Inmate Tracking System, Security Plan And HIV/Aids Policy: Department briefings

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
6 September 2005
INMATE TRACKING SYSTEM, SECURITY PLAN AND HIV/ AIDS POLICY: DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS

Chairperson:

Department briefing on Inmate Tracking System
Department briefing on Security Plan
Department briefing on HIV/AIDS Policy for Offenders
Committee programme

SUMMARY
The Department of Correctional Services informed the Committee that the Inmate Tracking System was aimed at the effective management of awaiting-trial detainees. It would eventually also assist in improving security within the system. A three-pronged security plan would protect the public as well as officials, offenders, awaiting-trial detainees and service providers in correctional centres.

In the ensuing discussion, the Committee expressed concern regarding the disappearance of equipment meant to be used in the ITS at the Durban pilot site. The prevention of escapes was also a matter of concern. The Department assured the Committee of its commitment to dealing better with HIV/AIDS in prisons.

The Committee also unanimously adopted its programme for October-November 2005 without discussion.

MINUTES

Department briefing on Inmate Tracking System
Mr Shilubane (Department Deputy Commissioner: Government Information Technology Office) said that the Integrated Justice System was aimed at assimilating and automating the justice system. This would involve co-ordinating Crime Prevention and Security Cluster Director-Generals, Development Committees, the Integrated Justice Systems Board as well as the Departments of Correctional Services, Justice and Constitutional Development, Safety and Security, Social Development and the National Prosecuting Authority. This would assist in more effective management of cases, persons and exhibits. The involvement of all role players would assist in attaining, amongst others, shorter case cycle times, a reduction in the number of awaiting-trial detainees as well as the better prioritisation of cases involving young offenders, sexual offences and priority crimes.

The Inmate Tracking System was currently aimed at awaiting-trial detainees. In future, it would include all inmates. It would also be linked to major police stations and secure care units. The ITS would benefit, not only the Department, but also the SA Police Service (SAPS), the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Department of Social Development, and the general public.

In December 2001, it had been decided to request a proposal for the procurement of a pilot solution for Durban Medium A Correctional Centre as well as the Johannesburg Medium A Correctional Centre. The Executive Management Committee would decide on further roll out. The ITS would be continued as an operational system within the pilot sites.

The System consisted of five basic components: a radio frequency transmitter tag (the personal tracking device), a radio frequency receiver (transceiver unit), a personal digital assistant, tracking and application software as well as a computer platform and interface that would be linked to the existing facility management system.

The detainee would move through the facility with the personal tracking device attached. It would transmit a radio frequency signal that would be picked up by a number of transceiver units. The movement of the detainee would thus be effectively tracked and placed, and depicted as a 2D text-based or a 3D graphic output.

Some of the challenges faced while implementing the system in the pilot sites included technical difficulties which were time consuming to resolve; in Durban there had been resistance to the new system and there were also extra costs as far as implementation and operation were concerned.

So far the identification verification functionality was in use and benefits were being reaped. There were also security advantages. Management of facilities had improved as well.

With the approval of the Commissioner, an evaluation would be done. It would start in October 2005 and would provide a report detailing the economic feasibility, functionality and security of the system. Further roll out would depend on the findings of the report.

Department briefing on security plan
Mr Damons (Department Deputy Commissioner: Facilities and Security) briefed the Committee on the Department’s security plan. Security in the DCS was aimed at protecting inmates, personnel and the public.

The Security plan was based upon three main strategies: ensuring compliance with security policies and procedures, enhancing the safety, security and protection of officials, offenders, awaiting-trial detainees and service providers as well as that of the officials supervising probationers and parolees.

In accordance with the aims of the first strategy, the inspection manual was being revised. This would allow the Department to distinguish between more or less critical procedural requirements. An improved National Escape Prevention Strategy had been compiled and was submitted to the regions in August 2005. At present a draft strategy for the handling of high-risk awaiting-trial detainees was being developed. .

As far as the protection of officials, offenders, awaiting-trial detainees and service providers was concerned a protection plan to be implemented in two phases had been developed. Security equipment had been installed at the access control points of 66 Centres of Excellence and other High Risk Correctional Centres. A three-phase anti-gang strategy would also be implemented.

A security plan had been developed to improve the security of Community Corrections officials. In October 2005, officials from all the regions would be consulted regarding a draft security plan.

The Security Policy was aimed at creating a safe, secure and correcting environment. To achieve this objective, minimum security standards for correctional centres had to be met. These standards governed management supervision as well as personal, physical, technological, information and operational security.

Mr Damons pointed out that in 2005, escapes between 1 January and 1 August 2005 had declined by 64 persons.

Department briefing on HIV/AIDS policy
Ms Jabu Shishuba (Department Chief Deputy Commissioner: Development and Care) reported on developments in the Department’s HIV/AIDS policy. The efforts by Correctional Centres to manage HIV and AIDS were aligned to the White Paper on Corrections and the Correctional Services Act. The development and implementation of programmes were based on the guidelines, protocols and policies of the Department of Health.

Since correctional centres were over populated, difficulties were experienced with regard to confidentiality, education and health standards. The Department’s policy was being reviewed in order to ensure that it was in line with the national approach to treatment, care and support.

Their approach was guided by, among others, the integration of HIV and AIDS related matters in all its policies, strategies and activities as well as its commitment to the creation of a non-discriminatory, non –stigmatised and supportive environment to all infected or affected offenders.

Its main objectives included preventing the spread of HIV infections and providing care and support to offenders affected and infected by HIV and AIDS. It would also monitor trends and conduct and facilitate research on issues related to the epidemic. In addition it aimed to establish partnerships to assist in the implementation of its policy. The various programmes in place were aimed at prevention, care and support, treatment and capacity building.

Although much had been achieved, the Department still faced many challenges. In addition to an increase in the number of HIV infections and co-infections, there was also an increase in the number of TB multi-drug resistance cases. Overcrowding made it difficult to ensure the effectiveness of Directly Observed Treatment Shortcourse (DOTS) treatment. Since the Department was not accredited, and relied on external sites, the provision of antiretroviral therapy remained a challenge. The Department was also in need of extra funds to ensure that it had the capacity to deal with the effects of the disease.

Discussion
The Chairperson was concerned about the disappearance of equipment needed for the ITS at the Durban pilot site. He asked whether inmates or officials had been responsible for the theft. How had the theft affected the budget? Ms I Direko (ANC) added that the disappearance of State property was a serious offence.

Mr Motseki (Executive Manager: Commissioner’s Office) said that an investigation into the ‘mishap’ in Durban was underway. The Department would like to have the investigation expedited. Ms Shishuba said that the Department was waiting for the report of the investigating unit and would follow up once it had been received.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked whether the inmate tracking system would be applied to parolees and those under community supervision. How often would the equipment have to be replaced? Was it an integrated system? What was the level of sophistication?

Ms Shishuba said that the Department was considering a complete overhaul. The system would eventually apply to parolees as well as those under community corrections. Mr Motseki added that the Review Task Team would consider prospects for roll out to other sections of the Department.

Mr Pehnya (Department Director: Customer Relation Management) said that the ITS required functional ability as well as technical expertise. All members at the pilot sites had been trained as normal users of the system. Network controllers had been specifically trained to tend to the system’s technical requirements. Third and fourth level support, requiring greater expertise, would be contracted out. Plans for continuous training had been put in place.

The equipment would have to be replaced after a certain period of time. The personal tracking device had a lifespan of five years while its strap could be used a number of times. The hardware would have to be replaced after it expired, as was the case with all equipment.

The system was fully integrated with the current admissions and release process. It was expected that once the security system had been completed, the ITS would be integrated with it.

Ms Direko asked why only parts of the equipment were in use at the Durban site. Why was there no consistency across the two sites?

Mr Shilubane said that the Individual Tracking function was the only one not used in Durban. Due to a delay in delivery there were insufficient personal tracking devices. The Department was investigating what had gone wrong with the control of the process at the Durban site.

Mr M Phala (ANC) asked what would happen in the event of a power failure. Mr Phenya replied that power was generated through an uninterrupted power supply unit that was linked to Eskom and a generator. In the event of a blackout power would come from this source.

Mr S Moatshe (ANC) said that considering the activities of prison gangs, the Western Cape was a high-risk area. Why was it not selected as a pilot site? What were the criteria used for selecting Durban and Johannesburg?

Mr Shilubane said that the number of awaiting-trial detainees at the Durban and Johannesburg sites was greater than in the Western Cape. The ITS was part of the integrated justice systems project. Durban was selected because it was also a Centre of Excellence.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) requested Mr Damons to elaborate on the Department’s plans for dealing with gang activities within Correctional Facilities. Ms S Chikunga (ANC) noted that, as in the Department’s 2004 budget briefing, anti-gang activities were at their initial stage. What had caused the delay? Mr S Mahote (ANC) asked whether the information gathered from gang leaders was reliable.

Mr Damons responded that the way in which gangs operated had changed since 2004. A workshop was underway in the Western Cape regarding new developments within gangs. Gang leaders were supplying the Department with information. It would sift through this information with the assistance of experts from various disciplines.

Ms S Rajbally (MF) asked whether escapees had mostly been convicted of petty or serious crimes. Mr Damons said 90% of escapees were awaiting-trial detainees. No proper risk assessment had been done on them. They were often assisted in escaping by officials or outside help. Security equipment would be installed to detect unauthorised weapons. The seriousness of their crimes varied.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) asked how prisoners got hold of weapons in the first place. Why did the Department not approach private correctional facilities to find out how they prevented escapes? The Chairperson said that in a recent incident at Goodwood Prison, it was alleged that officials aided an offender in his escape. How did this happen?

Ms Direko was not convinced that private centres had a better mechanism in place for dealing with escapes. There was a ‘tug of war’ between the Department and private facilities. The latter wanted to transfer high-risk persons to the correctional centres thus reducing the risk of escape from their own facilities.

Ms Shishuba pointed out that the infrastructure in place at the two different types of centres varied dramatically. Private centres were state of the art and had impressive security devices. In addition they did not have to contend with over-crowding. The Department visited private correctional centres because no best practices could be ignored. Mr Damons added that the fences of private institutions had detectors that also prevented escapes.

Ms Shishuba said that the Department had a zero tolerance approach towards corrupt officials. Its special investigative unit was completely independent. Officials were being trained and risk and needs assessments were being done. She noted that a whole Chapter in the White Paper was dedicated to the characteristics and duties of an ideal correctional services officer.

The Chairperson asked whether BEE principles had been taken into regard when approving contracts for the installation of security equipment. What was the budget available for these installations? Mr Damons said that R89 million had been allocated for the installations. BEE had definitely been catered for.

Mr Mahote asked whether the Department was able to classify awaiting-trial detainees into risk categories. Mr Damons responded that the Department was in discussion with the National Prosecuting Authority and the SAPS to develop a system with which to identify high-risk awaiting-trial detainees. At present the Department could liase with the investigating officer to determine risk status.

Mr Mahote asked whether there was an alarm system that would indicate when an offender had moved into an area he or she was not authorised to be in.

Mr Damons indicated that at present gates were unlocked using keys. The system was not automatic. Sometimes officials themselves gave prisoners access. Officially no prisoner could move between sections without an escort. Tracking devices and fingerprint readers would go a long way towards improving the system.

Ms Rajbally asked whether the decreased detention cycle was in any way connected with special remissions. Ms Moodley (Department Deputy Commissioner: Personal Corrections) said that since the ITS was at present applied to awaiting-trial detainees only it had no link to special remissions.

The Chairperson asked how HIV and AIDS impacted on personnel in the Department. Ms Shishuba said that the prevalence survey, to be conducted in October and November, would include both offenders and staff. She said that at present no figures were available.

Ms Chikunga asked how many infections occurred within prison. How many prisoners came into the system already infected with the disease? Since testing was voluntary, how was the Department planning to ensure participation?

Ms Shishuba said that because of budget constraints, the prevalence study would not be a cohort study. It would measure prevalence at a particular point in time. She had no figures available to accurately indicate how many already-infected offenders had entered the system.

Ethical issues would impact on the survey. Participation would have to be voluntary. A proper communications strategy would have to be in place to ensure confidentiality. Those administering the survey would have to adhere to the Department’s ethical principles.

Ms Rajbally asked whether there was compulsory testing of offenders prior to their release to ensure that they had not been infected while in prison.

Ms Mabena (Director: Health Care Services) said that those offenders who tested positive for HIV or TB prior to their release were educated about the diseases. They received counselling as well as treatment. Depending on the stage of the disease they were referred to a clinic, health care facility or hospice within their communities.

Ms Chikunga was curious about what happened to staff who had been a exposed to the virus accidentally. She also asked why the Department of Health administered antiretrovirals (ARVs) when the Department of Correctional Services had a budget for it.

Mr Wilson (Department Director: HIV/AIDS) said that the Department was not accredited to administer ARVs. It was in continuous discussion with the Department of Health to ensure that offenders benefited. The Department had a comprehensive plan to deal with the effects of the disease and ARVs were only part of that plan.

Ms Mabena said that post-exposure prophylaxis had been approved in such cases. Staff would also be counselled and tested.

Mr Tolo acknowledged the Department’s efforts at educating prisoners about HIV and AIDS. He was concerned however whether the advice was being taken seriously.

Ms Mabena said that most offenders paid attention to advice. She noted that in the Western Cape prisoners had even started support and treatment groups themselves. Not too long ago most offenders participated in skin piercing (tattoos) upon entering facilities, now most refrained from doing so.

The Chairperson concluded that there had been a vast improvement in the briefings and documents of the Department. He noted that the Department, in its reports to the Committee, was treading a fine line between transparency and security. He acknowledged the difficulty in deciding what to share with the Committee and what not to share for security reasons.

Committee planning
The Committee unanimously adopted its programme for October-November 2005 without discussion.

The meeting was adjourned.