion
Ms Seaton (IFP) enquired whether Boesak had completed one quarter of his sentence. The Commissioner replied that he had not and that it was because of this that his case was dealt with as being exceptional.

Mr. Durand (NNP) asked why they made an exception in the Boesak case. He also asked what happens in other cases where there appears to be merit. The Commissioner responded that in terms of current law, any offender may, on the day of entering prison, request to be placed under community supervision. This is a right that cannot be denied. Secondly, the law required a person to serve at least a quarter of his sentence before being considered for community supervision. However, where a person presents his case to the Board before the expiry of this time, the Board has a duty to listen, consider and recommend. In the Boesak case, recommendations were made by the Parole Board to the area manager and then to the Provincial Commissioner. Finally recommendations were made to the National Commissioner who saw no reason to withhold his approval. He then assured Mr Durand that this procedure is available to anyone whose case has any merit.

Ms Seaton (IFP) requested clarification regarding when one half or one quarter of the sentence had to be served.

The Commissioner replied that an offender applying for parole is required to have served one half of his sentence, whereas the offender applying for community service is only required to have served one quarter of his sentence. In addition, the requirement for parole represents a strict minimum, whereas the one quarter required when applying for community service serves merely as a guideline. The Commissioner further stated that he did not place Boesak on community service as he did not have the power to do so. He merely recommended that the court (which is the only body which has this power) does so.

Mr. Bloem (ANC) asked how many of the old parole boards are functioning. The Chairperson added that she had received letters from prisoners stating that they had been long overdue for recommendation but the parole boards at their prisons were not functioning.

The Commissioner responded that there were 52 parole boards servicing 236 prisons. A parole board must serve a geographical area with a certain number of prisons. He stated that should the current system continue, they may have to increase the number of parole boards in order to increase efficiency. These 52 parole boards are dealing with 101 000 people and that the number of parole boards are clearly inadequate. While emphasising the need to exercise empathy to the parole board, one cannot overlook the fact that the current situation is clearly not acceptable from the perspective of the prisoners.

A member referred to one of the requirements for parole and more specifically to the use of the word "adaptation" in the document. He asked for clarity on "adaptation".

The Commissioner stated that this was an unfortunate use of language. He clarified the word as being indicative of good behaviour and manifesting an adaptation to incarceration. There are prisoners who find it difficult to adapt and this is evident in their attempts to escape and their abuse of drugs which they utilise as a means of coping. This situation would represent the opposite where the person is adapting.

The member stated that this had to be reconsidered as it suggests that a person who had previously been in the system and "knows the ropes" stands a greater chance of being eligible than a first offender. He stated that the use of this word clearly favours repeat offenders.

The Commissioner agreed and said that this would be taken into consideration.

Early release of parolees
The chairperson stated that one of the questions raised last week was whether Correctional Services could provide the names, sentences and crimes committed by the parolees who are due to be released next week.

The Commissioner responded that there are 8000 names available and that the documentation involved had been too substantial for him to provide it to the committee. He however had available a list of 300 parolees which he made available for members to peruse. He stated that the decision to release these prisoners had not been taken by the Department but by the National Advisory Council. This body had made recommendations to the Minister who had to consider the desirability of a nine-month advance on these prisoners' parole dates. Also, it only applied to prisoners who had not been found guilty of serious crimes. As a result of previous experience, the Commissioner had given instructions that no prisoners should be released until head office had approved such a release. This process which would be done on a province by province basis started on 9 October 2000.

Discussion
The Chairperson indicated that she was in favour of the decision being taken at national level and not at Provincial Government level in light of what had happened the last time (the release of Schedule One offenders).

Mr Bloem (ANC) also referred to this incident and pointed out that a member of the Department had told the media that he did not understand why the government was releasing these prisoners. He urged the Commissioner to tell members of his department that only the appointed spokesperson should make comments to the media.

Mr Durand responded that people have the right to speak their minds within limits. He then raised the issue regarding their visit to Kokstad but this discussion was curtailed by the Chairperson who stated that this issue would be dealt with at a later date. She then declared the meeting closed.

Appendix 1:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
MANAGEMENT OF PAROLE
10 October 2000

DEFINITION: PAROLE
Parole is the release of an offender after serving a specific portion of his/her sentence under the continued custody of the State, under conditions that permit his/her incarceration in the community.

PAROLE PLACEMENT: CURRENT LEGISLATION
In terms of section 63 of the Correctional Services Act, No 8 of 1959, every prisoner serving a sentence longer than 6 months must appear before a Parole Board.

Parole Boards must submit a report to the Commissioner or Minister with regard to:
* the conduct, adaptation, training, aptitude, industry and physical and mental state of prisoners and the possibility of their relapse into crime.
* recommendations regarding the placement of prisoners on parole in terms of section 65 or on day parole in terms of section 92A, as well as the applicable supervision, the period for which, and the conditions under which prisoners should be so placed.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES WHEN PAROLE IS CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF SECTION 65: CURRENT LEGISLATION
· A prisoner must be released upon the expiration of the term of imprisonment.
· However, a prisoner may be placed under correctional supervision, on day parole or on parole before his/her term of imprisonment has expired.
· A prisoner serving a determinate sentence shall not be considered for placement on parole until he/she has served half (½) of the term of imprisonment.
· The consideration date may be brought forward by the number of credits earned by a prisoner for good conduct and adaptation. However, no prisoner may be released on parole before serving at least one third of the sentence.

FACTORS THAT ARE APPLICABLE WHEN PAROLE IS BEING CONSIDERED:
· The nature and seriousness of the crime
· Crime history
· The prisoner's behaviour and adaptation/- reaction to treatment
· Remarks/comments by the sentence imposer
· Achievements in prison
· Risk posed to the community

STRUCTURE OF PAROLE BOARDS

Current Legislation	Proposed New Legislation
Constituted of: * A chairperson (Member of DCS) * A member from the Institutional Committee (Member of DCS)	Constituted of: * A chairperson (appointed from the community) * A vice chairperson (Member of DCS)
* Vocationalists such as a Social Worker, Psychologist in DCS * A secretary from DCS * Persons may be co-opted	* A member of SAPS (ad hoc) * A member of Dept of Justice (ad hoc) * Two officials of DCS of whom one will be the secretary * Two members of the Community. * Persons may be co-opted
Board makes recommendations to the Commissioner or Minister for approval of parole/correctional supervision	Takes decisions regarding parole/correctional supervision
Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment are referred to the National Council. Offender physically appear before the Board without representation.	Prisoners declared as dangerous as well as prisoners sentence to life imprisonment who will be dealt with by the relevant court. Offender physically appears before the Board, but he/she may be represented by any person, except a fellow prisoner, members of DCS, SAPS or Department of Justice.
· If not satisfied offender may approach the Commissioner/Minister	If not satisfied offender may approach the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board. [The Review Board is selected from the National Council and is constituted out of: A Judge as chairperson A Director of deputy director of Public Prosecutions A Member of the DCS
Commissioner or delegated official approves parole.	A Person with special knowledge of the correctional systems; and Two representatives of the public. The Correctional Supervision and Parole Board considers and approves parole.
The credit system is used to determine a consideration date for parole placement. * The result is that a prisoner can be considered for parole placement on completion of approximately 1/3 of his/her sentence.	The credit system will be repealed. Courts may determine a non-parole period. ** If a non-parole period is not fixed, offenders will have to serve ½ of a sentence or 25 years, whichever is the shortest, prior to parole consideration.
	* Persons sentenced to indeterminate sentences will serve the following period prior to parole consideration: - Habitual criminals: 7 years - Life imprisonment: 25 years or if attaining the age of 65 years after completion of 15 years.

CONDITIONS OF PAROLE
· No parolee is admitted to the system of Community Corrections unless he/she has an address that can be monitored and is cared for in the community.
· All parolees are subject to certain conditions to which they must comply during their time in the system of Community Corrections it consist inter alia of the following:

House Detention (the time that the offender is not at work or attending programmes).
- Will be confined to a certain Magisterial district.
- May not use or abuse drugs/alcohol.
- May not commit crime during the parole period.
- May not abscond from the system.
-Will be monitored physically at his/her home address.
-Will be contacted telephonically at their house or work place.
-Must pay compulsory visits to the Community Corrections Office.
-Must attend correctional programmes at Community Corrections offices or other institutions.

Number Of Parolees In Community Correction
[Pmg Editor's Note: Graphs Not Included]

Since January 1995 there was a slight increase in the number of parolees up to January 1998. The sharp decrease in numbers that were shown at the end of July 1998 was due to the amnesty that was granted to parolees. Since then the number of parolees has increased to 23 690 on 31 July 2000.

Absconded And Traced: Males
[Pmg Editor's Note: Graphs Not Included]

Absconded And Traced: Females
[PMG Editor's Note: Graphs not included]

Since June 1998 the absconders of male parolees declined from 3 940 to 1 863. The decline may be ascribed to the fact that an action was launched to encourage Community Corrections personnel to make a black-list of offenders who tend to commit minor violations and to make more contact with these offenders. The accumulative total of absconders of the period showed in the graph was 35 690 while during the same period 18 804 were traced. Number of absconders still in the system 16 886.
Since June 1998 the absconders of male parolees declined from 3 940 to 1 863. The decline may be ascribed to the fact that an action was launched to encourage Community Corrections personnel to make a black-list of offenders who tend to commit minor violations and to make more contact with these offenders. The accumulative total of absconders of the period showed in the graph was 35 690 while during the same period 18 804 were traced. Number of absconders still in the system 16 886.
Since December 1997 the absconders of female parolees have declined from 65 to 33 up to 30 June 2000. The decline may be ascribed to the fact that an action was launched to encourage Community Corrections personnel to make a black-list of offenders who tend to commit minor violations and to make more contact with these offenders. The accumulative total of absconders of the period showed in the graph was 610 while during the same period 335 were traced. Number of absconders still in the system 275.

ACTIONS TAKEN TO TRACE ABSCONDERS
Tracing units were established at the bigger Community Corrections Offices to concentrate mainly on the tracing of absconders.
The implementation of section 117(e) of the Correctional Services Act, 111/1998, which makes abscondence an offence

ACTIONS TAKEN TO TRACE ABSCONDERS
Tracing units were established at the bigger Community Corrections Offices to concentrate mainly on the tracing of absconders.
The implementation of section 117(e) of the Correctional Services Act, 111/1998, which makes abscondence an offence

COMMUNITY CORRECTION OFFICIALS
All officials deal with parolees and probationers at the same time in the system of Community Corrections.
A number of 1 835 officials deal with a total of 24 540 parolees and 17 154 probationers. (The total active number of offenders in the system of Community Corrections is 41 694: ratio 1:33).

Appendix 2:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
OVERCROWDING IN PRISONS & RELEASE OF PRISONERS

OVERVIEW
On 31 July 2000, the Department of Correctional Services managed 236 prisons in 9 provinces. These prisons are made up as follows:
· 8 for female offenders
· 12 for youth correctional facilities
· 121 for male offenders
· 90 for male and female offenders
· 5 prisons temporarily closed for repairs and renovations
· South African prisons have designed accommodation capacity for 101 006 prisoners with a current offender population of 169 486.
· this situation constitutes an average overpopulation rate of 68% and a total accommodation capacity need for 68 480 offenders.

From January 1995 to 31 July 2000 the prison accommodation and offender population figures increased as follows:
[PMG note: not included]

BREAKDOWN OF PRISON POPULATION AS ON 31 JULY 2000:
· Sentenced adult male offenders: 96 220
· Sentenced male juveniles: 12 835
· Unsentenced adult male offenders: 42 784
· Unsentenced male juveniles: 13 380
· Sentenced adult female offenders: 2 641
· Sentenced female juveniles: 252
· Unsentenced adult female offenders: 1 128
· Unsentenced female juveniles: 246
· Total number of offenders: 169 486
· Accommodation capacity: 101 006
· Average overpopulation rate: 68%

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OVERCROWDING:
· Provision of additional accommodation could not compete with growth in the offender population
· Increasing number of awaiting-trial offenders
January 1995: 24 265
July 2000: 57 538
Increase: 33 273 (137%)
· Increase in court cycle times:
1995: 76 days
August 2000: 140 days
Increase in length of sentence:

Sentence categories	1995	2000	Increase	% Increase
> 7 - 10	12 394	18 772	6 378	51.5
> 10-15	6 099	11 137	5 038	82.6
>15-20	2 731	4 892	2 161	79.1
>20	1 983	5 171	3 188	160.7
Life	433	1 271	838	193.5

EFFECTS OF OVERCROWDING
· Causes tension, hostility and aggression (With regard to offenders and officials).
· Not consistent with humane incarceration.
· Not conducive to efficient application of rehabilitation programmes.
· Restricts effective supervision and control.
· Creates unsafe working environment.
· Undermines security and safe custody.
· Affects staff morale and efficiency negatively.
· Increases in maintenance cost of prison buildings.

ACTIONS TAKEN TO ADDRESS OVERCROWDING:
· A task team was established to focus on the following:
-Utilisation of the clustering approach to formulate strategies
-Utilisation of Community Corrections system to its fullest extent
-Advancement of approved parole dates
-Transfer of unsentenced juveniles to Places of Secure Care
-Conversion of sentences of imprisonment into Correctional Supervision
-Extend the amount of bail that may be set by the SAPS
· Release of certain categories of awaiting-trial prisoners
· Optimal utilisation of Asset Procurement and Operating Partnerships
· Extension of the awaiting-trial project within the IJS to reduce the cycle time of awaiting-trial offenders
· Identification, renovation and upgrading of existing facilities

NEW PRISONS WHICH WILL BE UTILISED IN THE NEAR FUTURE
- Empangeni (accommodation = 1 392)
- Kokstad (accommodation = 1 440)
- Bloemfontein (APOPS) (accommodation = 3 028)
- Louis Trichardt (APOPS) (accommodation = 2 960)
- Devon (accommodation = 600)

RELEASES
· Bursting:
- In terms of section 67 of the Correctional Services Act, 1959 (Act no 59 of 1959) the Minister approved that the parole dates of offenders who oppose approved parole dates may be advanced with a maximum of 9 months. Aggressive and sexual offenders are excluded.

±7 000 offenders will benefit from this measure which will come into effect on 2 October 2000.

· Release of awaiting-trial offenders
- In terms of section 66 of the Correctional Services Act, 1959, Cabinet approved that prisoners awaiting trial for less serious offences, with bail of R1 000 or less may be released.

During the week up to 15 September 2000 a total of 8 262 awaiting-trial offenders were released in terms of this measure.

RESULTS:

	Offender population	% overcrowding
31 July 2000	169 486	68%
Anticipated figures after completion of above actions	154 224	54%