Electronic Monitoring And Inmate Tracking Systems: DCS briefing

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson noted that the Commissioner had apologised for his inability to be at the meeting. He also raised the issue of the documents that arrived only a day before.

Electronic Monitoring in the Community Corrections: Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Briefing
Comm Teboho Motseki, Chief Deputy Commissioner: DCS, introduced his team and gave a brief historical background on electronic monitoring. The issues surrounding electronic monitoring dated back to 1999. However, it had then been decided to postpone electronic monitoring since the technology could not reach all the areas. The discussions around electronic monitoring had not stopped. DCS had resolved to proceed with electronic monitoring and were committed to the project. It was not an alternative to overcrowding but could be used for a range of different reasons. DCS was aware that there was no budget to deal with this as yet.

D-C Jack Shilubane, Deputy Commissioner: Information Technology: DCS, continued with the presentation. He explained that electronic monitoring could be used to monitor probationers, parolees and offenders with fines. It would also reduce corruption and intimidation of DCS officials. He detailed what electronic monitoring was and how it would work and divided it into three categories: basic, active monitoring and passive monitoring systems. There were a few countries in the world that used electronic monitoring. The challenges included lack of electricity and telephone infrastructure. The implementation and the way forward included a partnership with Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The planning processes would be completed in time to be included in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) budget for 2009/10.

Comm Motseki concluded the presentation adding that electronic monitoring would happen and that the only issue that DCS needed to deal with was the budget.

Discussion
Mr J Selfe (DA) noted that the important issues were the accuracy and reliability of the systems and the cost of electronic monitoring. If these issues were addressed the confidence of the judiciary to pass non-custodial sentences would improve and that would have an effect on overcrowding. He asked for further clarification on the cost of electronic monitoring. 

Comm Motseki replied that in the presentation DCS had referred to the average daily cost of monitoring and supervision of inmates without the use of electronic monitoring. If they were to compare this to the cost of electronic monitoring alone, it would cost approximately R2 less. It was the result of the pilot study conducted in 1999. A comparative cost analysis of an inmate in jail versus those sent to correctional supervision or with converted sentences or fines should be done to demonstrate that electronic monitoring had the potential to significantly lower the daily cost.

Mr Selfe wanted to know about the degree of accuracy of the devices.

D-C Shilubane replied that the technology used for electronic monitoring was similar to that used for the Global Positioning System (GPS) in cars. The technology was fairly accurate. The devices that would be placed on prisoners were generally tamper-proof. If attempts were made to tamper with them, a signal would be sent and the officials would be able to respond.

Bishop L Tolo (ANC) asked if the Department would be utilising the community in the rural areas as addresses were problematic in these rural areas.

Comm Motseki replied that rural areas and physical addresses were a difficult issue. If the electronic monitoring was precise the street address did not matter. They would also involve the community as much as possible in the matter.

Ms S Seaton (IFP) asked what guarantees there were that the DCS would get this on to the budget for 2009/2010 and that it would be implemented in 2009/2010.

Comm Motseki replied that he could not give guarantees. He appealed to the Committee to support the Department on their budget requirements for electronic monitoring. DCS was committed to this project. There would have a cost-benefit analysis, through their partnership with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), which would provide more definite costs by June 2008.
 
Mr H Cupido (ACDP) asked to what extent could the Department monitor ex-prisoners who had the potential to re-offend, and if it would be costly. He thought that if monitoring could continue it might prevent re-offences.

Comm Motseki replied that it was not intended to substitute their monitoring responsibilities, but rather it would be used as a supplement. It would provide an early warning system that would inform the officials if the offender had not adhered to the conditions set and allow the officials to respond quickly to a precise location.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked what type of resources did the DCS have, both in financial and personnel terms, in order to correctly implement electronic monitoring at the community level.

Comm Motseki replied that DCS would only know what resources they had available once the study had been completed by CSIR. However he could use their current staff establishment and the number of officials for community corrections. He suspected that electronic monitoring would cut down the number of officials presently required to perform monitoring roles.

Ms Sharon Kunene, Deputy Commissioner: Social Reintegration: DCS, replied that at the offices of Community Corrections there was a staff of 1 806, and they were currently short staffed, as they required 2020 staff members. Nationwide there were 194 offices of Community Corrections that managed probationers and parolees. Electronic monitoring would be able to ease the shortages as well as allow DCS to access probationers and parolees. The officers at Community Corrections would not stop physical monitoring and would be able to enforce rehabilitation.

The Chairperson agreed that the electronic monitoring would assist in the shortage of staff in Community Corrections.

Ms Ngwenya asked what was the level of actual implementation.

The Chairperson wanted clarification of the conversions of incarcerations into correctional supervision as referred to in the presentation.

Comm Motseki replied that figures referred to the current population in Community Corrections. It conveyed that each of them were legitimate targets for electronic monitoring.

The Chairperson asked if electronic monitoring would be used for those committing less serious offences and who were not considered a danger to society.

Mr Selfe wanted to know how the judiciary would receive the idea.

Comm Motseki replied that in terms of the law, in respect of any person sentenced for a short period of time, the Head of the Correctional centre could take certain steps regarding incarceration. The judge or magistrate that had imposed the sentences needed to be consulted. However, electronic monitoring could succeed in increasing the confidence of the judiciary in non-custodial sentences, and the likelihood of short-term sentences for incarceration would be smaller. 

The Chairperson commented that it was not about saving money when dealing with crime, but rather would address the issue of creating criminals in prison.

Comm Motseki agreed with the Chairperson’s assessment. If the DCS were to save in the electronic monitoring field the resources could be used elsewhere in the Department. 

Ms Ngwenya asked if it had been determined whether electronic monitoring and tracking of inmates infringed the inmates’ Constitutional rights to privacy. 

Comm Motseki replied that it was a difficult question and could only be addressed when the time came. The Correctional Services Act did make provision for the Minister to decide who was tracked and tagged.

Bishop Tolo commented that electronic monitoring was long in discussion; he was concerned that the implementation would also take too long.

Comm Motseki replied that the lack of electricity and telephone lines in all the areas were part of the delay, but since then technology had advanced.

D-C Shilubane added that another reason for the delay was that there was some discussion whether there was justification for spending millions on electronic monitoring devices when the country was faced with issues such as poverty and disease.

Bishop Tolo asked if a lack of electricity would affect electronic monitoring.

Comm Motseki realised that the issue of electricity was a problem. There were some households in the country that did not have electricity. If the deployment of the system was dependent on the presence of electricity in the household then those without electricity would miss the benefits. The current issues of lack of energy could only exacerbate the problem.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) was sceptical and asked why, if electronic monitoring was so beneficial, so few countries were interested in it.

Comm Motseki replied that there were many countries that used electronic monitoring.

The Chairperson did not think that the Committee would oppose the budget for electronic monitoring. The Committee would support a plan that dealt with overcrowding and tried not to incarcerate people that were not a danger to society. He was satisfied that the DCS had seen the benefits.

Inmate Tracking Status Report by DCS
Comm Motseki explained the objectives of inmate tracking, stating that it was specifically intended to decrease the detention cycle time of awaiting trial detainees. He gave a brief background that identified the two pilots sites of Durban-Westville Medium A and Johannesburg Medium A Correctional Centres. The system was initially valued at R28 million. An evaluation committee was mandated to evaluate the functionality, efficiency and sustainability of the Inmate Tracking System (ITS). The evaluation found that in Johannesburg Medium A the operation was successful despite noted challenges. In the Durban-Westville Medium A it was discovered that although the system was utilised successfully, there was mismanagement of stock and some of the Personal Tracking Devices (PTDs) were lost. It was further found that the PTDs used were inefficient and non-durable.  The investigation into the missing PTDs found that the Area Commissioner was not cooperative and that 3 236 PTDs were unaccounted for, valued at R2.7million. It was recommended that the unaccounted PTDs be written off and that the no one be held accountable, as the loss was blamed on the inmates, but that disciplinary measures be taken against the Area Commissioner.

The recommendation was to sustain the programme at both the correctional centres. The status of the project was on track.

It was noted that subsequent to the investigation’s findings 1  500 of the PTDs, valued at R1.3 million,  were recovered, but the way they were found still remained a mystery. They had now been used in Johannesburg Medium A Correctional Centre. The final loss now totalled approximately R1.5million.

Discussion
The Chairperson was not satisfied by the response on the actual cost of the loss of the Personal Tracking Devices. The technician who installed the system had claimed, to the Committee, that the loss was it was R7 million, yet the Department had stated that the loss was R1.5million.

Ms L Chikunga (ANC) and Ms Seaton agreed that this was a problem..

Ms Seaton asked where and how were the lost PTDs found.

Comm Motseki replied that the Department was equally affected by the loss. The circumstances around the loss and the recovery of some of the PTDs were still unknown.  He would provide further documentation that should account for the actual number of the devices that were lost, as reflected in their records and the records of the installing company, together with the documented cost per device at the time of the loss. He would be able to provide the report on the loss of the 1 500 PTDs at the Committee’s convenience. He wondered if perhaps there were staff members that were more comfortable speaking to the Committee than to the Department.

The Chairperson corrected Mr Motseki’s assumption that it was DCS staff who informed the Committee of the different figure. It had been the technician from the company that installed the devices.

Bishop Tolo was troubled by the fact that the Department did not know about these figures, because when the Committee visited Durban-Westville, there was a representative from the Minister’s office who had taken notes. He assumed that the Minister, and therefore the Department, would be informed of these issues.

The Chairperson agreed with the Member.

Ms Seaton was concerned that inmates were able to take the PTDs off.

Ms Ngwenya asked if the PTDs gave early warning, and if so, what procedures were followed as a result of these warnings.

D-C Shilubane replied that the PTD was intended to be a tamper proof device. If it was removed without using the specific machine, an alarm would go off. However, because of the strike or some other unidentified reason, some had been removed without the officials responding to the alarm. There was a specific breakable component that was attached to the device that was not re-useable, and therefore the whole device could not be used if broken.

Ms Seaton found it problematic that the PTDs were lost when the inmates went to court.

D-C Shilubane replied that when inmate tracking was implemented it was specifically focussed on the awaiting trial detainees, as they were the ones that were constantly in and out of the correctional centres. The procedure followed was the device was used to correctly identify the person before they went to court and then it was removed. If they returned to the correctional centre, a different device was assigned.

Bishop Tolo commented that the information was contradictory. He was concerned that he had asked the technician about the distance that the device could track, and was first given the answer of 100m, and then the answer of 1km. The technician had also demonstrated that the PTDs were not easy to remove without the use of a specific machine, but the Department claimed that the inmates removed the devices.

Comm Motseki replied that the distances that the devices could track were relative to the conditions. They were effective in tracking people inside the prison.

Ms Ngwenya asked if the prison tracking resulted in less inmate gang violence and escapes.

D-C Shilubane replied that DCS had suspected that the tracking reduced gang violence and escapes. However, there had been no focus study done on this.

Ms Chikunga asked how much money DCS had spent on maintaining a system that was not working properly.

D-C Shilubane replied that the contract with the company covered everything including the maintenance, and it  amounted to around R28 million. He did not have the exact figures but would forward them to the Committee.

The Chairperson wanted correct facts and not disputed information.

Bishop Tolo was concerned with the differing information and suggested that the proper information be found.

Mr M Cele (ANC) wanted the DCS to provide the Committee with exact information.

The Chairperson mentioned that when the Department appeared before the Committee about the budget, this issue would be raised again. The Committee wanted answers on these questions. He was not satisfied that the Department had not found anyone accountable for the lost PTDs. The Committee wanted to know what steps were taken against the Area Commissioner, as the Committee did not want to be party to reckless decisions.

Comm Motseki replied that the Department could provide information on escapes from Johannesburg and Durban-Westville during the period when the inmate tracking system was operational. He appealed to the Committee that inmate tracking should be taken in context. It was not intended to prevent escapes but rather to manage the awaiting trial detainees. If there were other consequences they were treated as such. If there was any correlation it was incidental. DCS would provide reports about the Area Commissioner; who had been dismissed. DCS would provide information as truthfully as possible about the cost of the PTDs at the time of the loss. He emphasised the issue that the loss of the PTDs had to be taken into context, as it had happened during the public service strike. He agreed with the Committee, however, that someone had to be held accountable for the loss.

The Chairperson remarked that the Committee took this issue very seriously as the Committee was held accountable. He also wanted an indication as to when the electronic monitoring would be implemented. He reiterated that the Committee would support electronic monitoring.

Comm Motseki replied that the Department would be ready with details by the time of the MTEF.

The meeting was adjourned.