New Generation Prisons

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
17 September 2002
NEW GENERATION PRISONS

Slide Presentation on Development and Implementation of "New Generation" Correctional Facility Prototypes [without photographs]
Slide Presentation with photographs (divided into four parts):
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

SUMMARY
The new design proposed by the Department moves away from the private and dormitory cell type arrangements which typify American and British models. Instead, the solution sought by the Department is one of a 'communal cell' which is economically sound and which is not reminiscent of segregationist notions. The new unit management module has the potential to be expanded if necessary, into a unit management cluster. The structure of the new design minimises prisoner migration. Another advantage of the new design is that no adaptation fees would be necessary when constructing the same model in varying locations. This design philosophy moves away from the previous once-off structures. By way of a comparison a prison facility in Bloemfontein and the prototype were compared. The study indicated that while the cost per prisoner in Bloemfontein was R100 488, the prototype would cost just R50 000.

While some Members applauded the new model prison, other Members thought it was simply another publicity campaign by the Department and questioned whether the Department had consulted widely enough on their new plans. It was agreed that further interaction between the Committee and the Department was needed.

MINUTES
The delegation from the Department of Correctional Services was as follows:
Adv M Ndziba - the special advisor to the Minister
Mr W Tshivase - Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Mr M Sokupa - Director of building services
Mr P Silver - special consultant.

Adv Ndziba opened the meeting by highlighting the challenges the Department has faced with respect to prisons since 1994. The primary challenge was overcrowding. This problem could not be dealt with through a reductionist approach and instead an expansionist method is necessary. However, he added, the Department cannot afford the prisons they were building. Thus they had to come up with a cost-effective method of building prisons. Their proposal draws upon international best practices, whilst taking cognisance of specifics of South Africa as a developing country.

Presentation by the Department
The powerpoint presentation by the Department examined the following issues.
The Objectives of the "New generation" Correctional Facility Prototypes:
The Department considered the strategic plan, which included the reduction of overcrowding, the introduction of unit management, the reduction of life-cycle costs and the enhancement of rehabilitation programmes.

Operational objectives: this included, inter alia, the development of procedures and mechanisms to assess the life-cycle costs, the development of a plan to cater for new and the conversion of existing facilities.

Budgetary Objectives: this included, amongst others, the reduction of capital costs, operating and maintenance costs.

The concepts utilised in the development of the prototype facility were:
-Unit management
-Direct supervision
-Utilising communal cells.

The Department emphasised that the world-class prototype was guided by the need to enhance the facility's potential for rehabilitation while maintaining a high level of security by design.

Notable features of the design included
-that it is able to achieve low life-cycle costing,
-it permitted a variety of procurement methods,
-it promoted rapid and expeditious construction, and
-it maintained a high level of security by design.

The prototype would be comprised of standard designs which Adv Ndziba stated would reflect uniformity though the country.

Key Features of the design
The Department highlighted that owing to the standard design, the construction costs would be reduced. In addition the new design would allow prison labour and products to be used. It would also reduce the cost and time risks associated with construction.

The new product
The key features of the new product was presented by Mr Silver who commented that the new design used technology in an intelligent way. It was of a world class quality yet cost efficient, provided a proper level of security and supported rehabilitation. It introduces a novel concept, namely the arrangement of cells in a communal fashion. This comprised a large room with ten beds arranged in double bunks which will minimise the potential of overcrowding and it provided for social space as well. It reduced movement of prisoners, which reduced staff control and therefore the cost of operations. The introduction of 'the street' (this permitted controlled movement to and from housing areas and into functional areas), has eliminated passageways and corridors which, Mr Silver stated, consumed a large part of the Department's budget. Moreover, the prototype is designed for incremental additions over time, if and when, necessary.

Mr Silver emphasised that the new design was simple to construct. This therefore opened the market to smaller previously disadvantaged contractors whom could not undertake projects of this nature previously.

In summary the Department added that they were developing a new design that enhanced humane living conditions in a cost-effective way, which was easy to maintain and ensured a long life or continuity.

The new design proposed by the Department moves away from the private and dormitory cell type arrangements which typify American and British models. Instead, the solution sought by the Department is one of a 'communal cell' which is economically sound and which is not reminiscent of segregationist notions. The new unit management module has the potential to be expanded if necessary, into a unit management cluster. The structure of the new design minimises prisoner migration. Another advantage of the new design is that no adaptation fees would be necessary when constructing the same model in varying locations. This design philosophy moves away from the previous once-off structures. By way of a comparison a prison facility in Bloemfontein and the prototype were compared. The study indicated that while the cost per prisoner in Bloemfontein was R100 488, the prototype would cost just R50 000.

Discussion
Mr Fihla (ANC) commented on the proposal. He commenced by stating that several similarities could be found with a developing country like New Zealand and South Africa. Therefore, the Department should draw on those experiences in resolving the problem on overcrowding in prisons. The Department should apply the new laws, for instance, those relating to parole and Section 8 of the Correctional Services Act as alternatives to reducing the population in prison.

Adv Ndziba highlighted that the Department was committed to and engaged in a reductionist strategy and was aware of the legislative measures. However, these alone cannot resolve the problem of over crowding. Moreover, whenever prisoners were released one had to deal with public scorn. Thus far the Department has never been able to reduce the prison population by more than 15 000 per year. He added that the Department was also bound to act in consultation with other Departments as well.

Mr Oosthuizen (ANC) applauded the model, but asked whether, in designing the model, the Department consulted with people who are responsible for rehabilitation.

Mr Silver (Department) confirmed that relevant people were consulted in considerable depth in relation to rehabilitation. He added that the inmate was not locked down for 24 hours a day as he engaged in other activities too. The new design allows prisons officials to move people with a minimal amount of control. The new system provides for a wide range of management options and this allows management to do other creative things, which the existing system does not allow.

Mr Oosthuizen asked whether staff would be adequately trained to deal with this new situation.

Adv Ndziba responded that the Department had set aside money for training. Training of front-line persons was on their agenda. Mr Tshivhase, the CFO of the Department concurred.

Mr van Deventer (NNP) questioned the use of prison labour in the construction of goods for the prisons. This he stated may result in a potential conflict with human rights organisations and trade unions.

Adv Ndziba responded that prison labour was adequately catered for in the Correctional Services Act. Furthermore, prison labour was used purely to engage prisoners in some form of training and this would therefore pose no competition with the private sector. Prison labour was not being used as a form of punishment or in a way detrimental to human rights, he added. Mr Silver went to on to cite an example where previously the Department had to import expensive door locks from abroad. Now the prison system manufactures door locks far more cost-effectively.

In response to questions relating to the construction management, Mr Silver stated the new design aimed to do maximise transparency. In other words the Department knows who are the contractors and the contractors themselves know they are competing against each other. Mr Sokupa highlighted that this new project would open up a market that did not previously exist. This design would enable smaller previously disadvantaged contractors to compete as well.

Ms Ngaleka (ANC) seemed unconvinced by the Department's efforts and stated emphatically that the proposal presented was an easy way out for the Department. Her concerns were focused on the methods used to decide on the model chosen by the Department. In particular, was a tendering process implemented? Second, she stated that she was not convinced that Correctional Services was doing enough with regard to reducing the prison population. Third, whether the Department could provide statistics as to how many prison heads have been trained already. Fourth, whether the Department had received any input from the users of the system. She concluded by stating that she felt a process of public debate on the design and management of prison facilities was necessary.

Her sentiments were shared by Mr M Dyani (ANC) who dismissed the Department's proposal as simply another marketing strategy.

Mr Diale (ANC) added his comments to the debate. He stated that the Department had acknowledged the fact that there is problem of overcrowding in prisons. The awaiting-trial prisoners compounded this as well. He questioned whether the Department had ever approached the Department of Justice with this question. He stated that if overcrowding in prisons can be reduced, why then was there a need to build more prisons. He saw no purpose in building more prisons.

The Department's team dealt with these questions together. As regards tendering, the Department confirmed that a tendering process was effected. The design had to be cost-effective and take into account the special needs of South Africa. On the issue of reductionist strategies, the Department stated that this information would be within the domain of their sister organisations and indicated that at a future date a presentation of this nature may have to be arranged. They added further that some of the obstacles in reductionist strategies lay with the Justice Department and the Police, their sister organs, as well. More importantly, the Department claimed that they had come to the Committee with a solution for a cost-effective strategy. There is no option to continue to build prison facilities as has been done in past. Their mandate is to use the allocated budget to build prisons in a cost-effective way and therefore use the money beneficially.

Mr Tshivhase stated that, with regard to the statistics on trained personnel, he did not have that information with him, but he would forward it to the Committee at a later date. On the issue of public debates, he added that NGO's who have an interest in prison issues were consulted.

He gave statistics on awaiting trail prisoners, constituting approximated 60 000. The purpose of building more prisons went back to 1995 when the estimated population of prisoners were less than 100 000. In 2004, the estimated population would be approximately 328 000. The Department did not have a strategy to deal with crime more effectively, he concluded.

Adv Ndziba went on to highlight that one of the major issues facing the Department was the conditions of prisons already built. These were in state of collapse, as they were old. He referred to the prison in Nigel where plans to expand and rehabilitate the prison were in the pipeline. The idea was to keep the facility opened for awaiting trail prisoners, which would free up existing prisons.

Mr Ngaleka (ANC) questioned how many prisons they planned to build.

Adv Ndziba responded that in terms of the strategic plan the Department was given R 2.2 billion to build new prison facilities. At least twelve prisons could be built within that budget, however, this did not mean that twelve prisons have to be built.

The Chairperson concluded and added some of his opinions on the topic. He expressed his concern that from the questions of Committee Members, it seemed as if more meetings were necessary between the Department and the Committee. As a public representative, he expressed his concern as to how the public would react if millions are spent on building prisons in the face of hunger, medical and other crises facing South Africans. He referred to a prison that lies half-built, while the Department has approached the Committee to approve another new project. Taxpayer's money could not be wasted further. He said that existing laws ought to be implemented to reduce the prisoner population.

Adv Ndziba affirmed that it was necessary to engage with each other further, outside a forum like the Committee meeting as it is imperative for the Department to have clear direction. He concluded by saying that the Chairperson was correct in saying in that in the past money was wasted, but that cannot continue. Moreover, the Department was not creating "Sun Cities". The prisoners themselves were building everything and this certainly did not include spring foam mattresses.

The meeting was adjourned.