Prison Labour NICRO briefing

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
12 June 2007
PRISON LABOUR NICRO BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Prison Labour as a Means of Rehabilitation and Reintegration PowerPoint presentation
Prison Labour as a Means of Rehabilitation and Reintegration Submission

Relevant documents:
"Prisons work when prisoners work" – DA discussion document

Audio Recording of the Meeting

SUMMARY
The National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders briefed the Committee on the value prison work programmes could add to rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. Admitting that South Africa with its punitive attitude and high crime rate might not be ready for the full implementation of such a programme the presenters nevertheless urged members to consider the merits of their proposal.

The Committee agreed that the idleness prevalent in prison was unacceptable and a breeding ground for gangsterism and other unlawful activity. While Members, in broad terms, supported the notion of prison work concerns were raised about the public perception of prison work, compensation for inmates who worked, whether the proposal was in line with the legislation, the rights prison workers would be entitled to, the categories of inmates that would take part in such programmes, whether work programmes addressed moral regeneration, what work they would be expected to perform and whether work programmes would not reduce the deterrent value of imprisonment.

It was agreed that for the proposed initiative and others to work society would have to make a paradigm shift away from retributive and punitive justice to a restorative kind that would hold long term benefits for offenders and society alike. All stakeholders would have to work together to explain the concept to communities so that they could understand its value and support its implementation. The Chairperson assured the presenters that the Committee would meet with the DCS to emphasise the need to work with organisation such as NICRO.

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson welcomed the representatives from The National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) and said that that organisation was a very important stakeholder when it came to correctional services.

The Chairperson reminded Members that he had the previous week indicated that the visit three members had recently made to Pollsmoor prison would be discussed that day. He informed members that the Inspecting Judge of Prisons, Judge Nathan Erasmus had also made a visit to the prison. The Chairperson had thought it best if the Committee had a joint meeting with the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP), Department of Correctional Services (DCS) as well as Pollsmoor management. This had been communicated to the JIOP. Judge Erasmus had written back, saying that unfortunately he would be abroad until 27 June and explained that in compliance with Section 90 of the Correctional Services Act (1998), the JIOP’s inspection report was submitted to the Minister of Correctional Services on 25 May 2007. Pending the response from the Minister, the JIOP’s findings had not yet been made public. The Chairperson said that on 19 June 2007 a meeting, which National Commissioner Vernon Petersen had agreed to, and where what was happening at correctional facilities all over the country would be discussed, would be held.

Returning to that day’s briefing the Chairperson reminded members that the Committee had in the past expressed concern at the large numbers of prisoners who were idling away their time in prison. Members had felt that prison labour would be a way of keeping them busy and thus distracting them from getting involved in prison gangs or other unlawful activities.

The Committee had visited some prisons the week before and inmates had pleaded with members to request the DCS to “keep them busy”. He did not know what was preventing the DCS from doing so but was pleased that in the DCS’ budget speech Minister Balfour had said that any provincial MECs, mayors etc that wanted to make use of an inmate workforce had to contact the relevant provincial commissioner.

The Chairperson emphasised the importance of keeping inmates busy so that they did not get involved in “smuggling, gangsterism or sodomy” while in prison. NICRO had been doing important work for many years and would that day brief the Committee on their ideas as far as prison labour.

NICRO Presentation
Ms Soraya Solomon, NICRO: Executive Director and Ms Cecilia Dawson, NICRO: Deputy Executive Director made the presentation, which aimed to give Members a broad idea of how employment would aide ex-offender reintegration. They presented their prison and community based social enterprise model, which would not only benefit offenders but could also offer employment to their families and communities. The individual prisoner rehabilitation plan was a vital element of the programme and would assess the inmate’s physical, social, spiritual and economic needs. Social enterprise programmes presented NICRO with the opportunity to rehabilitate former offenders, providing them with constructive employment and thus assisting in the breaking of the crime and violence cycle.

Discussion
The Chairperson agreed with the presenters that the support of the Committee as well as the DCS for the initiative would be very important.

Ms Solomon said that NICRO would need venture capital for the initiative to take off and would look at Government to provide such funding. She felt that the initiative would contribute to offender rehabilitation and to family reunification, which would result in benefits for the community. NICRO always stressed that the initiative did not only benefit offenders – a social enterprise outside prison could for instance benefit both the prisoner and his or her family members who could also get employment there.

The Chairperson was sure that many people would want to engage NICRO on the initiative. Having listened to the presentation however he wondered whether South Africa was ready for such an approach. On television and radio audiences often saw and heard the pain of those who had lost loved ones to crime. The Apartheid regime had damaged all South Africans’ minds. The society was punitive, seeking punishment of offenders without a willingness to give some offenders a second chance. For NICRO’s and similar initiatives to be successful, society’s mindset would first have to change.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) thanked the presenters for an interesting presentation. He agreed that the struggle lay in convincing society that a rehabilitated offender could be reintegrated and should not be stigmatised forever.

Referring to the system used in New Zealand he wondered whether offenders compensating their victims would not be a starting point in the process of winning over the society. He felt that the communities would perhaps buy in to similar programmes should prisoners be involved in programmes that uplifted communities.

He agreed that labour should be productive and that prisoners should become self-sufficient through it. Offenders should earn money for the work they performed. The suggestion that all inmates’ skills should be assessed upon their incarceration held merit and would enable them to develop skills and work to support themselves in prison, send money to their families and where possible compensate their victims. He also thought it important to bear in mind that offenders ‘offended’ their victims and not the state and therefore they should compensate their victims.

Ms Dawson said that the concept of restorative justice had been promoted in South Africa. In both the Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the DCS there were initiatives to get the concept imbedded in the justice system. She recalled that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) had recently held a conference on restorative justice in Cape Town. The media had however inaccurately reported that prisoners would now be able to “pay their way out of crime”. The reports had sensationalised what the conference had been about. She agreed that how the message of prison labour was presented and marketed to the public as well as how one went about overcoming the lack of information and resultant hostility would play a critical role in facilitating a paradigm shift. NICRO did not necessarily have all the answers but had to, along with all stakeholders, do their best to find them.

NICRO supported the restorative justice efforts and would be holding a colloquium on indigenous practices the following week. They would explore the cultural and traditional ways through which one could, in a restorative way, deal with offending. NICRO was also exploring other ways of getting magistrates to consider different ways of sentencing.

Upon the Chairperson’s request Ms Dawson invited the entire Committee to the colloquium. She added that what NICRO had presented was a broad framework of their idea. They had not gone into the detail members questions might require.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that he strongly believed in the idea that NICRO had presented that morning. He had been “disturbed” .to read that the research was NICRO’s intellectual property however. He was sure that the idea of prisoners’ working had been thought of by many people including himself, Ms Seaton of the IFP, and Miles Bhudu of the South African Prisoners’ Organisation for Human Rights (SAPOHR), throughout the years.

The Chairperson interrupted to add that the ANC was the vanguard of prison labour.

Mr Selfe responded that while the ANC may be the vanguard of the struggle, in some other instances it lagged behind. Returning to the topic at hand he said that when the DA produced a paper on the issue two or three years ago, they had to deal with the issue of how much one would pay an inmate. In addition there were many other perspectives that needed to be taken into account. These included defining ‘productive labour’, considering what kind of activities would be engaged in, whether one would not be undercutting the minimum wage and whether one would not be taking away employment opportunities from law abiding citizens.

In their policy document "Prisons work when prisoners work", the DA had pegged the remuneration paid to an inmate to that of what was paid to someone who took part in the expanded public works programme (EPWP), which at that time had been R579 per month. They had suggested that that amount be divided into four portions: R145 as contribution to the inmate’s upkeep while incarcerated, pocket money to be spent in prison, money to be sent to dependents and a contribution to a fund for victims of crime.

While he liked the notion of a social enterprise and the possibility for seamless transfer of skills between inmates and people on the outside, he feared that should one not think the idea through carefully, competition for scarce jobs would present a problem. The DA thought that inmates should be allowed to do those jobs that the state either could not or could not afford to do itself. These would include jobs within the realm of the EPWP, painting schools, maintaining cemeteries, clearing alien vegetation etc. The only draw back to such jobs would be that one would not get the skills transfer that one aimed for. To remedy this he suggested that the programme accommodate graduation from the less skilled jobs mentioned above, to more skilled enterprises as inmates neared their release date. The really powerful insight of the NICRO research paper could be found in its advocacy of the rehabilitative effect the development of work ethic had, and the power contained in taking personal responsibility. He thought the initiative a good idea that should be explored further and in more detail at a later date.

Ms Dawson felt that linking the remuneration for prisoners to the EPWP was novel and worthy of further consideration. She agreed that concerns might arise around competitiveness and the nature of the jobs inmates would be required to perform. Mr Selfe’s ideas around starting off doing more menial tasks and graduating to more skilled ones held merit. Ms Dawson thought it would be useful if the DA could share the research they had done with NICRO.

The Chairperson urged Members to be practical. He reiterated that South Africans wanted to see that people were punished for their crimes. The presenters themselves had admitted that their proposal was radical. That morning, as well as the night before there was reports of family members distraught by the crimes that had been committed against them and their loved ones.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) sought clarity on the recommendation that correctional services should recognise prisoners as workers with full rights.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) was concerned about the workers’ compensation an inmate would be entitled to if he or she injured him- or herself while working.

The Chairperson wondered whether, should inmates be recognized as workers, they would be allowed to join trade unions.

Ms Solomon was aware that NICRO was known for its radical thinking and appealed to members to think out of the box. She wondered why one should have a workforce idly sitting in prison when South Africa should in fact be a productive nation. Prisoners enjoying full rights would naturally mean that they had the right to apply for workers’ compensation.

Ms Z Nawa (ANC) sought NICRO’s thoughts on the 1998 legislation which stated that a prisoner could choose whether he or she wanted to work or not.

Mr Mahote found the comparison of South Africa to G8 countries unpractical and very problematic and did not think that South Africa’s problems as far as unemployment could be compared with theirs. He added that in the endeavors to provide inmates with work, one should not lose sight of the fact that South Africa had a very huge unemployment rate.

Ms Dawson explained that it had not been NICRO’s intention to draw comparisons between the G8 countries and South Africa. The presentation spoke of India as well as the African market. She added that sometimes one could benefit from “one or two little lessons” from the West. NICRO was very conscious of the “nature of our country, the nature of our economic development and al the rest”. She assured members that NICRO was looking for “indigenous ways” of addressing sentencing.

Mr Mahote emphasised the need to include members of Parliament (MPs) in the partnership between the DCS and NICRO. Should the matter be left to NICRO and DCS only the initiative would meet with resistance from the public. MPs should work within their constituencies. It was not good enough to receive “beautiful presentations”, only to do nothing to ensure their practical implementation. He emphasised the role MPs should play in the process. Most times they failed to take recommendations and proposals to their constituencies and did not ensure that people knew how the law worked. Some people did not even understand how the parole system worked.

Mr Mahote pointed out that there were some crimes that were so heinous that their victims could never be compensated. Bitterness due to such crimes would remain.

Mr R Shah (DA) understood that NICRO was arguing for a paradigm shift as far as rehabilitation and reintegration were concerned. He appreciated the passion with which they argued their case. He thought that in striving to achieve their goal they should take certain considerations and challenges into account. The model would require intensive monitoring, implementation, acceptance of the entire society and above all the political will and capacity of the DCS.

Explaining that his comments were not intended to undermine their confidence or to devalue the input NICRO had made, he said that there were certain concerns that the organisation would have to address. He then proceeded to list a number of these concerns.

Some might argue that the proposed model would reduce the deterrent value of incarceration, thus “bringing the criminal justice system to naught”. He recalled that the Minister had spoken of an inmate who would go out to work as part of a work programme, escape for the night and return to prison the following day – he clearly thought that being in prison enabled him to was meet his needs better than being free did. According to the proposed model an unemployed person would be able to commit a crime, go to prison where he or she could become skilled and acquire a job.

In Mr Shah’s estimation most crimes were committed by people who were already gainfully employed. He could thus not see what the model’s rehabilitative value would be. He also wondered how the model addressed moral and spiritual reformation.

Ms Solomon explained that the NICRO model was not about employment but about rehabilitation and reintegration. Employment was merely one aspect of the process. NICRO had learnt from a mistake they themselves had made when it was involved in a factory that made wind up radios. They employed ex-offenders but failed to address their rehabilitation needs. It was important that former prisoners be de-institutionalised so as to deal with the negative effect imprisonment had on them.

Ms Ngwenya asked whether the presenters had any proposals as to how one could ensure that ex-offenders were not judged by their past records when upon their release they tried to find work.

Ms Ngwenya agreed that the public wanted to see that offenders were punished. She wondered whether NICRO could elaborate on what efforts they had made to make sure that communities understood their proposal. She was concerned about the Committee accepting a proposal without the buy-in of communities.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Committee invited stakeholders to make proposals as to how they could assist the DCS. The Committee engaged them and considered their proposals, but would not simply accept or reject input.

Ms Dawson thought it important to look at the punitive, deterrent and rehabilitative effect of imprisonment as separate processes. Being sentenced to imprisonment and the taking away of one’s freedom was the punishment. Neither society nor correctional authorities could impose additional sentences to what the judicial system imposed. One should not be apologetic about working in the rehabilitation and reintegration field but should believe in what one did. The Committee had publicly stated their belief and commitment to rehabilitation and reintegration. Having stated such a commitment one had a duty to educate society and raise awareness around the processes involved. She admitted that even NICRO was at times “shocked to the core” by the crimes people committed against each other but thought it important to point that for the majority of offenders rehabilitation was possible. The public should be informed that if all the resources, energy and creativity that one could afford was put into rehabilitation and reintegration programmes, recidivism would be reduced and communities would be safer. She said that doing such work was a duty because, offenders left unrehabilitated committed increasingly more serious crimes. Society thus had a duty not a choice to support their rehabilitation.

She explained that upon release an inmate would become part of the potential workforce in any case. She agreed that considering the high unemployment rate it would be difficult to change the perception that through prison work programmes offenders were treated as though they had more rights. Marketing messages would have to be carefully tailored to combat such false perceptions.

Mr Fihla pointed out that there were many prison workshop projects that were incomplete due to the lack of resources. He wondered whether such incomplete workshops could be identified and used in the efforts to skill inmates.

Nkosi E Xolo (ANC) recalled that when the Committee visited facilities in Kroonstad, Knysna and George they had seen the beautiful woodcraft inmates created. He thought it impractical to provide inmates with the material to create such furniture and then paying them for the end product too.

The Chairperson wondered to what category of inmates NICRO’s suggestion would apply.

Ms Solomon thought that members had raised a number of very critical concerns and agreed that violence was a challenge to South Africa and NICRO itself. The level of violence in the country enjoyed media prominence. NGOs like NICRO were faced with the challenge of, in the face of all the crime, convincing society that they were doing good work. NICRO was considering a marketing strategy for South Africa through which they hoped to emphasise the value of rehabilitation programmes to a South Africans. If one was proudly South African, one would proudly assist a person who had violated the law. She explained that for now the strategy would focus on ‘petty’ crimes as violent crime was at the moment to sensitive a matter. South Africa was not ready to deal with, much less be sympathetic to, violent offenders. While NICRO would continue its research into the prevalence of violence in the country, it would focus its efforts on the minor offenders who should be given second chance and who society was willing to take back.

She emphasised that it was time for South Africans to think out of the box in their attempts to deal with crime. Aware that she was making a radical statement, she said that South Africans had learnt to be “helpless and hopeless”. She added that South Africa was failing when it came to dealing with crime. The high recidivism rate was evidence of the fact that South Africa was ineffective at rehabilitating and reintegrating offenders. It was time to, taking all concerns into consideration, take the step towards a pilot project such as the one NICRO was proposing.

Many people were wondering whether the time had not come to “put prisoners to work”. People did not want prisoners to be idle but wanted them to work and sought programmes that worked. She believe that if society had more information and believed that prison work as part of a rehabilitation programme would lower recidivism they would buy into the project.

The NICRO diversion programme for young offenders was successful. NICRO was busy conducting longitudinal studies on the process and impact of that programme. Society accepted that programme because they could see that it worked and could see that that child had been reintegrated into the community. There had been a failure to show that adult rehabilitation and reintegration was possible too. NICRO acknowledge that there were challenges, but would start the pilot and show people that it could work.

Mr Shah was very impressed by the manner in which Ms Dawson and Ms Solomon expressed and defended their convictions. He had merely been playing devil’s advocate when he raised the questions he had raised earlier. He wanted to place on record his gratitude to National Commissioner Petersen who had within 24 hours arranged for the Member to meet with an inmate who had written to him requesting his assistance. The 26 year-old man had already served 6 years of a 15-year sentence and Mr Shah wanted to be briefed on the inmate and to evaluate him. The member had managed to, on the same day that he met with the inmate, arrange work for him.

The area commissioner had agreed that Mr Shah could write a recommendation letter stating that upon evaluation he had found that the inmate was rehabilitated, had the potential to be successfully reintegrated and was “wasting his time in prison”. He explained that in relating his experience he was not blowing his own trumpet but was indicating that a certain category of offender could, through a pilot project such as the one NICRO proposed, be successfully reintegrated. He realised that the Committee had reservations and he undertook to share the outcome of his experiment with the Committee.

The Chairperson commended Mr Shah’s efforts to assist the inmate but advised that one should be wary of declaring that an inmate had been rehabilitated. Recidivism was a real problem. Although the area commissioner had granted Mr Shah permission to write a recommendation he advised that Members should in future allow the DCS to continue their parole processes. Members of the Committee should not be seen as interfering in the DCS’ work. Having said that, he stated that the Committee had an obligation to intervene should it become apparent that the DCS was not adhering to the legislation governing their activities. He praised the initiative Mr Shah had shown and agreed with Mr Mahote’s earlier statement that the Committee should do its part too.

Mr Fihla said that the change from one system to something unknown always met with resistance. He emphasised the importance of marketing the initiative to the community and monitoring its implementation when the time came. NICRO was a small organisation that would not be able to manage that task on its own and thus partnering with relevant stakeholders would be critical. He agreed that members of Parliament would play a critical role in explaining the programme to their constituencies.

The Chairperson agreed and pointed out that NICRO had stated that they needed the Committee and the DCS’s support in piloting the project. It was clear that if the Committee was serious about rehabilitation and reintegration it would have to support the NICRO initiative. NICRO had a vision and after 96 years of working with offenders they knew what they were doing.

Ms Solomon realised that South Africa might not be ready for the initiative yet but urged members to keep it on the cards. She reiterated that it was time to start thinking out of the box so that South Africa could approach prison labour differently.

The Chairperson thanked NICRO for always being willing to brief the Committee. He took the presentation very seriously and agreed with other Members that communities should be engaged so that they could understanding the value of rehabilitation. The Committee would call the DCS to put it to them that if they were really serious about rehabilitation and reintegration they would engage NICRO. He agreed that it was necessary to prevent crime but felt that one also needed to address what happened inside prisons. The NICRO office in Kroonstad, although very small, was doing very good work. Offenders taking part in that office’s programmes very rarely re-offended.

He was pleased that NICRO would be starting a pilot project and the Committee would assist where it could. He was glad that the programme would be focused on the minor offenders and not those who had committed serious crimes. He felt that immediately focusing in the latter category would be a waste of the already scarce resources. The Committee would urge the DCS to make the necessary resources available to NICRO. He realised that people did not want to get involved with offenders and he congratulated NICRO on their good work over the past 96 years. People in higher offices were also talking of the good work NICRO did and realised the necessity of engaging NICRO and other similar organisations.

The meeting was adjourned.