ATC111102: Report Oversight Visits to Correctional Services facilities in Free State, Gauteng, Kwazulu-Natal & Eastern Cape Provinces

Correctional Services

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ON ITS 26 JULY TO 12 AUGUST 2011 OVERSIGHT VISITS TO CORRECTIONAL SERVICES FACILITIES IN THE FREE STATE, GAUTENG, KWAZULU-NATAL AND EASTERN CAPE PROVINCES, DATED 2 NOVEMBER 2011

PART 1:            INTRODUCTION

1.1.       A delegation of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services (the Committee) visited the following Department of Correctional Services (DCS) facilities between 26 July to 12 August 2011: the Kroonstad Correctional Services Training Centre, Free State province (26 July); the Kroonstad correctional centres, Free State province (26 July); the Boksburg correctional centres, Gauteng province (27 July); the Durban Westville correctional centres, Kwazulu Natal province (28 July); the Mthatha correctional centres , Eastern Cape province (3 August); and the St Albans correctional centres, Eastern Cape (4 August).

 

1.2        Each visit comprised an orientation briefing by the centres’ area management, a tour of the facilities, interactions with sentenced and unsentenced inmates, warders, service providers, independent correctional centre visitors (ICCV) and Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) chairpersons.

 

1.3        The visits culminated in a debriefing session at the DCS Head Quarters in Pretoria, where observations made during the visits, particularly those that required immediate intervention, as well as certain long-standing concerns about the DCS’ management in general, were discussed.

 

1.4        This report comprises a short background to the visits, a breakdown of each centre’s inmate population and staff establishment, the visiting delegation’s observations and finally the Committee’s comments and recommendations. Though the Committee applauds the centres for their reported successes, this report will focus on challenges observed and reported by those interacted with.

 

1.5        Numerous allegations of, for example, misconduct, abuse of power and corruption were levelled against the management of, and officials at, the centres visited, as well as against the senior management of the DCS. Some of these are captured in the report, but have not been tested. The matters raised will be revisited once the DCS has submitted written responses to allegations made.

 

1.6        Following the visits, and informed in particular by the large number of remand detainees still encountered in correctional centres, the Committee reported on factors contributing to overcrowding in correctional centres. That report contains a number of recommendations to the JCPS cluster departments on how the under-utilisation of existing legislative and other provisions contribute to South Africa’s enormous inmate population. Those recommendations are not repeated here, but should be read along with the observations recorded in this report.

 

1.7        Upon adoption, this report will be submitted to the Ministry and Department of Correctional Services, as well as the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) for written comment.

 

PART 2:            OBSERVATIONS

1.         KROONSTAD CORRECTIONAL TRAINING CENTRE

1.1        Infrastructure

1.1.1     Prior to 1994, South Africa had three correctional training centres: one in the Western Cape for Coloured and Indian trainees, Zonderwater in Gauteng for Black trainees and Kroonstad in the Free State for White trainees. The Western Cape centre has since been closed, and the two remaining centres cater for all trainees regardless of race, but differences in the quality of facilities remain. A ministerial initiative to refurbish these two training centres, to ensure that facilities and living quarters are improved, so that they are appropriate to trainees’ needs, is underway.

 

1.1.2     The Kroonstad Correctional Training College (the College) comprises three classrooms; a sports hall with a well-equipped gymnasium; a rehabilitation centre for trainees with minor physical injuries; a library with access to reference material and video recordings of lectures; a dining hall and six hostels, each housing 90 trainees, and equipped with amenities such as laundry rooms; and a 24-hour intercom system. A senior trainer and three assistant trainers supervise each hostel.

 

1.2        Human Resources

1.2.1     The College has a staff establishment of 107, but, at the time of the visit, only 67 of these posts were filled.

 

 

 

1.3        Trainees

1.3.1     The College can accommodate 540 trainees, but, at the time of the visit, none had been enrolled, and no training was underway. The DCS explained that all trainees would henceforth be subjected to a security clearance prior to them being enrolled and training commencing. This will be done in consultation with the South African Police Service 
(SAPS). The next group of trainees was to start their training on 22 August 2011. Training comprised theory as well as a practical component completed at centre level through a learnership programme. Once learnerships are completed, trainees are assessed; whereupon some are appointed.

 

1.3.2     Responding to a concern about the under-representation of White, Coloured and Indian trainees in the recent years, the DCS explained that, while this challenge might have existed at some point in the recent past, that was no longer the case: Black, Coloured and Indian trainees were well-represented. The colleges failed to attract White applicants however, and this may account for their under- or non-representation.

 

2.         KROONSTAD CORRECTIONAL CENTRES

2.1        Population

2.1.1     On the day of the visit, the Kroonstad Female Correctional Centre of Excellence (CoE) accommodated 158 sentenced, 23 remand and 1 sentenced child-offender. The CoE also accommodates women with babies, and, at the time of the visit, there were 11 mothers with babies. The centre can accommodate up to 215 inmates, and was therefore not overcrowded.

2.1.2     At the time of the visit, the Medium B centre accommodated 785 inmates comprising 7 sentenced adults, 197 sentenced juveniles (18-21 years), 13 sentenced “young adults” (22-25 years), 302 unsentenced adults, 135 unsentenced “young adults”, 123 unsentenced juveniles and 8 unsentenced children. The centre was 47% overcrowded.

2.2        Infrastructure

2.2.1     Apart from the fire damage to the female centre’s laundry room ceiling, and the concern that inferior infrastructure made it impossible to separate the different categories of female offenders adequately, the Kroonstad correctional centres reported no major maintenance and infrastructural challenges.

 

2.3        Staff Establishment

2.3.1     At the time of the visit the CoE had a 7% vacancy rate, with the highest number of vacancies being in security. The centre reported one vacancy at management level. The slow pace at which vacancies, even those created when officials retired, are filled is a major challenge.

 

2.3.2     The Medium B centre reported a vacancy rate of 13,28%, with the most critical vacancies being one social worker post, four nursing posts and two educator posts.

 

2.4        Health Services

2.4.1     The CoE’s 16-bed hospital and its clinic are accredited anti-retroviral (ARV) sites. At the time of the visit, the hospital accommodated 13 patients. The centre is serviced by one doctor who visits twice a week. Emergencies are stabilised at centre-level, and referred to Boitumelo Hospital in Kroonstad. Inmates needing dental care are escorted to the Medium B centre for appointments with the dentist, who visits that centre once a week. As the dentists’ chair at the centre is broken, only extractions are being performed. The centre’s pharmacy adequately provides for inmates’ needs.

 

2.4.2     The three professional nurses stationed at the centre are insufficient and cannot cope with the pressure of the care HIV-positive inmates demand. Additional nurses have been requested.

 

2.5        Inmate Training and Development

2.5.1     The CoE had a salon, textile and sewing factory, and computer facilities. Those who are trained received certificates; some become trainers themselves. The centre has a small, but well-stocked library, which operates from 07h00 to 14h00 on weekdays and is serviced by inmate-librarians.

 

2.6        Children in conflict with the law

2.6.1     It was emphasised that most of the children at the Medium B centre had committed serious crimes, mostly rape. Although the centre is in constant communication with the Free State Justice Forum, courts are reportedly reluctant to hand down alternative sentences owing to the seriousness of the crimes the children have committed. Instead, harsher sentences for children have become very common. Given the nature of their crimes, the children could only be accommodated in secure care centres that meet the necessary security criteria. The centre reported, and the delegation’s interactions with the children revealed, that very few of them receive visits from their families.

 

2.7        Correctional Supervision and Parole

2.7.1     Although the case management committee (CMC) reported no backlogs, the CSPB reported 11. The CMC-chairperson reported that the backlog was largely the result of all 14 correctional centres in the area being serviced by the same CSPB. The CSPB dedicated one day per month to each of the centres. Parole is denied mainly because inmates do not have adequate support systems outside.

 

2.8        Social Reintegration/Contact with family

2.8.1     Though the CoE boasted an “excellent” facility for visitation, inmates from outside the area are seldom, if ever, visited, because their families are too poor to travel to the centre. The public transport that is available is inadequate.

 

3.         BOKSBURG MANAGEMENT AREA: 27 JULY 2011

 

3.1        Population

3.1.1     Boksburg Centre B can accommodate 241 juvenile inmates, but, at the end of June,

accommodated 421.

 

3.1.2     Boksburg Centre C can accommodate 485 inmates, but, at the time of the visit, accommodated 703. Although still overcrowded, the population has shown a dramatic decrease from the 1 200 recorded a few months prior to the visit. This reduction was largely due to concerted efforts to divert as many eligible inmates to community corrections programmes.

 

3.2        Staff Establishment

3.2.1     The Boksburg management area has an approved post establishment of 1 611, but only 1 055 of these are financed. At the time of the visit, only 914 of the centre-based posts were filled, and the centre had 114 professional staff. The Area Commissioner explained that the staff shortage was a major challenge: the centres have never been able to meet their member-to-inmate ratio, and therefore unit management has never been effectively implemented. Centre B, which was almost 100% overcrowded at the time of the visit, has 132 financed posts, but only 122 of these were filled.

 

3.2.2     The area commissioner explained that the implementation of the Seven-Day Establishment (7DE) had seen a number of staff migrating from office-based positions to centre-based ones. At the time this migration had been allowed with the understanding that the vacated office-based positions would be filled. This has not happened, nor has the necessary skills transfer to the new centre-based staff occurred. It was emphasised that even before the implementation of the 7DE, the DCS had had staffing challenges. The 7DE has definitely exacerbated these. The support external service providers provided was also compromised because often there was insufficient security staff on duty to ensure such service providers’ safety.

 

3.2.3     The CSPB Chairperson had been appointed and was present during the visit; the Vice- Chairperson was to be appointed shortly.

 

3.2.4     The area commissioner reported that only two officials were on suspension at the time of the visit: one since December 2010 and another since May 2011.

 

3.3        Health Services

3.3.1     Centre A is an accredited ARV site, and should therefore have a fulltime clinic, but its inability to attract professional nursing staff has made this impossible.

 

3.4        Rehabilitation

3.4.1     Staff emphasised that programmes aimed at rehabilitating offenders were compromised, because there were not enough officials to deliver such programmes. The entire management area only had two psychologists.

 

3.5        Education Services

3.5.1     The management area had only nine educators. Ideally the centre should have a fulltime school to ensure that child–offenders’ education was not disrupted too much. Given the DCS’ inability to attract and retain educators, this was not possible.

 

3.6        Inmate Training and Development

3.6.1     As reported by many other correctional centre workshops, the DCS was unable to attract and retain artisans: artisans, who are classified as non-centre-based employees, earn about R30 000 to R50 000 less than centre-based custodial officers, and were not included in the 2007 occupational specific dispensation for correctional officials. The artisan-shortage impacts negatively on the creation of work opportunities: Centre A’s workshops could easily accommodate 600 inmates daily, but at present this is not possible.

 

3.6.2     Centre A had a number of well-equipped, well-functioning, profitable workshops. The delegation visited the wood-, steel-, upholstery and textile workshops. All courses are accredited. About 320 inmates work in the woodwork workshop every day. The centre’s clientele mainly comprise government departments, and the workshop generates about R16-22 million in profit every year. The centre’s palisade fence was made at its steel workshop which also provides other centres with steel products. The textile workshop produces uniforms and sheets which are also distributed to other correctional centres in the area.

 

3.7        Children in conflict with the law

3.7.1     The unit housing child-offenders housed 58 children at the time of the visit. There were 25 cells in the unit, each able to accommodate 3 children. Four officials attend to the children’s needs and they are assisted by external social workers who visit the unit on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The delegation was disturbed by the long periods some of the children have spent in incarceration: one has been in remand since September 2010.

 

3.8        Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards

3.8.1     The CSPB chairperson pointed out that many inmates are paroled based on promises of support from their families, but that often such promises were not honoured, resulting in poor support which in turn results in parole violations. In addition, the CSPB was under severe pressure because it only had one chairperson and no vice-chairperson. Community members were recently appointed and this alleviated some of the pressure. Social workers are battling to meet inmates’ needs and to ensure that reports are available in good time.

 

3.8.2     The newly-appointed CSPB chairperson had been present during the Committee’s 2009 interaction with a cross-section of CSPB chairpersons. At that time, chairpersons had raised a number of concerns related to their conditions of service, facilities and case management. These had also been raised in a 2009-workshop arranged by the Ministry  and which had been aimed at improving the functioning of CSPBs. The CSPB chairperson registered his frustration that a similar workshop was being arranged to discuss the very same issues for which solutions were suggested in 2009. It appears as though little was being done to improve compliance with parole processes, improve working conditions for CSPBs and ultimately improve how parole was managed and administered.

 

 

3.9        Social Reintegration

3.9.1     The importance of a support system outside of prison was emphasised – many inmates could not be paroled, released on bail or diverted for lack of family support. The centre was in constant contact with the Department of Social Development (DSD) in an effort to address this challenge. It was suggest that businesses get involved so that parolees and those who have served their sentences are at least provided with work upon their release.

 

3.10      Remand detainees

3.10.1   The area commissioner noted concerns raised about the large number of remand detainees, and the unreasonably long periods they often spend in remand. She emphasised that the DCS had no choice but to accommodate those inmates sentenced to incarceration, those remanded without bail, and those unable to raise the bail amounts set by courts. The centres’ social workers were doing their best to place those with shorter sentences under community corrections.

 

3.10.2   Remand detainees felt that they were unfairly discriminated against because of their previous convictions and, in some instances, were unfairly denied bail. Long lapses between court appearances added to the frustration.

 

3.10.3   Remand detainees complained about the quality of the legal representation they received from Legal Aid South Africa (LASA). Many complained that LASA legal representatives tried to persuade them to plead guilty.

 

3.11      Undocumented South African inmates

3.11.1   Many inmates working in the woodwork factory complained that they did not have identity documents. The centre confirmed that the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) had visited the centre at least four times between January and June 2011 to provide assistance. The centres highlighted that many non-South African inmates try to illegally obtain South African identity documents and that the DHA and the DCS had to guard against such abuses too.

 

3.12      Foreign Nationals

3.12.1   The centres held a number of foreign nationals, and the area commissioner reported that ambassadors from their respective countries were often invited to address them in order to give them hope and support where needed.

 

 

4.         DURBAN WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTRES: 28 JULY 2011

 

4.1        Population

4.1.1     At the time of the visit, the Medium A centre housed 3 523 male inmates comprising 116 sentenced, 2 855 unsentenced, and 552 unsentenced juvenile offenders. The centre was 149% overcrowded. An improved working relationship with magistrates has resulted in much progress having been made in reducing the number of remand detainees, but much still needed to be done to address the backlog. Backlog courts have been established, and it is hoped that progress will be evident soon.

 

4.1.2          The Youth Centre accommodated 793 inmates, 32 of whom were unsentenced. Those serving 2 years or less, 2-5 years, 5-10 years and those attending school were housed separately. The centre also accommodated 28 adults who were housed separately and who worked in the centre.

 

4.1.3          The Female Centre accommodated 112 unsentenced inmates, 16 of whom were juvenile offenders. The centre claims that the number of juvenile remand detainees is decreasing steadily owing to increased co-operation between it and the DSD. Although juveniles are defined as those between 18-21 years of age, a number of inmates older than 21 were also accommodated here.

 

4.1.4          At the time of the visit, 233 juvenile offenders serving life sentences were accommodated in the Medium B centre for security reasons.

 

4.2        Infrastructure

4.2.1     The DCS’ overview of the Kwazulu Natal (KZN) region listed a number of building and maintenance activities that were underway. All the centres suffered extreme plumbing- related challenges which were attributed to the old and rusted pipes that could be temporarily mended, but not repaired. The DCS stated that the water reticulation system had been problematic since the centre was built, and that the only lasting solution would be to replace it in its entirety. Though the area’s eight artisans tended to the centres’ needs, and no outside contractors were being used, temporary interventions remained costly. Members were also sensitised to the impact overcrowding had on infrastructure: the centre was built to house almost three times fewer offenders than currently incarcerated there. This placed enormous strain on the water supply and the plumbing system. The DCS confirmed that three planned maintenance projects had been undertaken in recent years, and that a fourth, aimed at upgrading the centres, was planned for November 2011.

 

4.2.2     The class- and staffrooms in the Durban Westville Youth Centre were wholly inadequate: the staffroom accommodates 25 but was designed for 18. There is no air-conditioning anywhere in the centre and water leaked in all areas. The centre reported that it was in the process of acquiring prefab structures that could be used as staffrooms. The air- conditioning and water leaks were apparently being attended to.

 

4.2.3     The Durban Westville Medium C centre’s visitation area is nothing more than a passage with benches and tables. It allows for absolutely no privacy as more than one family has to sit at a table. The waiting area offers no shelter in inclement weather.

 

4.3   Staff establishment

4.3.1     The Durban Management Area has an approved staff establishment of 2 704, 1 888 of

which are financed. At the time of the visit, only 1 709 were filled, and there were 179 vacancies.

 

4.3.2     The Medium A centre has a staff establishment of 600, but only 374 posts were filled at the time of the visit. The centre should have 21 unit managers, but at the time of the visit only 9 of these posts were filled.

 

4.3.3     The Youth Centre has 255 approved posts; 154 of the 163 financed posts, were filled.

 

4.3.4     At the Medium C centre the staff-to-inmate ratio was 5:396 at the time of the visit i.e. five officials had to manage mealtimes, escort the ill to the sick bay/hospital, to the social workers, and to programmes.

 

4.3.5     Officials emphasised that the transition from a prison culture intent only on imprisoning offenders, to one dedicated to rehabilitation and reinforcing human rights could not be made, if the DCS continued to operate on pre-1994 staffing levels. The Acting Regional Commissioner explained that, after the 2003 transformation of the system, the DCS had requested 46 000 funded posts, and received 41 500. To implement the White Paper on Corrections (White Paper) effectively, the DCS would need 60 000 posts, but at present operated on less than 40 000. The DCS is committed to increasing its funded posts from 41 500 to 46 000, but would have to improve its recruitment and retention. The recruitment and retention challenges were exacerbated by Resolutions 1 and 2 of 2007 which eradicated overtime, and ushered in the 7DE, which requires a 60 000 staff establishment. Ideally the DCS should employ 4 000 officials immediately, but unfortunately only three staff intakes of 1 000 each at entry level, are envisaged for 2011/12. The staffing woes are increased by the fact that, daily, 25% of officials are absent from work. The high absenteeism may be related to the pressure and risk the horrendous conditions exposed them to.

 

4.3.6     A work study conducted in 2003 found that for the management area to operate effectively on a five-day work week, it would need 2 704 officials. Given that only 1 709 of the 1 888 financed posts were filled, the implementation of the 7DE has stretched manpower to the absolute limit. The situation was beyond the area and the region’s control, however, as the implementation of the 7DE was a national directive.

 

4.3.7     At the time of the visit, nine officials were on suspension with pay, seven facing charges related to the use of excessive force, and one for insubordination. The Regional Commissioner was among those suspended.

 

4.4        Management

4.4.1     At the time of the visit, the Regional Commissioner was suspended, and the Deputy Regional Commissioner position was vacant. A considerable number of those in management positions in the area were new to those posts, and had only been appointed in the 12 months since the Committee’s August 2010 visit to the centre. The DCS’ Chief Deputy Commissioner for Corrections was acting as the regional commissioner, meaning that his own critical post was not getting focused attention. Four of the seven management areas were headed by Acting Area Commissioners.

 

4.4.2     Area Commissioners complained that, although they had more knowledge of what was happening at centre-level, and dealt with operational challenges on a daily basis, they were not included in planning sessions where strategies to be implemented at centre-level were discussed and agreed on. When these sometimes far-fetched ideas fail during implementation, however, centre-level managers are held responsible. The DCS’ top-down approach was problematic and seriously impeded service delivery. Some good ideas failed, not because they were impossible to implement, but because their implementation was so poorly planned.

 

 

 

4.5        Remuneration

4.5.1     Officials raised concerns about the discrepancy in the centre and non-centre-based salary packages. In addition, because Deputy Directors at centre-level earned less than those at regional and head office, it was difficult to fill centre-level Deputy-Director posts with adequately-experienced officials. If the DCS were in the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council (SSSBC), along with other Justice Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster departments, conditions of service would greatly improve, and the DCS would be able to offer competitive salaries.

 

4.6        Career development/Promotions

4.6.1     Officials, including those at management level, complained about the lack of career development within the DCS, which apparently had no promotions policy.

 

4.7        Resource constraints

4.7.1     In addition to its staffing shortages, the centres in the area also suffered acute shortages in other areas e.g. there were insufficient computers, resulting in officials having to queue to write reports, thus causing further case-flow blockages and delays in CSPB hearings, for instance. Despite the size of the inmate population in the Durban Westville management area, its budget is far less than those of the five centres in the country that received the biggest allocations.

 

4.8        Rehabilitation & spiritual care

4.8.1     The chaplain emphasised the importance of spiritual programmes in rehabilitation. Despite the important role they play, most chaplains operate without even administrative assistance. In addition, external spiritual care service providers are dependent on the availability of custodial staff to escort them when they visit centres. Given the acute shortages, custodial staff are often unavailable to do so, and thus such services/programmes are compromised.

 

4.9        Medical services

4.9.1     The regional health care co-ordinator reported that the shortage of nurses impacted negatively on medicine-distribution. The fact that the DCS only appoints professional nurses, and has no staff or auxiliary nurses, meant that some interventions and activities that could be performed by auxiliary nurses, were compromised. Ill inmates, who can be trusted with the responsibility, are given controlled doses of their medicines to keep with them in their cells.

 

4.10      Education

4.10.1   The Youth Centre caters for ABET levels 1-4 and Grades10-12, and, at the time of the visit, 263 children were enrolled. Although the centre co-operates with non-governmental organisations (NGO) to make further education possible for those who have matriculated, teachers at the school expressed frustration that no money was made available so that promising students could register for tertiary studies. One teacher interviewed had, up until recently, paid registration fees out of her own pocket, but could no longer afford to do so.

 

4.11      Training and Development

4.11.1   Those working in the centres’ workshops claim that their gratuities are not paid on time, or at all, and that the gratuity policy was not being adhered to. It was also claimed that the gratuities paid at the Durban-Westville centres were less than what was being paid at Leeuwkop, for instance.

 

4.12      Security

4.12.1   As on previous visits, the costly electronic security system, which had apparently been reactivated, was not fully functional. The actual value of the security contract remained unclear, particularly as deaths and assaults showed no sign of decline. The DCS explained that the Sondolo, the company who had been responsible for the operation of the system, was now responsible only for the maintenance of the security software.

 

4.13      Assaults

4.13.1   Inmates complained about the methods used by the emergency support team (EST) during searches: inmates were often assaulted, their possessions destroyed or scattered about, and sometimes searches were conducted in inmates’ absence. Some claimed that they were habitually given electric shocks during these searches. Many requested that the EST’s procedures be explained to them, so that they knew what was required of them during such searches. The Acting Regional Commissioner explained that searches are governed by specific procedures and that ESTs are only permitted to conduct such searches with the approval of HCCs. The use of shields and teargas is only permitted in riot situations, and can only be used with the HCC’s written approval.

 

4.14      Deaths

4.14.1   The area reported three unnatural deaths in the financial year: two at Waterfall and one at Ncome. The latter was reported as a suicide. Some excessive force was reported in the Waterfall incident and the matter is under investigation. Unnatural deaths are usually gang-related. Where excessive force is used, internal investigations are launched.

 

4.15      Mothers with Babies

4.15.1   The Female Centre’s hospital unit temporarily housed four mothers with their babies, while the mother and child unit was being renovated (this unit was not visited however and therefore, progress cannot be reported on). An early childhood development practitioner assisted in meeting the children’s developmental needs.

 

4.16      Correctional Supervision and Parole

4.16.1   The area had two CSPBs. The CSPB case backlog and high number of referrals for further profiling were attributed to challenges with establishing support systems for inmates, confirming monitorable addresses, delays in sentencing, and transgressions during incarceration, all of which impacted on eligibility for parole.

 

4.16.2   Many of the inmates in the Medium C centre were ill-unformed about or wholly unaware of the parole process and its requirements. Many have not even received a date for their parole hearings, despite their minimum periods being less than six months away.

 

4.17      Social Reintegration/Visitation

4.17.1   Subsequent to the visit the Committee was contacted by an inmate’s relatives who complained about how visits were managed. Inmates who worked were often busy with duties when their families visited. Further delays were caused by the lackadaisical approach of officials charged with managing the visits.

 

4.17.2   That the centre failed dismally at ensuring every effort is made to advance reintegration, was made clear by offenders’ complaints of their ill-preparedness for life outside of the correctional system. One, who would have been released a few days after the delegation’s visit, was visibly distressed and admitted that, because he had acquired no skills during his long incarceration, he would in all likelihood re-offend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.         MTHATHA CORRECTIONAL CENTRES: 3 AUGUST 2011

 

5.1        Population

5.1.1     The Mthatha Medium C Centre housed sentenced juveniles with further charges, high risk adult remand detainees, as well as some high profile sentenced adults who had requested to be isolated (these include former DCS and SAPS officials).

 

5.1.2     The Area Commissioner reported that virtually all the centres in the area were overcrowded. The Committee was therefore unconvinced that the reported management of the Mthata correctional centres’ overcrowding through the redistribution of inmates across the centres in the area, was an effective strategy.

 

5.1.3     An official confided that female child offenders en route to East London were often housed in the hospital’s ‘offices’ (ordinary cells converted to offices), which were bare and not suitable for use as cells.

 

5.2        Infrastructure

5.2.1     Electricity and water supply were major challenges for the Eastern Cape centres visited. Power and water shortages were frequent. At the time of the visit there was no hot water at the Mthatha centre, and it was reported that at times there was no water at all. Of the cells visited at the Mthatha Medium centre, those in Units 2 and 4 had no water and toilets could not be flushed. The DCS explained that the water shortage was related to wall and plumbing defects that had been reported, and were being addressed. The region’s maintenance manager explained that there was a standing order that all leakages should be attended to immediately. Where a centre’s budget to do so had been exhausted, HCCs could apply to the region, whereupon funds are usually made available immediately.

 

5.2.2     The delegation found that, although a contractor had been appointed to attend to the water leakages, the water reticulation system was so old that no amount of repair could permanently address the problems. The DPW confirmed that the centres’ water pipes were prone to bursting and that the contractor was unable to fix them permanently. A consultant had been appointed to assess the situation and that report was due on 12 August. The centre’s R100 000 day-to-day budget could not be used to maintain, repair or replace the water system.

 

5.2.3     Each of the Mthata centres had its own generator, but the generator in the Remand Centre did not cater to the entire centre’s needs during power outages. According to the municipality, the electricity challenge in the region had been referred to the President for intervention, and should be resolved “very soon”. All the Eastern Cape region’s generators have been registered nationally, and an official had been touring the region to assess them.

 

5.2.4     The Regional Commissioner explained that the water shortage, which affected a number of centres in the area, had been reported to the relevant offices. Part of the challenge was that the centre had no direct line to the reservoir but was dependent on the district municipality for its water supply. On the day of the visit, a pipe had also burst and this exacerbated the problem. It has been suggested that the possibility of digging boreholes be explored to permanently address the challenge. The Municipal Council representatives confirmed that water supply was a district responsibility, and that, provided the centre applied to do so, water tanks could be installed.

 

5.2.5     The visitation area is totally inadequate, with the visitors’ waiting area being nothing more than a corrugated iron structure providing virtually no shelter in inclement weather. Visits take place in the Mthatha Maximum CoE’s courtyard - during cold/rainy weather the centre’s limited indoor facilities are used.

 

5.2.6     Officials accompanying the delegation on the tour of the facilities complained that the leakages in Unit 4 had been there ever since the roof was ‘repaired’ by a DPW-appointed contractor. They were concerned about how maintenance-tenders were awarded, as often repairs are not up to standard, leading officials to believe that service providers were not equipped to handle the projects and that fronting, nepotism and favouritism corrupted the process. That only four contractors were attending to the entire region’s needs was a major cause for concern. The DPW explained that contractors were registered and screened by the Contractor Development Board. Projects greater than R500 000 were advertised in an open tender, while those below R500 000 were attended to by contractors identified from the DPW’s database. Risk assessments were done for bigger projects and regional offices submitted bids to the national office where necessary. The DPW emphasised that planned maintenance was its responsibility, while capital works was that of the DCS. Most of the work that needed to be done was of capital nature.

 

5.2.7          While the CSPB offices were fully furnished, computers were not linked to the centres’ server because of cabling challenges. This was apparently being addressed at national level.

 

5.2.8          The centre reported that its Admissions and Release system was not functioning owing to IT connection challenges. This was apparently being addressed at national level.

 

 

5.3      Staff Establishment

5.3.1          The area had 1 311 financed posts, 125 of which were vacant. Twelve of the Mthatha Medium C centre’s 315 financed positions, and eighteen of the Mthatha Remand Centre’s 286, were vacant.

 

5.3.2          The Mthatha CSPB served four correctional centres. The chair- and vice-chairpersons’

positions had been advertised and appointments would have been made by the end of August.

 

 

5.4        Conditions of incarceration

5.4.1     All inmates complained of the poor quality of the meals they received, which comprised mainly bread and watered-down coffee. They reported that they received insufficient protein, no fruit and no sugar. Inmates thought that if the centre moved from using coal and diesel for cooking to using electric pots, the quality of meals would improve as diesel and coal shortages would not result in the centre serving meals that require no cooking.

 

5.4.2     Inmates complained that they were ‘punished’ when they complained about treatment and conditions of incarceration. Some inmates had complained of being intimidated after speaking to the Committee. The Regional Commissioner assured the delegation that all inmates had his cellphone number and were encouraged to call him to report any such incidents. Most inmates had little faith in the ICCV to whom they were often denied access.

 

5.4.3     The high risk remand detainees complained of insufficient exercise time, being locked up in their cells for 23 hours a day, verbal abuse from the HCC, lack of water and restrictions placed on their movement after the March escape.

 

 

5.5        Medical services

5.5.1     The hospital can accommodate 33 patients and provides primary health care only. At the time of the visits, it was occupied by 12 sick and care-giver inmates. The 12 centres in the area were served by only one doctor, and nurses were always on standby. Each unit had its own nurse who attended to medical complaints and distributed medicine.

 

5.5.2          The centre reported that nurses attended to cases that did not need specialised attention, and referred those they could not attend to, to the centre’s doctor. Inmates however complained that often nurses did not refer matters, and refused them access to the doctor.

 

5.5.3          The centre did not have a pharmacy and stocked up on its ‘ward stock’ (ordinary over-the-counter painkillers etc.) once a month; scripts were filled as the need arose. One inmate claimed that he had been without his prescribed hypertension medicine for three months.

 

 

5.6        Education

5.6.1     Inmates attending classes complained that classrooms were cold and overcrowded, and that resources such as textbooks and stationery were inadequate. The centre also had a shortage of computers and skills training was virtually non-existent.

 

 

5.7        Inmate Training and Development

5.7.1     Inmates complained that they were denied work opportunities, and that they spent their days doing nothing.

 

 

5.8        Self-sufficiency

5.8.1     The centre has a vegetable garden, a piggery with 340 pigs, 41 cattle and an egg-layer project with 2 400 chickens, producing 4 400 eggs per day. Pork, eggs and beef were provided to centres in the surrounding area.

 

 

5.9        Vulnerable categories of offenders

5.9.1     Those prone to epileptic attacks, with disabilities, mentally ill and elderly inmates were accommodated in the centre’s hospital. The oldest inmate at the centre was 83 years old.

 

 

5.10      Security

5.10.1   Officials implicated in the 20 March 2011 escape were still on suspension. Officials’ versions of the above-mentioned escape appeared to differ, and some appeared afraid to speak about the incident. The Regional Commissioner’s version of events, and those recorded in the official reports, contradict what the Area Commissioner and HCC had reported.

 

 

5.11      Correctional Supervision and Parole

5.11.1   Most sentenced offenders were confused about the parole process, particularly about when they became eligible for parole consideration. The DCS has in the past claimed that a booklet explaining parole eligibility and the parole process was distributed to sentenced inmates upon admission - visits indicate that this was unlikely or, if it did take place, ineffective, as most inmates appeared totally uninformed of parole conditions, requirements, and process.

 

5.11.2   Inmates complained that CSPBs unfairly used the reference letter from tribal chiefs, which applied in some cases only, as a general prerequisite for parole.

 

 

5.12      Social Reintegration

5.12.1   All inmates lamented the impact a criminal record had on the ability to secure work, and gain acceptance in their communities upon their release.

 

 

5.13      Remand detention

5.13.1   Most of the unsentenced inmates visited were reliant on legal aid from LASA. Most only saw their legal representatives at court on the days they were supposed to appear before a judge/magistrate. Prior consultation is virtually non-existent. According to the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) representatives present, both the LASA and the NDPP were under-resourced, and very few private attorneys were willing to assist inmates who could not afford their services. This contributed to the backlog.

 

5.13.2      Some of the high risk remand detainees visited had been in remand for as long as six years. The NDPP representative explained that most of these detainees had been implicated in organised crime and cash-in-transit heists which were prevalent in the area. ‘Trials-within-trials’ were not uncommon and further delayed judgements. The seriousness of the crimes committed often made it impossible for courts to grant bail. The High Court has established a special court to deal only with organised crime cases. The region has an organised crime unit which had no commander at the time of the visit.

 

5.13.3      Backlog courts, run from lower courts, have been set up and cases older than two years are being prioritised. SAPS reported that while 95% of their cases were court-ready, magistrates often remanded cases indefinitely on request of prosecutors. Much of the backlog could be avoided if such requests were only granted where absolutely necessary.

 

5.13.4      At the time of the visit, the centre had 143 juvenile remand detainees, six of whom had been awaiting trial for more than two years, and approximately 40 had been granted bail but could not raise the monies which ranged between R200.00 and R1 000. The DSD representative explained that probationers and social workers could appeal to magistrates to reduce bail where juveniles or their families were unable to raise the money. However, this was not possible if addresses could not be verified, or where there was no one into whose care the inmates could be released. The JICS reported that it had identified about 30 such inmates during the visit, and had instructed its ICCVs to monitor and report on progress in having them released.

 

 

6.         ST ALBANS CORRECTIONAL CENTRE: 4 AUGUST 2011

 

6.1        Infrastructure

6.1.1     St Albans also experiences challenges with hot water, which the regional and area management explained were being addressed. On the day of the visit the urinals in some units had already been blocked for far beyond what was reasonable.

 

6.1.2          In the Medium A centre the floors in the dining area were covered in water, and outside the courtyard there was extensive water seepage. According to officials the seepage resulted from a pipe burst which was being attended to at the time of the visit.

 

6.1.3          According to the centres’ records, 12 locks had been requested as far back as 25 June 2011, but these had still not been provided. The Regional Commissioner was surprised that officials had not bought the locks using the day-to-day maintenance budget.

 

6.1.4          The centre was built in 1979, and it appeared as though very little preventative maintenance had been done since that time. The DPW confirmed that preventative maintenance had in the past been done through RAMP projects but that these projects were expensive, and that, going forward, they would be done through fixed-term contracts.

 

 

6.2        Staff Establishment

6.2.1     Officials raised concern that the transfer of inmates from the Port Elizabeth Correctional Centre, which is being renovated, to St Albans would place enormous strain on the latter’s already overextended officials. Officials had been led to believe that the transfer of inmates would be accompanied by the simultaneous transfer of additional staff. This has not been the case.

 

6.2.2     The St Albans CSPB, like Mthatha’s, had critical vacancies which would have been filled by the end of August.

 

6.2.3     Officials lamented the negative impact the 7DE has had on their working conditions. They argued that the overtime system should be reinstated, as they would then at least be compensated for additional hours worked.

 

6.3        Occupational Specific Dispensation

6.3.1     According to officials at the St Albans centre, the DCS has, since the decision to implement the second phase of the occupational specific dispensation, declared a dispute, and thus regrading has been put on hold.

 

 

6.4        Career development/promotions

6.4.1     Officials were visibly frustrated by the fact that the DCS apparently had no promotions policy and that career development was therefore non-existent. Experience, qualifications and service years were not recognised, and favouritism and nepotism were widespread, particularly in relation to performance assessments.

 

6.4.2     Officials also alleged that non-Xhosa-speaking officials and those from outside the ` Eastern Cape region were deliberately marginalised.

 

 

6.5        Conditions of service & remuneration

6.5.1     Officials were perturbed that despite an undertaking from the Ministry in 2009 to initiate negotiations around the DCS moving from the PSCBC to the SSSBC, no progress has been reported. Should DCS officials be included among the other security cluster departments in the SSSBC, conditions of service, salaries and benefits would greatly improve.

 

 

6.6        Conditions of Incarceration

6.6.1     The sentenced juveniles complained that the toiletries and clothes they sporadically received were insufficient: they were only given one set of clothes, and toiletries were provided when the centre felt like it and not as needed.

 

6.6.2     Inmates complained that they only had telephone-access at weekends, meaning that they are not be able to lodge complaints with Parliament during office hours

 

 

6.7      Education services

6.7.1     The sentenced juveniles complained that they were barred from attending classes, and that warders often did not unlock their cells and purposefully kept them from attending school.

 

 

6.8         Inmate Training and Development

6.8.1          Inmates working in the centres’ workshops (particularly the steel and woodwork factories) complained that they worked for years on end without receiving any accreditation which could assist them upon release. Furthermore, inmates were unclear about the privileges and gratuities they were entitled to.

 

6.8.2     The centres cabinet-making workshop could accommodate 100 inmates daily, but lack of resources, particularly artisans, has reduced that total to about 30 to 40 per day.

 

 

6.9        Security

6.9.1     Officials recommended that the process for the reclassification of maximum offenders be reviewed because, at present, the system allowed maximum inmates to be reclassified after having served only a short period of their sometimes very long sentences. This meant that both officials working in medium centres, and medium offenders, are exposed to considerable risk when dangerous offenders are prematurely transferred to medium- security centres.

6.10      Assaults

6.10.1   The delegation was appalled to learn that maximum-security sentenced juveniles were accommodated with maximum adults in the same block. Though officials explained that they did not share exercise time, and therefore did not really come into contact with one another, the situation was unacceptable. Juveniles interviewed maintained that sporadic incidents did occur. In one such incident a juvenile had reportedly witnessed his brother being beaten to death.

 

6.10.2      The maximum sentenced juveniles claim that assaults by members of staff are widespread, but that these attacks go uninvestigated and that no one is held to account. They are afraid of warders.

 

6.10.3      Officials pleaded with the Committee to show more understanding of the conditions under which they had to work, and that Parliament should be tempered in its condemnation of officials when they received allegations of excessive force having been used. Such incidents should be investigated before public pronouncements accusing officials of violating inmates’ rights are made.

 

 

6.11      Deaths

6.11.1   St Albans reported two unnatural deaths – one of which was a suicide. Interaction with inmates raised suspicions that the unnatural deaths might well be more than what was reported by the management: many inmates allegedly succumb to injuries sustained through assaults by officials, and it may be practice to report these as natural deaths.

 

6.12      Remand detention

6.12.1   The SAPS cautioned that, in the Eastern Cape region, mob justice was increasing. Communities believe justice to be prevailing when accused are in remand. When they are released on bail, Port Elizabeth communities, in particular, have opted to take the law into their own hands. Civil claims may soon be instituted in cases where accused commit further crimes while released on bail. Concerns were raised that the fact that SAPS’ performance was measured against the number of arrests they made, was contributing to the DCS’ overcrowding.

 

6.12.2   Chief Magistrate Nobumba explained that magistrates were sensitised to the fact that their independence should not interfere with their service delivery and their judicial responsibility. Members were assured of his, and other judicial officers’, good intentions to visit correctional centres in the region. Such visits have been discussed with the relevant correctional centres, but, because the DCS has not been able to guarantee such a delegation’s safety, no such visits have taken place.

 

6.12.3   The Committee noted that most awaiting-trial detainees could not afford private legal

representatives and were dependent on LASA for support. Most complained that their LASA lawyers seldom, if ever, consulted with them, and that, more often than not, they saw them for the first time on the day of the court hearings. Often cases are postponed, because legal representatives are unavailable

 

 

7.         VISIT TO THE DCS HEAD OFFICE IN PRETORIA – 12 AUGUST 2011

 

7.1        Infrastructure

7.1.1     The DCS has been renting the building housing its head quarters in Pretoria for the past several years. The rental agreement is not long term but signed from month to month, and amounts to about R2 million per month. The visit revealed that the building was dilapidated, making the continued rental even more unacceptable. The DCS is in the process of acquiring more appropriate premises.

 

7.2.       Allegations

7.2.1     The Committee received a series of serious allegations from an official working at Head Quarters, who requested to remain anonymous for fear of victimisation. The allegations were levelled against most senior leadership and included allegations of misuse of state funds, nepotism and sexual harassment. The detail of the allegations was referred to the National Commissioner. A response is yet to be received.

 

 

PART 3:            RECOMMENDATIONS

1.         Inmate population

1.1        Where the inmate population is allowed to balloon out of control, it has dire consequences for the conditions of incarceration, working conditions for officials, centre-level security and the DCS’ already stretched human and financial resources. While the DCS has no control over how many inmates are sentenced to incarceration, it should be at the forefront of any interventions aimed at keeping the inmate population at levels that are as low as possible.

 

1.2        At the Kroonstad Female, Durban Westville and St Albans correctional centres the Committee observed that, for various reasons, the effective separation of different categories of offenders was impossible. Like male and female inmates, juvenile and adult;  maximum and medium security; and sentenced and unsentenced inmates should never be allowed to mix. Every effort should be made to ensure that all children are diverted to community corrections or places of safety. Furthermore, all inmates should be assessed for increased vulnerability and should then be accommodated in centres and units where there is no risk to their safety.

 

2.         Infrastructure

2.1        The DCS’ persistent complaints about maintenance, but failure to ensure that effective action is taken to address the matter , points to a lack of commitment and poor planning. Most of the challenges identified were historical and, with sufficient will, could have been addressed. Despite the severe challenges, the DCS still has no internal maintenance plan and the DPW-DCS service level agreement still has not been concluded. The DCS should present detailed strategies containing budgetary requirements, timeframes and maintenance plans for addressing the challenges identified at the Mthatha, St Albans and Durban Westville correctional centres by 30 November 2011. A delegation will visit all three centres early in 2012 to track progress made in addressing the maintenance challenges identified above. Similar plans for all correctional centres should be presented to the Committee by the end of February 2012.

 

2.2        The Committee notes the DCS’ assertion that the artisan-shortage impacts on centres’ ability to attend to minor maintenance needs. The DCS has for a long time been unable to appoint artisans and should by now have been able to develop strategies for tending to maintenance issues, before they spiral out of control. Inmate-labour should increasingly be used to address minor maintenance challenges.

 

2.3        The Eastern Cape region’s challenges with water are a cause for grave concern and should be addressed as a matter of urgency. The DCS and the DPW should submit a detailed plan for the addressing of the areas’ water reticulation challenges by the end of November 2011. The plan should contain realistic timeframes and should clearly outline areas of responsibility

 

2.4        The serious challenges with regard to the awarding and monitoring of maintenance

contracts are noted with concern. The National Commissioner’s assurance that the Chief

Financial Officer (CFO) will, in future, authorise all major maintenance projects, so as to ensure that they met all statutory and supply chain management requirements, is welcomed, and progress in this regard will be closely monitored. The DCS should provide the detail of contracts awarded for all major Kwazulu Natal maintenance projects, as well as for those awarded in the Mthatha and St Albans areas, by 30 November 2011.

 

2.5        The DCS should ideally purchase property, but, if this is not possible in the immediate future, the Committee recommends that the processes to relocate its Head Quarters to more appropriate and less expensive premises be fast-tracked.

 

3.         Seven-Day Establishment

3.1        While the Committee whole-heartedly supports the phasing out of overtime and the DCS’ migration to a 7DE, it must express its dissatisfaction at the manner in which this process has been managed. As stated in its August 2010 oversight report, the Committee remains convinced that the apparent universal implementation of a 2x12 shift system is short-sighted and ill-advised. Staff have consistently raised concerns about compromised security and the impact staff shortages had on, amongst others, case flow management, but these appear to be ignored by senior management.

 

3.2        In May 2010 the Committee had recommended that the DCS should, as a matter of urgency, perform an audit of each centre’s staffing requirements, so as to ensure that the shift system used at each centre is specific to that centre’s needs i.e. ensures maximum security of both inmates and staff and does not compromise service delivery. The outcome of this exercise and remedial action taken were to have been submitted to the Committee by 31 March 2011. Eighteen months later, concerns about the shift system remain, and it is not clear whether an audit has been done. The DCS should provide the Committee with a detailed plan for how it intends to successfully implement the 7DE without compromising security and over-extending its human resources, as well as what the ideal inmate to warder ratio, per centre, is. If, given the DCS’ staff shortages and challenges in terms of recruitment, the shift system is found to not be implementable; the Committee should be presented with viable alternatives. This information should be submitted by 30 January 2012.

 

4.         Health care

4.1        At all centres visited nursing staff appeared to be bitterly over-extended. The DCS only appoints professional nurses. As those working for the DCS earn much less than those in the employ of the Department of Heath, the DCS experiences major challenges in recruiting and retaining professional nurses. Many of the duties performed by nurses in DCS facilities are usually performed by auxiliary nurses in hospitals, and, therefore, the DCS should consider appointing auxiliary nurses too, as they might be easier to attract and retain. The DCS should present the Committee with a report containing the reasons why it only appoints professional nurses, and whether it would be possible to, in future, appoint auxiliary nurses too. This report should be submitted by 30 November 2011.

 

5.         Inmate Development and Training

5.1        The Committee recognises the work done by artisans and inmates in the many correctional centre workshops across the country. It also notes that, owing to the DCS’ artisan-shortage, many of the factories and workshops are under-utilised. The DCS should provide the Committee with a nationwide breakdown of its artisan vacancies, the vacancies’ impact on workshop productivity and opportunities for inmates to participate in work programmes, a detailed analysis of challenges faced in recruiting artisans, and strategies for mitigating these. This information should be provided by 30 November 2011.

 

 

6.         Quality of reporting to Parliament

6.1        The Committee and the JICS are two of the oversight bodies that ought to have relative easy access to all correctional centres, and any information they might need to adequately perform their roles. The Committee’s experience, however, is that it is near impossible to access accurate, reliable information that can withstand rigorous interrogation. The quality of the DCS’ reporting raises serious concerns about the transparency with which it conducts its business. The Committee’s concerns demand immediate attention, and remedies should be reflected in the DCS’ turnaround strategy

 

 

7.         Training of officials

7.1        A correctional centre is, by necessity, a heavily regulated and controlled institution. All inmates’ activities and interactions with the outside world, and with one another, are governed by the rules, regulations and policies of the correctional system. Where this system is not particularly transparent, inmates are totally at the mercy of the officials charged with their care.

 

7.2        The Committee receives numerous complaints and allegations of assaults, victimisation

and ill-treatment of offenders by officials. The numerous allegations of violence, assault, lack of medical care, lack of access to education and training opportunities, exploitation in workshops, etc. starkly illustrate just how vulnerable the entire inmate population becomes when officials are not vetted, adequately assessed and prepared to ensure their suitability to work in the correctional environment.

 

7.3        The White Paper talks extensively about what constitutes an ideal correctional official. Persistent allegations of official-collusion in escapes and other breaches, vicious assaults on inmates, absenteeism and corruption emphasise the need for intensified training around the role and conduct of the correctional official. Retraining of old staff, and the training of new recruits, should therefore be prioritised, and be aimed at instilling in officials ”an attitude of serving with excellence, a principled way of relating to others, and, above all, a just and caring attitude” (Paragraph 8.2.3).

 

7.4        The Committee notes the reasons provided for the delay in the enrolment of trainees. Such delays should however be avoided in future, and the DCS should ensure that the vetting of potential trainees is concluded well before the next training period is due to commence.

 

 

8.         Correctional Supervision and Parole

8.1        Most sentenced offenders were confused about the parole process, particularly about when they would become eligible for parole consideration. The confusion around who is eligible for consideration after having served a third, and who after having served half, of their sentence caused unnecessary frustration among inmates. The fact that CSPBs appear to be as confused, and therefore implement different ‘policies’, contributes to the frustration and dissatisfaction. The DCS should ensure that all CMCs and CSPBs are instructed to adhere to the relevant legislative provisions governing parole.

 

8.2        All sentenced offenders are provided with a booklet explaining the parole process upon admission. To the Committee’s knowledge, the booklet is available only in English. Given that so few inmates appear to understand the process, the Committee recommends that the booklet be simplified, and that each inmate is provided with the information relevant to the provisions in terms of which he or she was sentenced, only. The information should be provided in a language offenders understand. Those charged with admitting offenders should ensure that the process is explained to those who are illiterate.

 

8.3        The long delays in the filling of CSPB vacancies are unacceptable, not only because it is indicative of poor planning, but because, when CSPBs are unable to sit and consider matters, offenders are denied parole through no fault of their own. The filling of CSBP vacancies with appropriately-qualified and experienced members should be completed as a matter of urgency, so as to ensure that offenders are not unduly disadvantaged.

 

8.4        The Committee believes that those unwilling to participate in education, training and work programmes should not qualify for parole. Those willing to work, and willing to attend school or training programmes, should however not be penalised for the DCS’ inability to provide such opportunities. Furthermore, inmates should not be denied parole because the DCS is failing to manage its case flow, fails to provide the necessary rehabilitation and social work programmes, or fails to ensure victim participation. The DCS has a responsibility to ensure that all inmates are aware of parole requirements, and the parole process, and must play its role in ensuring that offenders have opportunity to meet these requirements.

 

 

9.         Establishment of case management committees

9.1        CMCs play a critical role in ensuring that inmates are adequately prepared for their parole hearings. Currently the CMC-to-inmate ratio is 1: 960, with each CMC comprising a chairperson, four clerks and one secretary. According to information provided by the national office, only the Eastern Cape, Western Cape, Free State/Northern Cape regions had CMC structures, while the remaining three regions improvised by using custodial staff to perform CMC duties. The information further indicates that, of the 1 275 funded CMC posts, only 1 132 had been filled by 31 July 2011. The Committee strongly recommends that the CMC structure be reviewed, so as to ensure that CMC distribution matches the distribution of the inmate population, and that those appointed are adequately trained and experienced to execute their duties.

 

 

10.        Children in conflict with the law

10.1      Children should be diverted or, where there is no other option, detained in secure-care centres designed especially to cater to their specific rehabilitation and development needs. While the Committee accepts that children should not be incarcerated and that the provision of programmes and education to them is not the DCS’ responsibility, the fact that they are in its care, requires the DCS to partner with departments that share the responsibility for caring for delinquent children, so as to ensure that their needs are met, and to mitigate the effects of incarceration. The Child Justice legislation should result in greater co-ordination of efforts to ensure better care for children in conflict with the law.

 

10.2      Although children should ideally not be incarcerated in correctional centres, where there is no other option but to do so, all children under the age of 18, and juveniles between the ages of 18 and 24, must, in terms of the law, be accommodated separately from one another, and separately from the adult population. This appears to be applied inconsistently and is a matter of extreme concern, as it poses a threat to the safety of both child- and juvenile offenders. The JCPS cluster should take joint responsibility for ensuring that ages are verified, and the DCS must ensure that child, juvenile and adult offenders are accommodated separately. The DCS should submit a comprehensive report profiling the children incarcerated in correctional centres as at 31 October 2011, detailing the external support children were getting from their families and the DSD, as well as the interventions the DSD and DCS have made to assist them. The report should be submitted by 30 November 2011.

 

 

11.        Gender-appropriate deployment

11.1      There is growing concern about the appropriateness of deploying female staff to centres housing male offenders, and male officials to those housing female offenders. The DCS has in recent years reported a number of incidents, not only of inappropriate sexual relationships between officials and inmates, but also of assaults on female staff by male offenders. The DCS should review its deployment of centre-based-officials and seek appropriate solutions to the above-mentioned challenge that do not reverse strides made towards gender equity..

 

 

12.        Rehabilitation and Development

12.1      As stated in previous reports, the Committee cannot deny the impact socio-economic conditions, such as poverty, unemployment and inaccessible basic services, have on communities and a person’s propensity to commit crime. Rehabilitation and development programmes in correctional centres are aimed at correcting offending behaviour and equipping inmates to, when faced with the same conditions that had led to their initial offending behaviour, make better choices. It is not clear how this objective will be reached, given the DCS’ severe shortage of key rehabilitation staff i.e. social workers, psychologists, educators and artisans to run vocational workshops. The continued small budget allocations to the rehabilitation, care and development, and reintegration programmes further jeopardise successful roll out of rehabilitation and development programmes.The DCS should ensure that its budgetary and human resource-challenges notwithstanding, the correcting of offending behaviour is not compromised. Where necessary, partnerships with stakeholders such as non-governmental organisations should be explored.

 

 

13.        Security

13.1      The Committee, in May 2010, recommended that serious consideration be given to the use of surveillance cameras in cells, and reiterates that recommendation here. While the right to privacy should be respected, the current situation in the vast majority of correctional centres poses a real threat to inmates’ safety and security. As the DCS’ core responsibility is the safe and secure detention of those in its care, inmates’ safety and security should be of paramount importance. The numerous sexual and physical assaults, deaths and acts of gang violence remain matters of grave concern.

 

13.2      The Committee is most concerned about the complaints that the system used for reclassifying offenders is open to manipulation by offenders, and that serious offenders who ought to remain classified as maximum security can therefore easily and inappropriately be reclassified as medium security. Transferring dangerous offenders to medium centres to complete their sentences exposes both offenders and officials to serious danger, and compromises security. The Committee recommends that the reclassification tool be reviewed.

 

13.3      The DCS should provide the Committee with a report on the investigation into the March 2011 escape from Mthatha correctional centre, and the reasons for the delay in the finalisation of the matter.

 

 

14         Mentally ill inmates

14.1      The DCS claims that all inmates are assessed for vulnerability upon admission, and are housed separately from the general population. However, at both the Boksburg and Durban Westville correctional centres, the delegation came across inmates who were visibly mentally unwell, but were accommodated among the general population. The Committee remains resolute that no mentally ill persons should be incarcerated, and that, therefore, the DCS should make every effort to ensure that they are diverted to mental health institutions. Where their accommodation in correctional centres cannot be avoided at all, their separation from the rest of the population is non-negotiable. The DCS should submit a comprehensive report profiling the number of mentally ill inmates in their centres as at 31 October 2011, detailing the external support they are getting from their families, the DSD and the Department of Health (DOH), as well as the interventions the three departments have made to have such persons accommodated elsewhere. The report should be submitted by 30 November 2011.

 

 

PART 4:            ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Committee expresses its appreciation to the regional management of the DCS’ Free State/Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Gauteng and Kwazulu Natal regions, and especially the management and staff at the centres visited, for their co-operation.

 

Report to be considered.