ATC130207: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on Oversight visits to Correctional Centres in the Gauteng, Northern Cape, and Kwazulu Natal Provinces dated 21 November 2012
Correctional Services
REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ON OVERSIGHT VISITS TO CORRECTIONAL CENTRES IN THE
GAUTENG,
INTRODUCTION
1.
A delegation of the Portfolio Committee
on Correctional Services (the Committee) visited the Ncome, Baviaanspoort,
2.
This report comprises observations made
during each of the visits (Parts A-E) as well as the Committees recommendations
(Part F). In some instances, most notably in relation to the Ncome correctional
centre, information received subsequent to the visits have been included.
3.
The visits comprised orientation
briefings by the area management, a tour of the facilities, interactions with
sentenced and unsentenced inmates, warders, independent correctional centre
visitors (ICCV) and Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB)
chairpersons, and, finally, debriefing sessions.
4
Numerous allegations of, for example,
misconduct, abuse of power and corruption were levelled against the management
of, and officials at, the centres visited. Some of these have been captured in
the report, but have not been tested. The matters raised will be revisited once
the DCS has had an opportunity to investigate and report on them.
5.
Given the recurring nature of the
challenges faced by
PART A:
NCOME CORRECTIONAL CENTRE
The Ncome management area comprises the Ncome Maximum (Medium A) and
Medium B, Nkandla, Melmoth, Nongoma and Vryheid correctional centres.
1.
ADMINISTRATION
1.1
Management
Points 1.1.1 to 1.1.9 below are
observations relating to the Ncome management areas management crisis
specifically.
1.1.1
Although the Committee had become aware of
some of the challenges experienced at the centre through correspondence,
requests for assistance from inmates and officials alike, and through the Jali
Commission of Enquiry report which addressed the challenges of the Ncome management
area extensively, the delegation was unprepared for the extent of the breakdown
in the relationship between regional, area and centre management, and
centre-level personnel. At the time of the visit, it was unclear whether the
challenges experienced had been brought to the National Commissioners
attention, and if so what action had been taken nationally to remedy the
situation.
1.1.2
Not only were personnel and managers
divided, but there was also a rift among managers, and a rift among centre-level
officials. The relationship had deteriorated to the point where communication
between warders and managers, and managers themselves had completely broken
down.
1.1.3
Though the heads of the two correctional
centres reported regular monthly meetings with personnel, and morning briefing
sessions, the delegations interaction with warders made clear that these
either did not happen, or if indeed they did, the interactions made no
contribution to improving the severely strained relationship.
1.1.4
Warders referred to, and regional managers
confirmed, that a group of DCS officials, known as the Group of Fifteen,
effectively ran the centre through victimisation and intimidation of both
warders and managers. It was alleged that sensitive and confidential
information was leaked by a group of managers loyal to this group which was
believed to be the source of instability, and the erosion of managerial control
at the Ncome correctional centre.
1.1.5
The Regional Commissioner attempted to
provide a context for the breakdown in communication, and consequently the
operation of the Ncome correctional centre. After the 1994 transition, Ncome
had experienced many challenges, mainly related to the activities of the then
newly-established Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU). A group of warders,
although members of the newly formed union, acted against union-decisions, and
sided with the management when it suited them to do so. This resulted in
strained working relationships, and a breakdown of trust.
1.1.6
While there had been a period of reasonable
stability in the period between 2005 and 2009, matters again deteriorated after
the appointment of a new area commissioner in that year. Infighting among
managers, some using the union to fight their battles, became the norm. Warders
exploited this rift, and became unmanageable. The occupational specific
dispensation (OSD) - and seven day establishment (7DE)-negotiations were
politicised, deepening the rift. When the relationship building through
objectives (RBO) process commenced, the Ncome warders chose not to participate,
and therefore the relationship remained strained.
1.1.7
The Regional Commissioner appealed to the
Committee for assistance in restoring order at the centre. He had been on the
verge of calling for the closure of the centre, but as a last resort, deployed
temporary managers from outside the area in the hope that order would be restored.
This had not happened, and none of the other interventions employed since 2010
have borne fruit, mainly because officials actively resisted them. The task
team appointed to report on the situation did not receive the necessary
co-operation. The culture of intimidation, ill-discipline, and corruption
outlined above had to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Efforts employed
shortly before the visit, included the, appointment of a new area commissioner
which at the time of the visit was still pending, and the redeployment of
warders and managers in the entire region.
1.1.8
In communication received from the National
Commissioner in July 2012, the Committee was informed that the Department of
Correctional Services (DCS) chief operating officer (COO) would have visited
the centre in late July 2012, to assess the situation, and start the process of
developing an intervention strategy. In a briefing made on 12 September 2012,
it was confirmed that a number of interventions were underway. These centred on
the redeployment of those officials deemed responsible for the breakdown discipline
and order at the centre, the appointment of competent managers, and the
addressing of the challenges presented by disruptive officials through interventions
by both organised labour, and regional management structures. Disciplinary
action would be taken against the approximately thirty junior officials the Regional
Commissioner had indicated were responsible for the disorder, as well as against
the managers who colluded with them.
1.1.9
The DCS demilitarisation in 1996 was aimed
at transforming the department from an Apartheid-era institution geared towards
warehousing inmates, to one that placed rehabilitation and reintegration at
its centre. During the visit, some had alluded to the role this
demilitarisation had played in the breakdown of discipline in many centres,
including the Ncome correctional centre.
1.2
Corporate
Services
1.2.1
At the time of the visit the area had an
approved post establishment of 916 posts, 687 of
which were
financed. Of the financed posts, only 653 were filled at the time of the visit.
The area management registered its concern that despite its severe personnel
shortage, its financed vacancies had been reduced.
1.2.2
The area employed thirteen professional
nurses, seven educators, and three social workers. While no educator-vacancies
existed, only about half of the approved nursing and social worker posts, and
none of the three psychologists posts were filled at the time of the visit.
1.2.3
The Medium A centre had a
total of 166 employees which included 125 security and nine
specialist
personnel. The centre reported a shortage of medical professionals and social
workers, and vacancies in case management, corrections and development. The
Medium B centre had a total of 196 employees which included 150 security personnel,
31 support personnel and only three specialist personnel.
1.2.4
A court ruling in favour of warders who had
taken the DCS to court, had compelled the
area management to
use a 2x12 shift pattern shift system which the regional management reported
did not suit the centres needs.
1.2.5
While the area exceeded its target for the
employment of African males by almost 100, it under-achieved in its targets for
the employment of all other categories i.e. Coloured, Indian and White males,
females across all categories, and disabled persons.
1.2.6
As during visits to other correctional
centres, warders lamented the lack of career development within the DCS which
apparently did not have a promotion policy. The lack of progress made in this
regard very clearly frustrated and de-motivated officials, and further strained
the relationship between centre-level personnel and management. The National
Commissioner acknowledged the lack of promotion policy, but other than stating
that managers had to respond to this concern, offered no indication of how the
DCS would attempt to remedy the situation. He did comment however that senior
management would think about how the matter could be resolved.
1.2.7
During oversight visits conducted in July
2011 officials reported that the DCS had since the decision to implement the
second phase of the occupational specific dispensation (OSD), declared a
dispute, and thus re-grading had had to be suspended pending the outcome..
According to warders, the situation remains the same. The regional management
indicated that progress has been made, and that negotiations were in the
process of being concluded. It was noted with concern that labour unions
appeared to be helpless in the face of the DCS refusal to implement bargaining
chamber resolutions. Representatives appeared to have failed in their duty to
represent officials needs.
1.2.8
The Committee had heard a number of
submissions from warders who claimed that they have been unfairly treated by centre
and/or area management, and appeared to have had no support from their labour unions.
In one such case, a nurse had contracted multi-drug resistant tuberculosis from
inmates in her care in 2006, and was on sick leave for nine months. Despite the
fact that she had become infected on duty, the DCS had not compensated her.
1.2.9
The area suffered a severe shortage of IT
equipment such as computers and printers, and experienced major challenges with
its network. The dysfunctional computer system created backlogs that were so
severe that in some cases inmates finished their sentences before even having
been officially admitted.
2.
INCARCERATION
2.1
Maintenance
2.1.1
The delegation observed a number of serious
waterleaks in the B-unit of the Maximum centre which had apparently gone
unattended for a number of months. Cell A2 in the Medium B centre housed a
large number of inmates, and at the time of the visit had a massive waterleak. Both
centres reported that a repair and maintenance programme (RAMP) project for
building, civil works and wet services was in progress and would address all
the identified maintenance challenges.
2.2
Security
2.2.1
The Maximum centre reported that its
electronic security and access control system did not function at all. When
reported to Head Office, technicians had apparently indicated that as the
software was damaged, the equipment would have to be replaced. The Medium B
centre, in the questionnaire completed before for the visit, indicated that it
did not have an electronic security and access control system.
2.2.2
In terms of the Correctional Services Act
(Act 111 of 1998) heads of correctional centres were required to report all
incidents in which force or constraints were used, deaths and segregations, to
the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS). Neither of the two heads
of correctional centres indicated, in the questionnaire completed prior to the
visit, measures put in place to ensure that this legislative requirement was
met, or how compliance in this regard was measured.
2.2.3
Visibly terrified inmates in Unit B
reported that they were assaulted by officials almost on a daily basis, and
that in 2011 at least six inmates had died as a result of these assaults. It
was reported that after an official was charged and convicted of assault in
2010 the situation had marginally improved, but that the situation had
deteriorated again after 2011. Inmates transferred from the
2.2.4
Allegations that the emergency security
teams (EST) were being misused were refuted. According to the area management,
the EST had in December been called upon to perform custodial duties, because
every single official on duty had reported sick. Records showing exactly when
and why the EST was used were available. After the Committees visit, allegations
had been received that the EST had on the day after the visit, assaulted
inmates and confiscated certain items. The Regional Commissioner refuted these,
and assured the Committee that the EST had acted on instructions which followed
the discovery of unauthorised items in a number of cells on the day of the
visit. The search was done in accordance with the regulations.
2.3
Remand
Detention
2.3.1
The Medium centre was declared a mixed
facility and therefore housed both sentenced inmates, and remand detainees. At
the time of the visit the centre which was designed to accommodate sentenced
offenders only, accommodated 213 remand detainees too. In the unit visited,
remand detainees and sentenced offenders were housed on separate sides of the
same courtyard. Centre management assured the Committee that as exercise and
meal times were not shared, the detainees and offenders were kept separate as
per the requirements of section 7 of the Correctional Services Act.
2.3.2
Centre management emphasised the negative
impact the implementation of the provisions of the Correctional Matters
Amendment Act (Act No 5 of 2011) has had on population management. In terms of
this legislation remand detainees could not be held in police custody for
longer than seven days, and after that period had to be remanded in the care of
the correctional centre nearest the court in which they were to appear. The
centre was forced to accommodate all those from the 22 police stations in the
area. As it was never supposed to accommodate remand detainees, the medium A
centre had no court officials to assist with bail applications, but warders would
be trained to assist in this regard.
2.3.3
Slow court processes, and unaffordable bail
further contributed to the high number of remand detainees. At the time of the
visit 22 of the 213 remand detainees had bail set at R1 000 or less; half of
these detainees had bail of R500 only. Of the detainees interviewed two had already
spent up to 20 months in remand, and a further two had already spent between
three and four years. It was explained that most detainees faced schedule 6
charges, and therefore could not be released on bail.
2.4
Offender
management
2.4.1
At the time of the visit the Maximum centre
which could accommodate 480 inmates, was 205% overcrowded and accommodated 213
remand detainees and 771 sentenced offenders. The Medium B centre could
accommodate 753, but at the time of the visit accommodated 1 122 sentenced
inmates and was therefore 149% overcrowded. In the B Unit of the Maximum
centre, isolation cells were used as normal accommodation when not occupied by
those who needed to be isolated.
2.4.2
As indicated above, the Maximum centre
reported severe overcrowding, in part owing to its accommodation of remand
detainees. The ongoing renovation of cells, further reduced space. The centre
suffered a shortage of beds.
2.4.3
At the Medium B centre cells accommodated
approximately 40 offenders. The centre accommodated inmates serving sentences
ranging from 24 months to life (the lifers housed here have been reclassified
to medium risk).
2.4.4
It was envisioned that the special remission
of sentence would assist in reducing the inmate population. As at 1 June 2012,
593 offenders in the area had been released as a result of the special
remissions process.
2.4.5
The overcrowding across
all centres impacted on inmates access to ablution facilities, hot water,
toilets, and other services that impacted in their conditions of incarceration.
3.
REHABILITATION
3.1
Offender
Development
3.1.1
The Maximum centre reported that in the 12
months preceding the visit approximately 354 offenders had benefited from
various educational and vocational programmes. According to the survey
completed by the head of the Medium B centre
however no such services were provided to
inmates at that centre during the same period.
3.1.2
The Maximum centre had training and school
facilities, but could not accept the Department of Basic Educations (DBE)
offer of 15 educators, owing to the shortage of security personnel to escort
them as they went about their activities at the centre. The centre only had
four educators. The Medium B centre had two DCS-employed educators, and 15
educators remunerated by the DBE. Although the centre had sufficient educators,
they were often unable to teach owing to the centres security personnel shortage.
On the day of the visit for instance, no classes could take place for precisely
this reason. Concern was raised that although the offenders at the two centres would
be sitting for the same examination, they had unequal opportunity to prepare.
3.1.3
Concern was raised that though the DCS
Head Office had undertaken to make provision for short courses, this
undertaking had not been delivered on; no reasons for this failure had been
provided.
3.1.4
Inmates at the Medium B centre complained
of a lack of education and training programmes; where such programmes were
provided there was an acute lack of study material.
3.2
Correctional
Programmes
3.2.1
Section 38 (1A)(a) of the Correctional
Services Act required that the case management committee must as soon as
possible after a newly admitted offenders assessment, compile a correctional
sentence plan for those sentenced to more than 24 months in incarceration. Of
all such offenders incarcerated at both centres, only 1 330 had sentence plans.
3.2.2
According to the survey completed by the heads
of the correctional centres, only approximately 194 at the Maximum centre, and
120 at the Medium centre, had taken part in rehabilitation programmes in the 12
months preceding the visit.
3.3
Psychological,
Social and Spiritual Services
3.3.1
Though the centres did not have their own
psychologists, the centre managers indicated that inmates had access to such
services via the local public hospital.
4.
SOCIAL
REINTEGRATION
4.1
Parole
Administration
4.1.1
The Ncome management area had one fully
functional CSPB which served the six correctional centres, and reported no
backlogs.
4.1.2
The area had three case management
committees and three ad hoc committees that sat as the need arose, and reported
no backlogs. The Maximum centre reported one case management committee chairperson-vacancy,
and one case management supervisor-vacancy.
5
CARE
5.1
Health
Services
5.1.1
In the 2011/12 financial year 774 offenders
were tested for HIV/Aids. The Ncome centres were accredited anti-retroviral
(ARV) treatment sites, and 395 inmates were receiving such treatment. Though
the management area did not have a HIV/Aids coordinator, it partnered with
Department of Health (DoH) and various other non-governmental organisations to
test offenders, and train officials. Peer educators were appointed at centres
to assist with the delivery of programmes.
5.1.2
The Maximum centre had both a 12-bed
hospital and a 3-bed clinic; and the Medium Centre a 7-bed hospital and a
clinic which did not admit sick offenders. Though the management report cited
no capacity or service delivery challenges, medical professionals reported the
lack of a pharmacist, and the fact that four of the six nursing posts were
vacant as challenges. The centre did not have its own doctor, a sessional
doctor visited the centre twice a week. Although the centre did not have its
own psychologist and dentist inmates had access to such services. As at other
centres those with serious conditions were referred to the local public hospital.
5.2
Nutritional
Services
5.2.1
Inmates interviewed during the visit
alleged that the meals they received were sub-standard and that typically meals
meeting dietary requirements were only served when high-level delegations
visited the centre.
5.3
Hygienic
services
5.3.1
Inmates complained that the centre was
cockroach-infested, and though the situation had been reported, nothing had
been done to remedy it.
6.
JUDICIAL
INSPECTORATE FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
6.1
According to the questionnaire completed
by the HCCs the Maximum centre received weekly, and the Medium centre daily
visits from the JICS ICCVs. Inmates however reported that they had little
faith in the ICCVs, and that matters reported to them typically went unattended
to, and unresolved. It was alleged that ICCVs colluded with officials.
PART B:
VISIT TO THE ZONDERWATER CORRECTIONAL CENTRES ON 6 JUNE
2012
The Zonderwater management area
comprises a medium, and a maximum centre, 2 145 hectares of land used for
farming activity, a community corrections centre and accommodation for
officials.
1.
ADMINISTRATION
1.1
Management
1.1.1
The area management
reported that the centre operated at 90% self-sufficiency, which was
commendable. Farming activities included beef, milk and chicken, vegetable,
maize, sorghum and corn production. The area provided chicken to some centres
in the region too. The centres also provided vegetables as part of a poverty
alleviation project.
1.2
Corporate Services
1.2.1
At the time of the visit
the management area had 488 filled posts. The Maximum reported a 3% vacancy
rate, and five social worker-vacancies. The Medium B centre had a 26% vacancy
rate; 79 of the vacant posts were at security level.
1.2.2.
The personnel shortage at
the Maximum centre was ascribed to the migration of officials, the unit
management system, retirement, resignations and deaths. At the Medium B centre
delays in the filling of vacancies, the reduction of funded posts in April 2012
and the long periods it took for posts to be filled, posed a serious challenge.
1.2.3
The area management
reported frequent meetings with personnel which included monthly personnel
meetings, and daily posts on notice boards. Furthermore, the area commissioner
participated in monthly bilaterals with the unions. These meetings
notwithstanding officials lodged a number of complaints relating to their
working conditions, and treatment by managers. These are outlined in brief
below.
1.2.4
According to warders, the
Maximum centres post establishment was approved in the 1990s, and had not been
adjusted in line with the increased inmate population. This placed enormous
strain on custodial personnel.
1.2.5
Concerns raised by warders
further included that the DCS was not paying overtime even at centres where it
was claimed the 7DE had not been implemented; that no transport was available
to officials who live far from the centres; that requests for transfers were not
being fairly considered; and that the DCS did not comply with Occupational
Health and Safety (OHASA) requirements.
1.2.6
Officials raised concern
about the DCS recruitment policy, and particularly the practice of delaying the
filling of vacancies. Furthermore, those who were appointed to act in positions
were seldom, if ever, considered for permanent appointment in those posts. The
DCS employment equity policy was also drawn into question, particularly in
relation to different racial groups.
1.2.7
Like the 7DE, the
implementation of the OSD agreement remained a bone of contention. Artisans in
particular felt that they were being disadvantaged: though they were required
to perform training and custodial functions, while ensuring that production
factories performed optimally, they were paid much less than officials who
performed custodial duties only. The Regional Commissioner confirmed that
Resolution 1 had been a stumbling block. At the time of the visit negotiations
were still underway. It was believed that once agreement had been reached, a
wide range of concerns, including the lack of a promotions policy could be addressed.
1.2.8
The DCS and labour unions
were criticised for the failure to ensure that negotiated agreements were
implemented. As was the case with the implementation of the OSD, the DCS
typically did not honour agreements. Labour unions seemed unable to ensure that
agreements were honoured, and matters were inevitably challenged legally. The
DCS appeared to challenge all court rulings that were not in their favour.
1.2.9
Officials claimed that
area management disregarded and victimised them. Centre-level officials were
often not consulted when changes related to the management of offenders were
made. The area management was accused of victimising centre managers and warders,
by threatening them with redeployment and making false allegations against
them.
2.
INCARCERATION
2.1
Maintenance
2.1.1
The Maximum centre
reported that the light fittings in cells needed to be upgraded so that they
would be tamper-proof.
2.1.2
In the kitchen, the
steamers were leaking, tilting pans needed repair, the convection oven was
obsolete, and the ceiling needed repainting. Officials complained of poor
service- delivery by the Department of Public Works (DPW), and insisted that if
allowed to do so, the centres officials would be able to attend to maintenance
challenges much more efficiently. The roll-out of the RAMP projects made it
impossible for DCS officials to take over all but minor maintenance
responsibilities.
2.1.3
At the Medium centre
cells were enclosed and the ventilation was therefore only rated average. The
centres general maintenance would be attended to through a RAMP project.
2.1.4
The above-mentioned RAMP
project comprised major maintenance work at both the Maximum and Medium
centres. At the time of the visit the Bravo unit and E section were under
renovation, set for completion in July 2012. Work at the Maximum centre was set
for completion in February 2013.
[1]
.
2.1.5
Responding to inmates
complaints that the centres hot-water was often insufficient, the area
management explained that this was partly owing to the centres boilers being
very old, and the DPW often taking very long to repair them. Once the RAMP
projects currently underway had been completed, the solar heating project which
was started prior to the RAMP project, would be completed. According to the
centre this would alleviate some of the challenges.
2.2
Security
2.2.1
The area reported that while both centres
had access control systems, these had not been operational since the DCS
contract with the Sondolo company had expired. At the Medium B centre all
cameras including those at the fence were out of commission, while at the
Medium A centre, six were not functioning.
2.2.2
The centres fence was adequately
patrolled, and the centres had well-functioning and optimally utilised dog- and
mounted security units.
2.3
Offender management
2.3.1
The Maximum centre could accommodate 877
offenders, but at the time of the visit accommodated 1 539 offenders, and was
75% overcrowded. The Medium B centre could accommodate 795, but at the time of
the visit accommodated 1190 offenders, and was 49% overcrowded. Of the 1 672
offenders in the management area, 1 519 posed a maximum security risk.
2.3.2
To manage the 62% overcrowding monthly
overcrowding task team management meetings, integrated justice, police and
stakeholders meetings, and reclassification sittings were held. Those sentenced
to 24 months were released upon confirmation of monitorable addresses; and
medium risk offenders were transferred on a regular basis.
2.3.3.
At the Medium A centre overcrowding placed
strain on the infrastructure, maintenance and security arrangements. The centre
was designed for medium security offenders, and therefore was not ideal for
accommodating maximum security offenders.
2.3.4
The centres reported that to facilitate the
renovations mentioned above, which was performed per group of cells, and not
per centre, inmates were temporarily transferred from their cells, to other
already-occupied cells. This temporarily increased the overcrowding in those
cells, and placed strain on, for example, the hot-water supply. In an attempt
to mitigate this, the centre had turned up the thermostats in geysers.
2.3.5
Those serving less than 24 months, and
vulnerable offenders were separated from the general population, and nothing to
the contrary was observed during the visit.
3
REHABILITATION
3.1
Offender
Development
3.1.1
The centre had a number of well-functioning
workshops used for offender development programmes which included wood, steel
and textile work; sign writing and spray painting; as well as upholstery and
welding.
3.1.2
Inmates working in the factory received
certificates and accreditation upon successful completion of their training.
Those who did not qualify for a certificate, received references confirming
that they had participated in a skills development programme.
3.1.3
Offenders working in the factories
complained about the gratuity received, which they believed was too little. The
DCS explained that while in training offenders received R40 a month; upon
completion of their training those who continued working in the factories
received increases based on their 6-monthly assessment by the case management
committee.
3.1.4
The Medium A centre provided adult basic
education and training (ABET), Grade 12, and Higher education and Training
courses through the University of South Africa (UNISA).
3.2
Correctional Programmes
3.2.1
According to the area
management all offenders in Medium A and 1 168 of those in the Medium B centre,
had sentence plans. Offenders attend programmes aimed at providing them with
life skills, and addressing violent behaviour, sexual violence, trauma and
substance abuse.
3.3
Psychological, Social and Spiritual
Services
3.3.1
Each centre had a
dedicated psychologist. The post establishment catered for a director, and two
deputy directors at national level. The Director: Psychological Services-position
had been vacant since December 2010 however. In monthly regional case
conferences psychologists in the
3.3.2
At the time of the visit
141 offenders were using chronic psychiatric medication. In a written
submission to the Committee the psychological services coordinator in the area
indicated that the management area had until shortly before the visit had one
psychiatrist who used to visited the centres once a week. He had recently
resigned. At the time of the visit no psychiatric services were being provided.
3.3.3
The psychologists pointed
out that a number of those receiving psychiatric medication could function in a
correctional environment, but that certain individuals were considered a risk
owing to their mental state, and should therefore be accommodated in a special
care unit catering for their specific needs.
4.
SOCIAL REINTEGRATION
4.1
Parole Administration
4.4.1
The Medium A and Medium B
centres shared a CSPB. At the time of the visit, the entire board was on
suspension pending the outcome of an investigation into the circumstances of
the parole granted to two of the Waterkloof Four offenders. In the interim,
the centres were ser
viced
by the
Baviaanspoort CSPB whose chairperson reported no backlogs.
4.4.2
The chairperson of the
Baviaanspoort CSPB indicated that though the position of the two community
members on her CSPB had expired a long time ago, no new appointments have been
made. The existing contracts were merely extended on a monthly basis. The vice
chairpersons position was advertised before December 2011, but at the time of
the visit no shortlisting had taken place yet.
4.4.3
Though no backlogs were
reported, numerous offenders raised parole-related questions and claimed that
their minimum sentence periods had passed but that they had not yet appeared
before the CSPB. The case management committees were accused of not timeously
referring matters to the CSPBs. Lack of information regarding minimum
sentencing periods under the various sentencing regimes caused much confusion
and frustration.
5.
CARE
5.1
Health Services
5.5.1
The Maximum centre had a sickbay with 44
beds, and Medium B a sickbay accommodating 10. Neither centre had a hospital,
clinic or pharmacy. A doctor visited the centres twice a week. Medical
Emergencies were managed by the 24-hour standby services. Serious cases were
referred to the nearby
6
JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
6.1
The area reported that
while Medium B had no ICCV, Medium A was visited twice a week by their own
dedicated ICCV. The area confirmed that processes were in place to ensure that
mandatory reports were submitted to the JICS as per the legislative
requirements. No challenges were reported in this regard.
PART C:
VISIT TO THE
The Kimberley Correctional Centre
accommodates sentenced and unsentenced adults and youths. The centre comprises
medium, maximum, mother and child, youth development and admissions units.
1.
ADMINISTRATION
1.1
Management
1.1.1
The centre reported that its inadequate IT resources compromised
its operations.
1.1.2
The implementation of the
unit management principles which are supposed to underpin rehabilitation and
reintegration efforts, remained a challenge across its centres.
1.2
Finance
1.2.1
The centre received a R67
990 million budget allocation in the 2012/11 financial year, and at the end of
June 2012 had spent approximately R16, 8 million.
1.2.2
In the first quarter of
the 2012/13 financial year the centre produced 25 509 kg of vegetables, and
reported that it produced 73% of the vegetables consumed, itself.
1.3
Supply Chain Management
1.3.1
Asset management was
identified as a challenge. The centre reported that to protect its 37 vehicles,
a carport would be constructed.
1.4
Corporate Services
1.4.1
At the time of the visit
the centre employed 288 officials, and reported six vacancies, including that
of the head of the correctional centre. Of the 288, 255 were security personnel,
and 16 specialist personnel. The centre reported challenges with regard to the
filling of scarce skill-vacancies within 120 days.
1.4.2
The centre reported that
external role-players such as banks, the master of the high court, the South
African Revenue Service (SARS) and attorneys delayed the process of service
termination. Such delays impacted on the filling of vacancies.
1.4.3
In the twelve months
preceding the visit, seventeen students had been provided with learnerships,
while eighteen others had successfully completed an induction and orientation
programme. The first group of the students trained in 2008 complained that
their salaries had not yet been correctly adjusted.
1.4.4
Forty officials had
undergone child justice training and will use the skills acquired in their work
with the juveniles incarcerated at the Youth Development Centre. According to
the management report, case management committee training had taken place, but
it was not clear whether four sessions had been held, or whether only four
officials had attended training.
1.4.5
The centre implemented a
four shift system, and reported no challenges. What did place strain on
centre-based officials was that in some instances officials who had migrated to
centre-level posts, were still performing administrative duties.
1.4.6
The centre reported the
finalisation of grievances within 30 days, and disciplinary hearings within the
requisite 60 days as a challenge. This was confirmed during the interaction
with personnel, which revealed much frustration about the inefficient
management of grievances and disciplinary proceedings.
1.4.7
The centre identified
absenteeism, and alcohol and substance abuse as two of the major challenges
faced in terms of the employee management. Officials absented themselves from
duty without permission and some did not provide reasons for their absence upon
return. Officials suffering from addiction to alcohol and other addictive
substances were referred to the centres employee assistance programme (EAP),
and where necessary to the nearby rehabilitation centre.
1.4.8.
The centre management
assured the Committee that monthly personnel meetings took place, and
assemblies once a week. Notice boards were used to provide officials with
information. Contrary to what was reported by the management however, officialsl
interviewed appeared extremely disgruntled. They complained about disrespect by
managers. Despite the many complaints which had a demoralising effect on
officials, management continued to disregard the many complaints related to
working conditions, and treatment by area and centre management. The
distribution of, and accessibility of uniforms was a major challenge. As was
the case in all other centres visited, the lack of a promotion policy, and
career-pathing was a major cause of frustration.
1.5
Central Services
1.5.1
The Centre reported no
corruption-related investigations in the 12 months preceding the visit.
According to centre management notice boards, assemblies and personnel meetings
were utilised to caution officials against engaging in corrupt activities.
1.5.2
The disciplinary cases
that were pending at the time of the visit related to absenteeism and
insubordination. Although a number of officials had already been given final
written warnings for absenteeism, this did not appear to deter others from
absconding.
1.5.3
In the 12 months
preceding the visit only one criminal case of assault against an official was
laid. At the time of the visit the matter had not yet been finalised. No
indication was provided as to whether an internal investigation had been
conducted, or was underway.
2.
INCARCERATION
2.1
Facilities
2.1.1
Of the R767 000 allocated
to the
2.1.2
A further R400 000 had
been allocated for planned projects which included the building of a carport
(R80 000), the repair of the tar road leading to the centre (R60 000), the
refurbishment of an official house (R52 000), the building and renovation of
toilets/bathrooms (R48 000), and the refurbishment of the training centre-workshop
(R30 000).
2.1.3
The centre reported that
it was in the process of upgrading the old maintenance section where a school,
skills development centre and indoor sports area would be constructed.
2.1.4
Free State Steam was
attending to the centres mechanical and electrical maintenance needs. Their
contract expired at the end of September 2012, and it was not clear whether the
centre would thereafter be in a position to attend to mechanical and electrical
matters itself.
2.1.5
Prior to the construction
of the Tswelopele correctional centre, the
2.1.6
At the time of the visits juvenile offenders were in process of
renovating their cells.
2.1.7
Of serious concern was
that the centre did not have appropriate visitors facilities. This impacted on
the quality of the visits, inmates and their relatives enjoyed.
2.2
Security Operations
2.2.1
The area reported that it implemented a
gang-management strategy and that gang activity was not rife at the centre
.
2.2.2
The centre reported thirteen offender-on-offender
and seven official-on-offender assaults in the period between 1 April and 30
June 2012. All occurred among the sentenced offender-population. The centre
reported that all assaults were reported to the police.
2.3
Remand
detention
2.3.1
Of the 51 remand detainees at the centre,
39 had bail set at less than R1 000, none had successfully been referred to
court for diversion, or plea bargaining. Though the centre was not overcrowded,
it was observed that the female remand detainees were accommodated in just one
cell. None of the female remandees had bail set at less than R1 000.
2.3.2
The DCS explained that Justice Crime
Prevention and Security (JCPS)-stakeholders met regularly to discuss how the
remand detention population may be better managed. Statistics, including those
related to detainees with bail set at less than R1 000 were submitted to case
flow management committees on a monthly basis.
2.3.3
Concern was raised that although Legal Aid
South
stakeholder, had
been invited to attend the meeting, they were not present.
2.4
Offender management
2.4.1
The centre could
accommodate 801 offenders and at the time of the visit accommodated
797: 348
males and 29 female sentenced offenders; and, 396 male and 24 female remand
detainees. The centre was not overcrowded.
2.4.2.
At the time of the visit the centre
accommodated ten children: seven sentenced, and three unsentenced boy children.
No girl children were incarcerated at the centre.
2.4.3
At the time of the visit the centre
accommodated 127 juveniles, Of the juvenile remand detainees 62 were male, and
5 were female.
2.4.4
Of the 217 male and female youths
incarcerated at the centre, 86 were sentenced, and 131 were unsentenced.
2.4.5
A cell had been converted to serve as a
mother-and-child unit, and at the time of the visit accommodated one baby under
three years of age, and two under the age of two. The children had a small
playground.
2.4.6
Nine of the sentenced offenders
had had their sentences successfully converted to
correctional
supervision. One sentenced had been converted to a fine. It was reported that 3
441 inmates across the region had benefited from the special remissions
announced in March 2012. Two thousand-five hundred-and-sixty nine were released
directly from incarceration; of these 26 were re-admitted. At the
3
REHABILITATION
3.1
Offender
Development
3.1.1
Development programmes offered to sentenced
offenders included formal education, production workshops, and agricultural
activities. The centre was in the process of being registered as a fulltime
school.
3.1.2
The centre reported that inmates preferred
to participate in activities for which they received gratuities such as
agricultural activities, and thus participation in educational programmes
remained low.
3.1.3
At the time of the visit 14 female inmates
were working in the centres textile factory which was the only one in the
country manufacturing raincoats for inmates. The factory manufactured up to 1
000 coats per month. Inmates working in the factory earned R99 per month, and
upon completion of the textile programme, received a certificate.
3.1.4
Social workers at the female and juvenile
sections started a skills development project
which though in its
initial stages, already had 20 male juveniles, and 30 female offenders
participating.
3.1.5
The centre offered ABET levels 1 to 4. Five
female and 83 male offenders participated. Male offenders who wanted to
continue their formal education upon completion of their Grade 12, Further or
Higher Education and Training studies were transferred to the Tswelopele correctional
centre where they could pursue tertiary education and training qualifications.
No female offenders had registered for such programmes.
3.1.6
The centre reported a
number of challenges in relation to the delivery of formal
education. These
included insufficient classrooms, educators being expected to teach skills
development subjects too, a decline in the numbers registering for formal
education, and an inability to retain educators mainly owing to the
uncompetitive salary packages offered by the DCS.
3.1.7
Services available to juvenile offenders included
a library, and an accredited drama course run by the Department of Arts and
Culture (DAC).
3.2
Correctional Programmes
3.2.1
The centre reported that
at the end of June 2012 only 267 offenders had sentence plans. Only 18 adult
and 22 youth offenders participated in pre-release programmes during June 2012.
3.3
Psychological, Social and Spiritual
Services
3.3.1
The centre reported
challenges as far as attracting psychologists and social workers, which
impacted on the delivery of services to offenders. The centre did not have its
own psychologist, but shared the services of a psychologist assigned to serve
the entire management area.
3.3.2
During the 2011/12
financial year social workers conducted 827 individual interviews, 357 group
sessions and social work assessments, and 219 community work projects. In the
12 months preceding the visit an average of 670 inmates participated in social
work programmes.
3.3.3
Social workers reported a
number of achievements including facilitating a discussion group around crime
prevention among 52 female offenders and the Girls and Women Soul Repairer
Foundation. A successful Youth Dialogue at which challenges facing the youth
were discussed, was held in June 2012.
3.3.4
During the 2011/12
financial year, psychologists reported 16 individual therapy sessions, and 81
group therapy sessions.
3.3.5
The measures in place to
manage the care of those inmates who were mentally ill, were unclear.
3.3.6
In the period 1 April
30 June 2012, 1 886, 777 and 107 church services, group spiritual care
sessions, and individual sessions were held.
4.
SOCIAL REINTEGRATION
4.1
Parole Administration
4.1.1
The centre had a roving CSPB,
which it maintained was well-established and fully functional. The case
management committee and CSPB reported no backlogs. By June 2012, 125 inmates
had been released on correctional supervision, and 351 on parole supervision.
The verification of monitorable addresses was identified as a major challenge.
4.1.2
During the delegations
interaction with imamates however, many complained that their CSPB-appearance
dates were not scheduled timeously. DCS officials present denied the
allegation, and confirmed that case management committees submitted case files
to the CSPB 14 days before an inmate was due to appear before it. Those who
raised this concern, had violated parole conditions, and therefore had to be
re-arrested.
4.1.3
Many of those serving
life sentences, and whose parole applications were considered by the Minister
of Correctional Services, registered their frustration at the slowness of the
process. During a colloquium held on 19-20 November 2012 on measures to reduce
4.1.4
The centre reported that
only one inmate had been released on medical parole during the 2011/12
financial year.
4.2
Restorative Justice
4.2.1
The centre partnered with
the CSPB and other stakeholders, as part of their activities during Victim
Rights week September 2011. The detail of the awareness raising campaign was
not provided.
5.
CARE
5.1
Health Services
5.1.1
The centre had a clinic, sickbay and
pharmacy, but referred serious cases to the local
hospital. The
sickbay could accommodate 15; and the clinic was an accredited ARV site. A
shortage of primary health care clinicians and pharmacists was reported.
5.1.2
Although the clinic and sickbay adequately
met the centres needs, the pharmacy did not. A pharmacists based in the
Grootvlei management area, visited the centre periodically.
5.1.3
A doctor from the Tswelopele correctional
centre did consultations at the centre twice a week; while the offenders with
dental needs were taken directly to that centre for consultation with its
dentist. Between 1 April and 30 June 2012 the centre reported 60 consultations
with the doctor, 2 470 consultations with the nurses, and 42 consultations with
the dentist. Nine offenders were admitted to the local hospital. In the same
period, 36 medical circumcisions were performed.
5.1.4
At the time of the visit 78 offenders had
disclosed that they were living with HIV: 37 were receiving ARV-treatment. The
centre offered comprehensive HIV/AIDS programmes and services, but reported
challenges as far as the availability of ARVs which were received from the DOH.
The unavailability of the drugs impacted negatively on the delivery of
antiretroviral treatment.
5.1.5
The centre reported one natural death, and
confirmed that it experienced challenges as far as the administration of
medical parole.
5.2
Nutrition Services
5.2.1
The nutrition services at
the centre were provided by the DCS itself. At the time of the visit the centre
reported that 35 offenders worked in its kitchens, and assisted with cooking,
meal distribution, and cleaning. The Tsweleopele correctional centre-bakery
provided the centre with bread. The delegation was satisfied with the
cleanliness of the kitchens.
6.
JUDICIAL INSPECTORATE
FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
1.6.1
According to the centre
an ICCV visited the centre daily. The management of the centre further assured
the Committee that mandatory reports in the case of segregations, the use of
force and deaths in correctional centres were duly submitted.
PART D:
VISIT TO THE BAVIAANSPOORT CORRECTIONAL CENTRES ON 26 JULY
2012
The Baviaanspoort management area
comprises youth, medium and maximum correctional centres. In addition the area
has vast agricultural land, a maintenance workshop as well as community
corrections office.
1.
ADMINISTRATION
1.2
Corporate Services
1.2.1
The area had an approved
establishment of 909 posts, 686 of which were funded. At the time of the visit
642 posts were filled and the area had a 7% vacancy rate.
1.2.2.
In terms of critical
skills, the area had 577 financed security posts, 29 of which were vacant at
the time of the visit.
1.2.3
The area reported that it
had regular interactions with labour organisations, and reported two such
meetings in June 2012 alone.
1.2.4
The centre management
identified the shift system, lack of career-pathing and promotions policy, and personnel
shortage as its major challenges. In addition to these, officials highlighted
their frustration with regard to the slow/non-implementation of the OSD which
they were of the opinion, was negotiated in bad faith.
1.2
Central Services
1.2.1
At the time of the visit,
no suspensions were in effect, and three disciplinary cases were outstanding.
Three grievances were reported, two of which exceeded 30 days and had been
referred to the DCS Head Office.
1.3
Finances
1.3.1
At the time of the visit
the management area had spent 26,15% of its R202,16 million allocated budget.
1.4
Supply Chain Management
1.4.1
Officials raised concern
about the security access gate, and nutrition services contracts which they
believed were not cost-effective. Inmates and officials were capable of
preparing and distributing meals as was done at the majority of DCS centres.
Most security gates were not working, and it was not clear why the DCS had
entered into the contract with the security service provider.
2.
INCARCERATION
2.1
Facilities
2.1.1
The centre reported that
it was in the process of completing 41 projects funded by its own resources.
These included the construction of palisade fencing and the renovation of its
training centre. In addition to these the DPW had appointed a contractor who
would be responsible for the maintenance work to be performed over the coming
three years.
2.1.2
The regional management
explained that the Emthonjeni Youth Centre had originally been part of a pilot
project, but that it had been severely vandalised over the years. In addition,
the land on which the centre was built was not stable and was sinking;
engineering expertise was required to determine how this could be addressed.
The centre which was not being utilised fully, would be renovated to serve as a
female centre with a mother and baby unit. Once the renovation commenced, the
youth incarcerated at the centre would be transferred to the juvenile facility,
and to the Leeuwkop correctional centre. A DPW-conducted feasibility study
found that the upgrades and renovation would cost approximately R60 million.
Planning was at an advanced stage, but the final decision was beyond the
regional level. The DPW explained that the scope and design had been finalised,
and that work could have started two years earlier. The DCS had however opted
to consider the conversion of the facility, but its final decision on how to
proceed with the project had at the time of the visit not yet been communicated.
The delegation was shocked that the four-ward hospital at the centre had never
been used.
2.1.3
The delegation had
observed many water-leaks in the Medium B centre, which the centre management
explained it did not have the funds to attend to. The area management DPW had
been made aware of the situation.
2.2
Security operations
2.2.1
Owing to personnel shortages, and
dysfunctional security equipment, officials were afraid of being overpowered
when guarding work spans.
2.3
Offender management
2.3.1
The Emthonjeni Youth centre had an approved
accommodation of 413. At the time of the visit accommodated 521, and was 33% overcrowded.
The Medium centre could accommodate 703, and at the time of the visit was 7%
overcrowded, accommodating 826 offenders. The maximum centre was the most
overcrowded, accommodating 630 offenders, in a space designed for 305 only.
2.3.2
The centres accommodated male sentenced
offenders only. At the time of the visit there were nine child offenders
between the ages of 14 and 17, 240 juveniles between the ages 18 and 21, 763
youths between the ages of 22 and 35, and 649 offenders older than 35 years.
2.3.3
In addition to South African offenders, the
centre also had a sizable foreign national population. Of the 103 foreign
nationals accommodated at the centre, 53 came from
2.3.4.
At the time of the visit the vast majority
of crimes for which inmates had been sentenced, were aggressive in nature, and
more than half were economically motivated. Most offenders were serving
sentences longer than 7 years. Alarmingly 45 of these were juveniles, and two
were children. Among the youths, 117 were serving life sentences.
2.3.5
According to the report provided, most of
the assault reported occurred in the medium
centre. These included
84 offender-on-offender assaults, 10 offenders on official, and 31 official-on-offender
assaults. Two unnatural deaths were reported.
2.3.6
Inmates complained about not being allowed
access to radios and CD players, that goods at the tuckshop were too expensive
and only accessible once a month, and that the three visits they were allowed
per month were insufficient.
2.3.7
Officials sought Parliaments intervention
as far as increasing its staff establishment so as to improve the DCS delivery
of rehabilitation programmes.
2.3.8
Upon being confronted with offenders
allegations that their complaints were not being registered, centre management
appealed to the delegation to be objective when receiving inmate complaints:
many inmates lodged false complaints/ or failed to lodge any complaints, only
to raise the concerns when high level delegations visited centres.
3
REHABILITATION
3.1
Offender
Development
3.1.1
Sixty-six offenders participated daily in
the centres various agricultural programmes. The centre had a piggery, dairy,
abattoir and vast vegetable fields producing cabbage, carrots, spinach,
beetroot and pumpkin. Sorghum was being cultivated for fodder.
3.1.3
The management reported that 609 offenders
had benefited from various inmate labour activities, but that this number had
been reduced after the special remissions. The regional commissioner explained
that as the remission-related releases were staggered, it was not clear why any
of the centres activities had been negatively affected by the process. In
addition, the remissions had been communicated to all regions prior to the
process being implemented, giving managers sufficient time to put in place
measures to limit any unintended consequences.
3.1.3
The management reported that except for 110
medium security offenders, all those serving sentences of 24 months or more,
had sentences plans. The outstanding 110 would have received sentence plans by
the end of August 2012.
3.1.4
At the Emthonjeni, Medium
and Maximum centres the educator to learner ratio was one to 18, 38 and 62
respectively. The area had 14 financed educator posts, two of which were vacant
at the time of the visit. At the medium B centre there was a shortage of
tutors.
3.1.5
Only 332 offenders
participated in formal education programmes. Of greatest concern was that of
the 251 offenders at the youth centre, only 120 took part in formal education
programmes. In addition the skills programme at the youth centre had to be
halted as a result of the implementation of the 2 x 12 shift system, and
because the centre did not have a post for an educator to teach skills.
3.1.6
The delegation visited
the education facilities at the Maximum centre where 23 development, and nine
education programmes were on offer. Inmates were enrolled in ABET, FET and HET
programmes and had a pass rate of between 90 to 95%. In response to inmates
complaints that the textbooks on which the examinations would be based on were
only received a few days before the visit, the centre explained that the books
could only be purchased once the DCS budget had been received. Those attending
the internal computer course, only needed to meet unit standards, and therefore
the late receipt of textbooks did not really affect them.
3.1.7
The maximum centre
offered 10 skills development programmes which included business, engineering
and computer skills. The centre had developed the computer course itself. These
were very popular among offenders. The maximum centre had a computer room with
32 computers, but inmates complained that as they were using outdated Pentium I
and II hardware, new computers were desperately needed. Inmates informed the
delegation that they were aware that a number of computers had recently been
delivered to the centre but had not been installed. Centre management confirmed
that the computers had been received, and that at the time of the visit
officials were in the process of allocating and installing them.
3.1.8
Members were particularly
impressed by the maximum centres library, which was managed almost entirely by
offenders. In addition to the above, the centre also provided various sport,
recreation, art and cultural (SRAC) development programmes. Of the inmates at
the centre, 1 296 took part in a number of SRAC activities.
3.1.9
Inmates involved in arts
and culture projects, did not earn any money from the sale of their works, and
complained that often material was a challenge. Maximum offenders complained
that other than the arts and culture programmes, they had very few constructive
programmes to keep them busy.
3.1.10
Of concern to the
delegation was that inmates were reluctant to work in agricultural projects.
When other development programmes were full, they opted to do nothing. The
centre confirmed that should more inmates participate in agricultural
programmes, the centre could become more productive, and self-sufficient. The
fact that those working in the mess and other programmes earned up to double
what agricultural workers earned, further contributed to the unwillingness to
participate in agricultural activities. The regional commissioner reminded
officials present that gratuities could be increased on a six-monthly basis,
and that therefore the increase of gratuities as per the policy was not
dependent on a policy directive.
3.2
Correctional Programmes
3.2.1
All correctional
programmes were provided by the DCS officials themselves. While most of the
programmes appeared to address the different crime categories accommodated at
the different centres, the Committee noted with concern that although 35 of the
inmates accommodated at the Emthonjeni youth centre had committed sexual
crimes, no programmes aimed at addressing sex crimes were provided to the
youths at the centre.
3.3
Psychological, Social and Spiritual
Services
3.3.1
The single psychologist
post was filled; but area management indicated that should inmates needs be
addressed fully, more psychologists were required. At the Emthonjeni youth
centre psychological services were available on request only.
3.3.2
Social work, psychological
and spiritual care programmes were provided to inmates across the three
centres. A total of 952 offenders attended social work, 558 attended
psychological, and 313 attended spiritual care programmes. Most of the inmates
who received psychological services were under the age of 35 and resided at the
Emthonjeni youth centre; while 440 received psychological care, only 261
attended social work programmes.
3.3.3
At each of the
Emthonjeni, Medium and Maximum centres the social worker to offender ratio is
one to 277, 377 and 630 respectively. Of the ten social worker posts, six were
vacant, and in the process of being filled.
4.
SOCIAL REINTEGRATION
4.1
Parole Administration
4.4.1
The CSPB at the centre
had in the 12 months preceding the visit considered 838 applications. Of the
applications considered, 433 were approved, 76 offenders were released on
correctional supervision, and 49 offenders had reached their sentence expiry
date. Of concern was that 267 of the offenders, who were eligible for
consideration, were unsuccessful and would be considered again at a later
stage.
4.4.2
At the time of the visit
the case management committee reported a 63-case backlog. Most of the cases
came from the Emthonjeni youth centre and had been delayed owing to, amongst
others, address confirmations being outstanding, and the inmates being foreign
nationals.
4.4.3
As at June 2012 the
community corrections office managed the cases of 107 probationers, and 420
parolees. The office reported that it had 268 absconders on record which raised
concerns about whether the community corrections offices were adequately
resourced. The centre management responded that the rate of absconding had
radically reduced, and that the bulk of those recorded, dated very far back.
The centre appeared unaware that a circular issued in 2010 instructed that
certain categories of absconders had to be stuck from the DCS records owing to
the length of time they had already been missing.
4.4.4
The CSPB chairperson
emphasised that as the CSPB did not have a vice chairperson, the case load was
very difficult to manage. In addition, the community representative-contracts
were renewed on a month-to-month basis, because they had expired, and the posts
had not been filled since.
4.4.5
The centre had released 593 offenders as a
result of the special remissions granted in March 2012. At the time of the
visit none of these had re-offended or broken their parole conditions.
4.4.6
As at practically all
other centres visited, inmates complained that the parole process was not
explained to them.
5.
CARE
5.1
Health Services
5.5.1
The area had 16 financed nursing posts,
three of which were vacant at the time of the visit. A doctor visited the
Maximum centre on Tuesdays. The youth centre was visited by a doctor on
Wednesdays, and a dentist on Mondays. The centre had a dentist room where the
entire management areas extractions, scaling and polishing was done.
5.5.2
The centralised pharmacy at the
5.5.3
At the time of the visit the hospital unit
in the Maximum centre held six inmates, and personnel on duty reported that it
never admitted more than ten. The youth centre had a fully fledged hospital.
5.5.4
At the Medium B centre the nurses station
was very cramped; the centre confirmed that work was underway to ensure the
centre met the minimum standards in terms of health care.
5.5.5
The regional management confirmed that
inmates had not yet been adequately informed of the medical parole process
which came into operation on 1 March 2012. The policy and procedure to be
followed should be posted on the notice boards on each cell or unit.
5.3
Nutrition services
5.3.1
Inmates at the maximum
centre complained of the quality and quantity of the meals they received, and
that special dietary requirements were not being met.
5.3.2
The delegation was
alarmed that although the centre had a bakery, it could not be used optimally
as its ovens were not working. The matter had apparently been brought to the
DPWs attention, but could not be addressed, reportedly because the expertise
required to repair the ovens was unavailable.
PART E:
VISIT TO THE
MODDERBEE CORRECTIONAL CENTRES ON 27 JULY 2012
The Modderbee management area
comprises the Modderbee, Nigel and
1.
ADMINISTRTATION
1.1
Finance
1.1.1
The Modderbee management
area received a budget of approximately R387, 54 million, and had spent 31, 51%
by the end of June 2012.
1.2
Corporate Services
1.2.1
The Modderbee management
area had a post establishment of 1 232, 1 168 of which were filled at the time
of the visit. The Modderbee correctional centre had 768 financed posts, 754 of
which were filled. At the time of the visit the area commissioners office,
with an establishment of 85 financed posts, had a 31, 76% vacancy rate.
1.2.2.
The area employed 835
male, and 331 female officials. Of the 1 168 officials, 971 were black, 144 were
white, 43 were coloured, and 10 were indian. Only one person was disabled.
1.2.3
The area management
reported good relations with the Public Servants Associations of South Africa
(PSA), and the POPCRU. Personnel meetings took place on a monthly basis.
Multilateral meetings of the unions and management took place quarterly.
1.2.4
Area management
identified the shift system, and the national instruction that centres were not
to adjust the system to suit their needs, shortage of officials, the lack of
career-pathing and a promotion policy, as major challenges.
1.2.5
The delegations interactions
with officials revealed serious frustrations related to the DCS lack of a
promotions policy, unfair application of disciplinary procedures, favouritism,
victimisation and the delayed negotiations around the 7DE and the OSD.
Officials also indicated that they feared that they would be victimised for
having shared their frustration with the Committee.
1.2.6
The regional commissioner,
who at the time of the visit had been in office for just under two months,
assured officials that a meeting between himself and officials would be
convened shortly. All their concerns could at that time be discussed in greater
detail. He emphasised that victimisation would not be tolerated, and cautioned
that claims made against fellow officials should be substantiated.
1.3
Central Services
1.3.1
At the time if the visit
three officials had been suspended since 28 June 2012, pending the outcome of
an investigation into an escape from the
1.3.2
Thirteen disciplinary
hearings were held in the 12 months preceding the visit. At the time of the
visit all but two of the matters had been finalised. Four of the five
acquittals were in corruption-related matters.
2.
INCARCERATION
2.1
Facilities
2.1.1
The centre reported that
it was financing a series of facility-upgrades underway at the time of the
visit. These comprise the upgrading of the visiting area, extending the office
transport area, renovating the mess, logistics and finance offices, and
shooting range, as well as the installation of a palisade fences around the
agriculture, and certain administrative offices.
2.1.2
In addition to the
above-mentioned own-resource projects, the Modderbee correctional centre would,
as part of the DPWs RAMP projects, be provided with 42 KV standby generators,
as well as paving and carports.
2.2
Security Operations
2.2.1
The area management reported 95 assaults
and one escape in the 12 months preceding the visit.
2.3
Offender management
2.3.1
The Modderbee correctional centre
accommodated both sentenced and unsentenced male offenders. At the time of the
visit the centre, designed to accommodate 2 492, was 90% overcrowded. On the
day of the visit, it accommodated 197 juvenile, 1 031 youth, and 3 525 adult
offenders in separate maximum and medium security accommodation.
2.3.2
The vast majority of offenders had
committed aggressive crimes (1 836). At 406, sexual offences were the second
highest category of crime committed, followed by drug-related crimes (278), and
economic crimes (268).
2.3.3
At the time of the visit the centre
accommodated 389 foreign nationals. Four were serving
life sentences, and
the majority of the remainder were serving sentences for drug-related crimes,
housebreaking and theft, and robbery. The centre explained that the details of
foreign nationals were submitted to the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) too.
2.3.4
None of the juveniles at the centre were
serving sentences longer than one year. Of the total inmate population, 101
were serving life sentences, 1 815 were serving sentences longer than seven
years, 770 were serving sentences of one to seven years.
2.3.5
At the time of the visit the centre housed
1 965 remand detainees. In the 12 months preceding the visit, 809 remand
detainees were considered for release on bail in terms of the bail protocol. Of
these 440 were released on warning and 233 for family intervention. One hundred
and thirty six could not be released, the majority because they stood accused
of aggressive crimes. It was reported that cluster meetings with stakeholders
from Legal Aid SA, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development
(DoJ&CD), the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the National Prosecuting
Authority (NPA) took place regularly. Legal Aid SA visited the centre on
Tuesdays and Thursdays. It was not clear whether the case flow management
meetings which should take place monthly, and in which all justice cluster
role-players should participate, took place as they should.
2.3.6
Further complaints related to transfer
requests allegedly being ignored, and that the centre was not providing inmates
with uniforms as needed.
2.3.7
Concern was raised that inmates grievances
appeared to not be recorded. The frustration caused by unresolved complaints
posed a threat to security. The head of the correctional centre indicated that
those complaints that could be addressed immediately were not recorded in the
G365 complaints log.
3
REHABILITATION
3.1
Offender
Development
3.1.1
The centres formal education programmes
comprised Pre-Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET), Grades 1 to 12, HET,
and advanced computer training courses. Four-hundred-and-fifty-six offenders
benefited from the education programmes. Of concern is that three of the
centres four educator- posts were vacant.
3.1.2
Two hundred and ninety seven offenders
participated in computer, engineering, business and advanced computer skills
training programmes. In addition to the above-mentioned educational and skills
programmes, the centre also offered various SRAC activities, and in the year
preceding the visit 1 006 offenders participated in such programmes.
3.1.4
The centre produced beef and vegetables,
and an average of 123 offenders participated in agricultural activities on a
daily basis. A total of 151 772 kg of carrots, cabbage, spinach and pumpkin was
produced annually.
3.1.5
Four hundred and two
inmates participated in a number of inmate labour activities comprising
cooking, cleaning, gardening, and maintenance activities. Eight of the
offenders were tutors, and three were monitors.
3.1.6
As at other centres and
management areas visited, maximum offenders complained of idleness because they
were not allowed to participate in work programmes.
3.2
Correctional Programmes
3.2.1
The management reported
that 2 680 of the offenders serving more than two years had sentence plans. As
per the legislation, those serving less than two years did not require sentence
plans.
3.2.2
The centre provided
correctional programmes conducted by the DCS itself, as well as programmes
conducted by external services providers. The latter included Footballers for
Life, Sonke Gender Justice Network, and Sibikwa Drama. DCS programmes comprised
life skills training, pre-release, anger management and substance abuse
prevention programmes.
3.3
Psychological, Social and Spiritual
Services
3.3.1
The centre had two social worker supervisors,
one senior social worker, and four social workers. Their respective caseloads
ranged between 1426 and 3478 in the 12 months between June 2011 and June 2012.
In the same period, 2135 therapeutic interviews, 867 assessments, and 656 group
work sessions were conducted.
3.3.2
Although its single
psychologist post was vacant at the time of the visit, the centre nevertheless undertook,
82 therapeutic interviews, and 34 assessments, in the 12 months preceding the
visit.
3.3.3
A total of 60 religious
organisations provided services to inmates and 5 148 offenders participated in
spiritual care-related activities. Offenders attended 1 840 religious services,
1 714 group spiritual sessions and 3 198 interviews.
4.
SOCIAL REINTEGRATION
4.1
Parole Administration
4.4.1
The centre reported that
in the twelve months preceding the visit 1 583 offenders appeared before the
CSPB. Of those who appeared before the CSPB 937 had their parole approved, 123
were recommended for correctional supervision, and 410 received a further
profile ruling i.e their applications were unsuccessful and would be considered
again at a later date.
4.4.2
The CSPB chairperson
emphasised that owing to the workload, the vacant vice chairperson positions
should be filled as soon as possible. He explained that when he was appointed
as vice chairperson in 2007, there was no chairperson. When he was appointed as
chairperson in 2011, he was forced to work without a vice chairperson.
4.4.2
The Modderbee
correctional centre had a 286 case management backlog which were ascribed to
the special remissions process, which reduced the minimum sentence periods, and
therefore inmates had to be considered earlier than originally anticipated. The
CSPB reported that it had a good relationship with the case management committee.
4.4.3
None of the 296 offenders
from the Modderbee correctional centre, who had benefited from special
remissions, had at the time of the visit been re-admitted. The area reported
that of the total 1 176 offenders across the area who had benefited, two had
been readmitted.
4.4.4
The area reported 333
parolees who had absconded, largely because they left their monitorable address
for informal settlements at some point after their release on parole, and then
become impossible to monitor. Despite the above-mentioned 2010 instruction that
certain categories of absconders should be removed from the correctional
supervision - system, the Modderbee area still reflected 401 parolees who
absconded between 1993 and 2003, on their records.
4.4.5
Interactions with inmates
revealed that they were generally unaware of how correctional supervision and
parole, and medical parole were administered.
5.
CARE
5.1
Health Services
5.1.1
At the time of the visit the hospital in
the maximum security centre which had bed space for 120 patients, accommodated
56 sentenced, and 23 unsentenced offenders in separate sections of the
hospital.
5.1.2
The Modderbee correctional centre had 15
nursing posts, 13 of which were filled at the time of the visit. The centre did
not have a fulltime doctor, but was visited by two sectional doctors. A dentist
visited the centre on Tuesdays. Six offenders serving life sentences had been
trained as care givers and assisted the medical personnel.
5.1.3
A number of the patients in the maximum
hospital appeared seriously ill, and it was not clear whether they had been
advised of the medical parole process. One inmate, a foreign national from the
5.1.4
That the centre did not have a pharmacy was
a serious challenge: chronic medication was received from the Boksburg correctional
centres pharmacy and medication for acute conditions from the local
pharmacist.
5.2
Nutrition Services
5.2.1
Nutrition services at the
centre were outsourced, and centre officials confirmed that the centre could,
with immediate effect, start delivering those services itself. The centre had
submitted its state of readiness report to the national office. A number of
inmates were working in the kitchens, and were supervised by employees of the
service provider. While the service provider trained the inmates who would
receive certificates upon completion of the training, the DCS paid the gratuity
inmates earned for working in the kitchen.
PART F:
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee requests that the Minister of Correctional Services (the Minister) ensures that the
following recommendations are considered, and where possible, implemented. The Minister
should further ensure that responses on their feasibility and/or implementation progress reports
are submitted within one month of the adoption of this report .
1.
ADMINISTRATION
Points 1.1 to 1.4 below address
observations related to the Ncome management areas management crisis
specifically.
1.1.
The Committees major
concern related to the fact that the proposed interventions to address the
major challenges experienced at the Ncome correctional centre did not appear to
match the magnitude of the management crisis, which dated as far back as the
early 1990s. While, per the regional commissioners 12 September 2012
submission, all sensitive and complicated matters would be referred to the
DCS national Code Enforcement Unit, there was no concrete indication that
individuals would be held responsible for instigating the activities which have
led to the breakdown in management, and the consequent risks to security and
negative impact on rehabilitation efforts.
1.2
Although the DCS had in
September 2012 proposed a range of interventions, the detail of the
investigation which had supposedly led to the development of the interventions
was not provided.
While the situation
demanded immediate intervention, ill-thought through interventions may well
lead to further challenges. Should an investigation not have been conducted,
and should the DCS have neglected to identify all those who had a role in the
destabilisation of the area, managers deployed to remedy the situation, were
unlikely to succeed in their task. Care should be taken that organised labour
restricted itself to what labour relations legislation allowed, and should not
be allowed to interfere or derail management responsibilities.
1.3
Concern was raised that
the DCS may not have taken adequate care to ensure that their interventions
were in line with what Labour Relations legislation permitted: the DCS was
cautioned against implementing interventions that might be construed as
targeting certain individuals when the necessary investigations into their
conduct have not been done, and findings have not been made. The
above-mentioned legislation provided adequately for interventions that could
address the levels of insolence and insubordination reported by the regional
commissioner. The basis for the proposed action against some officials appeared
flawed and would in all likelihood lead to challenges if implemented.
There were legitimate reasons for taking
action in the interest of protecting the DCS operations, and these should be
resorted to when taking action against those who have contributed to the
situation.
1.4
Members were most
concerned that although the situation at the Ncome management area had
persisted for nearly two decades, the Committee had only learnt about the
extent of the crisis upon its visit to the centre.
As often stated before, the DCS should view the Committee as a
strategic partner committed to ensuring the DCS success. The fact that the
Committee most often learnt about serious, often security-related, challenges
faced by the DCS through third parties, confirmed the suspicion that the DCS
was not transparent in the manner in which it reported to Parliament.
1.5
While the DCS
demilitarisation had perhaps been poorly managed at the time, the Committee is
not convinced that a return to military-style management offered a solution to
the challenges evident in the employer-employee relationship. The often
disrespectful and condescending tone taken by managers, even at the most senior
level when responding to legitimate concerns raised, pointed to a poor
understanding of the challenges facing centre-level personnel, particularly the
impact prolonged salary negotiations, poor working conditions, and lack of
opportunities for career development have had on officials morale.
While professionalism should be
non-negotiable, the DCS most senior management must recognise that in the face
of the continued challenges facing officials, professionalism and service
delivery are likely to be sacrificed. In failing to acknowledge and attend to
the very real grievances officials have, both rehabilitation and security are severely
jeopardised.
1.6
The DCS should provide clarity on whether it does have effective
promotion- and career-pathing policies, and if so, clarify how these were
implemented, and explained to officials
. Officials perception that such
policies were not in place, and the belief that nepotism and favouritism was
rife within the DCS ranks, bred dissatisfaction and frustration, that could
only impact on professionalism and service delivery.
1.7
Officials at the
1.8
The improper utilisation
of security officials mentioned above draws into question the integrity of the
DCS reporting on its vacancies and post establishment. Where security personnel
are employed to perform any functions other than custodial, centre-based duties,
it is impossible to adequately develop strategies (including shift systems)
that will address centres needs. In addition, such inaccurate reporting makes
the DCS own management of its human resources, and proper planning,
impossible.
The DCS should provide a
breakdown of its establishment, indicating where the discrepancies are e.g.
where posts are incorrectly classified. The report should include how, and by
when the discrepancies would be addressed.
1.9
The
DCS should provide the Committee with a breakdown of all centre-level posts
terminated within the past three financial years, as well as with the reasons
for their termination.
1.10
The DCS has for a very
long time lamented its recruitment and retention challenges, most of which were
blamed on its uncompetitive salaries, and the challenges associated with
working in the correctional environment. Despite the Committees
recommendations that the DCS should pursue less conventional recruitment
strategies, and should be more proactive in their efforts to attract
professional and custodial personnel, very few efforts appear to have been made
in this regard.
The DCS should provide
the Committee with a report on strategies pursued to attract potential
employees, as well as an assessment of whether these have started to bear
fruit.
1.11
Given the DCS core
function i.e. the rehabilitation and correcting of what is essentially socially
abhorrent behaviour, it is a major concern that the officials charged with
executing this mandate, do not set an example for offenders, and themselves
engage in behaviour that is socially unacceptable. Reporting late for duty,
absenteeism, being under the influence of drugs or alcohol are examples of
ill-discipline that, in a security industry, and correctional environment could
have dire consequences, and therefore demand decisive action. The DCS
continued struggle to manage such forms of ill-discipline point to either a
lack of commitment to a professional work environment, or more disturbingly a
lack of understanding of the most basic requirements of a fully functional and
effective correctional system.
It is
recommended that action taken against officials found guilty of transgressions
that jeopardise security and rehabilitation should be consistent and in the
interest of maintaining security, and promoting rehabilitation.
1.12
Concern about the DCS
apparently poorly-negotiated and poorly managed contracts with service providers
remains, particularly in relation to security installations and nutrition
services which account for some of the costliest contracts. This concern was
echoed by some centre-level personnel, who owing to their day-to-day activities
were perhaps best placed to assess whether the monies spent on some of the
services was justified. While electronic access gates should have made access
control more efficient, in many instances, and despite the monies spent on
access control, dysfunctional gates had to be operated manually.
The DCS should provide the Committee with a
breakdown of all access control gates that were not functioning optimally as at
30 November 2012, and the strategy for how these would be addressed
.
2.
INCARCERATION
2.1.
The Committee welcomes
the own-resource projects undertaken by some of the centres mentioned above.
Those that include inmate involvement should
be encouraged.
2.2
The Committee should be provided with a report on progress made in the
renovation and utilisation of the Emthonjeni Youth Centre.
It was
unacceptable that, given the overcrowding in correctional centres, existing
facilities were under-utilised owing to delays in decision-making.
2.3
The DCS should provide the Committee with a progress report on all
projects, and maintenance challenges identified
above.
2.4
Concern about the DCS
and DPWs working relationship remains. While the national management of the
two departments appear unable to reach agreement with regard to their long
outstanding service level agreement, centre-level personnel continue to
complain about the DPWs alleged poor response to requests for maintenance work.
Where roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined, it is unlikely that
the sub-human conditions inmates are forced to live in when toilets are
blocked, when there is no running water, when living spaces are under water
owing to waterleaks that remain unattended for months, will be addressed. It
must be emphasised that the DCS has a responsibility to ensure humane
detention, and the efficient management of resources, and that therefore it
should ensure that any constraint in this regard is addressed immediately. The
Committee has had numerous interactions on the matter, and in practically all
its reports recommends that the agreement be concluded, yet no meaningful
development has occurred, and explanations for the delay remain unsatisfactory.
Given the delay, the Committee recommends
ministerial intervention to ensure that the cause of the apparent deadlock is
addressed.
2.5 The JICS reported in its 2011/12 annual report that some of the centres did not comply with legislative requirements regarding the reporting of segregations, and deaths: 11% failed to report segregations, and 6% did not have a register for reporting deaths. As reflected above, some of the centres visited did not clearly indicate whether they met these reporting requirements. Mandatory reports are required in those areas, where inmates human rights may easily be violated. The failure to report represents a major breach of the relevant provisions of the CSA, and impacted on the accuracy with which oversight bodies were able to assess the treatment of offenders, and the conditions of incarceration. Where information is unreliable, interventions cannot be made, and violations are likely to continue with no consequences for the perpetrators. The DCS has a responsibility to ensure that every measure is taken to guarantee the safety and security of those in its care. A report should be submitted on how compliance in this regard is monitored, and whether action is taken where heads of correctional centres have been found to be non-compliant.
2.6 Gang activity presented a major threat to correctional centre-discipline and safety, particularly given the levels of overcrowding, and under-staffing. The DCS has provided the Committee with a report on its gang management strategy, and is requested to elaborate on the report, by submitting a detailed assessment of the impact the strategy has had since its implementation, particularly in relation to safe-guarding first-time and vulnerable offenders, and reducing the power number-gangs have historically had.
2.7 The Committee remains concerned that given the overcrowding, and given personnel shortages not enough is being done to ensure the separation of different categories of inmates. It was unacceptable that at the Ncome Medium Centre, for example, remand detainees and sentenced offenders were housed in the same block. That they had separate exercise and meal times was irrelevant.
2.8
According to the JICS 2011/12 annual
report ICCVs were trained to encourage inmates to follow the DCS internal
complaints process outlined in Section 21 of the CSA.
The DCS should ensure that all heads of correctional centres adhere to
the provisions, and that all inmates are made aware of complaints procedure,
not only at admission, but for the duration of their incarceration. Failure to
adequately respond to complaints not only contravened the provisions of the
CSA, but also violated inmates right to just administrative action, and
threatened security.
3.
REHABILITATION
3.1 Maximum security offenders across centres registered their frustration at not being allowed to participate in work activities. Given the poor delivery of rehabilitation programmes and psychological services, and given the trauma inherent to incarceration, it is essential that especially those facing long periods of incarcerated are kept meaningfully occupied, so as to focus their attention on something other than their immediate circumstances. The Committee is not ignorant of, or insensitive to the security risk some maximum offenders may pose, but believes that experienced correctional officials should be able to devise means by which all offenders could participate in work activities.
3.2 Far too many female offenders are choosing not to participate in educational programmes. Given that the female offender population is much smaller than the male population, every effort should be made to ensure that all women complete their schooling, or enrol for further education and training, and higher education programmes.
3.3 Given the DCS inability to attract psychologists and nurses, it is recommended that psychological services be prioritised for those inmates particularly traumatised by their incarceration, and for those who have committed serious crimes, and that alternative means of ensuring the psychological well-being of other categories of offenders be explored.
4
SOCIAL REINTEGRATION
4.1
Most sentenced offenders are confused
about the parole process, particularly about when they will become eligible for
parole consideration. This confusion causes unnecessary frustration among
inmates. That CSPBs and case management committees appear to be as confused and
therefore implement different policies further contributes to the frustration
and dissatisfaction.
The DCS should
ensure that all case management committees and CSPBs are instructed to adhere
to the relevant legislative provisions governing parole.
4.2
It should be emphasised that adequately
explaining how a correctional centre, and the correctional system works, is not
merely a courtesy to the inmates, but an essential component of managing the inmate
population, through managing inmates expectations.
All sentenced offenders are provided with a booklet explaining the
parole process upon admission. To the Committees knowledge the booklet is
available only in English. Despite previous recommendations in this regard,
most inmates still appear ignorant about the parole process
. 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 illiterate offenders.
4.3
As
requested in May 2012, the DCS should perform an audit of all those in their
facilities sentenced before 1 October 2004, and eligible for parole
consideration after having served a third of their sentence, as well as of all
those who will be affected by the recent Van Vuuren, and Van Wyk judgments. The
outcome of these audits should be provided to the Committee.
5.
CARE
5.5.1
The DCS should brief the Committee on the proposed structure
which will include auxiliary nurses, on progress made in its approval, as well
as on the implementation strategy upon approval.
6.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Committee
expresses its appreciation to the regional management, and especially the
management and personnel at the correctional centres visited, for their
co-operation during our visits.
Report to be considered
Documents
No related documents