South African Custodial Services: briefing

Chairperson: Mr Fihla (ANC)

Documents handed out:
none

SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed by the South African Custodial Services, who had won the bid to build a new maximum security prison is being built in Louis Trichardt, for completion by February 2002. They argued that delivery of services to the government was very important, to participate in the transformation, and to comply with the contractual obligations to government. Monitors from correctional services ensure that the company does not transgress from any of its rules, and this forces them to focus on safety and security, human dignity, and delivery. Otherwise, the company faces high penalties.

MINUTES
Steven Korabie, Managing Director of the South African Custodial Services, briefed the Committee on some of the pertinent issues facing the Department, particularly with respect to the building and staffing of prisons. Custodial Services had won the bid to build this prison.

Mr Korabie had previously worked in the Department of Correctional Services for 24years. He had previously worked for an American company that came to South Africa and formed South African Custodial Services in a joint venture. The company won the bid to build a prison in Louis Trichardt. He said that the prison was currently under construction, and that it would be completed by 11 February 2002. It would then be the biggest private prison in the world. He explained that the joint venture was with the government and outside businesses, and that the role of the company was to build and operate the prison under construction. The company had already received two awards for the work it had done; namely a Five Star Award for safety on the site (the only one to be granted over the past five years), and an International Award for the best construction.

He said the prison would be a maximum-security prison for all South Africans. With 500 staff recruited from the area, the company's target was to employ a staff population that included 90% of previously disadvantaged individuals. They hoped to manage the prison with 90% of the staff coming from the Northern Province. The company had already contracted 200 staff (190 of which were from the area), and they had enough trust in the staff to make the operation a success. He stated that the training would enhance the skills of the individuals.

Mr Korabie explained that the staff training would begin on 5 November 2001, and that it was expected to end on 21 December 2001. The trainees would take part in a 'dry run', and by 11 February 2002, the prison would be fully operational, as though it was 10years old.

He listed the three main issues of the company: -
-Empowerment within the prison.
-The costs of operation.
-The development of the prisoners.

As far as empowerment was concerned, the design of the prison was such that it had a net capital amount of R345 million. He said that R86 million was obligated to the government, whilst R140 million had already set towards the prison. On the outset, he stated that Louis Trichardt was under-developed. The company had found that it had to help the delivery of services in the construction phase, and that it had to develop business skills and to develop the continuous business empowerment in the area. The company was on target in terms of empowerment towards the government obligation and the socio-economic development in the Northern Province.

Mr Korabie said that the majority of the people in control of construction were ladies, and they were doing a marvelous job. He added that everyday there were between 1400 and 1600 people on the site. In addition, 950 people had been trained so far, and these were people that had come to the site with no skills at all. However, most of them had left highly skilled, as bricklayers and plumbers. He noted that the training would be continuous.

Mr Korabie then went over the costs of the operation. The per capita cost of running the prison was R76/day. He stated that the rate was low because of the focus on the delivery of effective services, and the focus on keeping overheads down. The company spent 45% of its budget on personnel, and that this low amount was linked to the use of developed technology. He said that he had heard in the papers that this type of venture was privatisation. However, he made the point clear to the committee that it was not privatisation, but that it was a partnership with the government. He added that the partnership was also creating jobs. He said that the construction period would be 15months, and he compared this with the Kroonstadt 1500 type facility that took 4 and a half years to build. Therefore, in terms of time frame, he noted that the low costs of the prison indicated cost saving and affordability.

Mr Korabie compared the per capita cost level with the R94/day that related to prisoners in the correctional services department. He said that their low cost also included every aspect of the prison, that is, the staff, the operations, the utilities, etc. He compared this with the R94/day that included only staff and operations costs. The maintenance and the facilities costs would be carried by the Department of Public Works and the remaining costs by the Department of Correctional Services. However, he cautioned that one would have to be very careful when making a judgement on a comparative scale because in the correctional services department, the total number of prisoners was divided by the entire budget for the prison. He said that maximum and minimum-security prisons would average the per capita spending. He added that the committee was already aware of the fact that the per capita cost levels would differ with the type of security offered, and he gave the example of juvenile security or C-max. Nevertheless, he stated that their per capita costs were sitting at R75/day.

He said that the delivery of services to the government was very important, because the company had the duty to deliver that which it was expected to deliver, to participate in the transformation, and to comply with the contractual obligations to government. He mentioned that monitors from correctional services would watch over them in order to ensure that the company did not transgress from any of its rules, and that this forced them to focus on safety and security, human dignity, and delivery. Otherwise, the company would receive very high penalties. He felt that the partnership with the government was making the process better because the control mechanisms were very sharp.

Mr Korabie said that comparisons would be very relevant where one was comparing 'likes with likes'. One would hear that private prisons were expensive. However, on comparing any private partnership prison with the correctional services, one would therefore have to compare maximum-security prisons with maximum-security prisons. The partnership had fixed the index price in order to lower costs. In addition, there was an escape clause in terms of which the government could terminate the contract after five years if the partnership turned out to be a failure. There were many cries for low cost prisons, and gave the example of the Pollsmoor maximum-security prison, where one could see the results of a low cost prison. He said that he had also heard requests for dormitory type prisons. However, the South African prison population did not allow for such developments, and that this position would probably exist for the next 3 to 5 years. Low cost prisons were intended to bring government costs down in terms of infrastructure, but after five years the cost would be so high the savings would be far exceeded. It is necessary to build prisons that could take care of our people, this would result in positive integration with the rest of the world. He made a plea to move towards a prison system with low operating costs, because this would make it possible to restore the dignity of the prisoners, and it would allow the prisoners to be positively integrated with the rest of the country.
Mr Korabie said that their prison had doctors, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and a school, for instance. When prisoners joined that system, the process of preparing that individual for release would begin at that point. The focus would be changed immediately, and the results that prisoner would be put through different phases. He said that this was why sentence planning would be a crucial policy.

Mr Korabie explained how the prison would deal with manpower. Staff would be trained specifically for specific jobs. After 11 February, the staff would be trained to become multi-skilled. Te company had targeted to set standards for correctional services throughout South Africa, and to set international standards indicating how a prison should be operated.
The partnership would result in:
-Economic development
-Transformation
-Social upliftment
-Transformation in South Africa

He noted that the arguments against the private prison partnership were far removed from the reality of the situation. The country had the opportunity, and it was essential not to allow the situation in South Africa to stagnate. He added that it was necessary to move forward, given the fact that the country did have the ability to set the standards.

Mr Korabie ended by giving suggestions with regards to the over-population in the prisons. He explained that the system in the country was over-populated by approximately 60%. He said that many of the release mechanisms were within the legislation and the department. It would make no sense to simply release a prisoner in order to curb the over-population. Given the fact that most prisoners found their way back into prison within six months, part of the problem lay in the whole criminal justice system. For example, the bail of petty crimes was between R100 and R200, but those prisoners who were unable to pay that amount would have to remain in prison, at the cost of R96/day. He explained that the slow processes meant that a prisoner would spend six months in jail before his first appearance in court. The result was that poor persons would remain in prison after having committed petty crimes, whilst the rich would be able to bail themselves out after having committed more serious crimes.

Mr Korabie stated that there were other options, such as correctional supervision or community service. These were already in existence in the legislation, but they were not being used. He said that the same applied to sentencing in that a structured system to monitor the convict outside of the prison existed. This made it necessary to apply the legislation to the letter. He added that a breakdown in the system was evident. He motivated this conclusion by referring to the over-population in the prisons.

In addition, Mr Korabie said that it would be necessary to focus on the type of prisons built. He said that there was no such thing as an ideal prison, because all prisons were built according to specific needs. This made it not possible to just build a prison and walk away, and he gave the example of maximum security prisons in South Africa that were built for maximum security prisoners. However, he said that one would find all kinds of security classifications in the prisons, and that this was due to overcrowding. He said that it would be necessary to plan accordingly and that the security classification system had to be applied. This implied that prisoners would have to be upgraded. He added that it was contended that the need for prisons was within the medium security classifications.

Discussion
Mr Bloem (ANC) asked how many private companies were building prisons in South Africa. In addition, he wanted to know which company had built the prison in Bloemfontein.

Mr Korabie said that there were two private companies in South Africa that built prisons. They were the South African Custodial Services Company, and Group 4. The Group 4 Company had built the Bloemfontein prison.

Mr Bloem (ANC) said that he had raised the cost issue with the department. He said that it was in this regard that it would be necessary to have the briefing on paper when engaging with the department.

Ms Sosibo (ANC) referred to Mr Korabie's mention of 200 staff and that fact that they would be trained. Would the one-month training period be sufficient?

Mr Korabie explained that training was very specific, and that the focus would be on specific tasks. In the final analysis, the focus would be on management skills. The staff were not trained generally, and that the result of this was that the training period could be shortened. He added that the prison was a specifically built prison. Security was maximised and that staff would be kept busy. He said that the company had also introduced technology. Computers would run the whole prison, and no keys would be used. Therefore lower costs could be obtained. He said that the gate system was such that the gates would only open and close one at a time, and that this was how that staff was minimized. He noted that the company would be phasing its staff in, in November, January and eventually March. By June 2002, the company would expect a total staff body of 510.

Ms Sosibo (ANC) asked how the costs of personnel were kept down to R45.

Mr Korabie said Members were to remember that the prison was built according to the specifications made by the government, and that this would influence the cost of R345million. The two departments designed an ideal, and that is why, for instance, chairs had to be fire retarded (although very expensive). If the specifications were according to normal international standards, they would be able to cut costs by R50million to R100million. He pointed out that without the cutting the specifications, costs would still be able to be brought down. This would result in per capita costs falling as well.

Mr Korabie explained that the technology, training and building of structures, was all conducted with the focus on keeping staff expenditure as low as possible.

Mr Diale (ANC) wanted to know whether the private company was profit making. In addition, if it was profit making, he wanted to know what the profit projections over a year were. On the other hand, if the company was not profit making, he wanted to know how the income would be used.

Mr Korabie explained that the company was indeed profit making. He said that the company was generated by the low per capita costs set by the government, and by reducing its overheads. However, he noted that the profits were very low, and that there would be no profit at all in the first 2years. He added that the focus was on operation and delivery. He noted that the contract was for 25years and that the profit would be made through successfully keeping costs down.

Mr Diale (ANC) referred to the escape clause. He asked what would happen if the government made a decision to withdraw if it was not satisfied with the prison.

Mr Korabie said that the committee had to remember that the company was simply contracted to operate a government prison, which was obviously government property. This meant that the prison would revert to the property of the department of correctional services, and that the government would take over the prison in that event.

Mr Diale (ANC) mentioned that a very beautiful picture of the prison had been drawn. He enquired whether the knowledge and technology could be used within the state correctional services, or whether it was impossible for those things to be done in the state prisons. In particular, he wanted to know whether there was anything structural forbidding the development.

Mr Korabie stated that the technology had been advised by the government and was therefore available. Once standards or benchmarks were set, the technology would be available because it was there for all. He emphasized that the technology was not a secret.

Ms Ngqacula wanted to know how many APOPS prisons existed in the country.
Mr Korabie responded that there were only two, the one in Louis Trichardt, and the one in Bloemfontein.

Mr Bloem (ANC) asked whether the company had any other government contracts to build prisons.

Mr Korabie stated that the company did not have any other government contracts. He noted that the company did have a preferred bid of contract for an additional prison, but that the ultimate decision would depend on the government.

The meeting was adjourned.