Children in Conflict with the Law: A Compendium of Child Justice Statistics: 1995-2001

Edited by
L.M. MUNTINGH
Cape Town
2003

Children in Conflict with the Law: A Compendium of Child Justice Statistics: 1995-2001
CONTENTS

CONTENTS……………………………………....2
LIST OF TABLE…………………………….…...5
FOREWORD………………………………….…13
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS…………….….…14
ABSTRACT………………………………….…..15
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND…....17

Context………………………………………………………………….… 17
2 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY……….19
2.1 Purpose of the study………………………………………..19
2.2 Research approach…………………………………………20

Research data……………………………………………………….…..….20
Data collection…………………………………………………………..….21
Statistics drawn from extant literature………………………………...…21

3 ARRESTS AND ASSESSMENT…………..…26

3.1 National and Provincial figures………………………..…26
3.2 Assessment………………………………………………....29
Children co-accused with adults…………………………………………35
3.3 Awaiting trial placements………………………………....37
3.4 Legal representation………………………………………39
4 DIVERSION…………………………….……40
4.1 Overview of National figures……………………………..41
4.2 Diversion at specific courts and per magisterial district..50
4.3 Impact evaluation of diversion programmes…………….57
Recidivism……………………………………………………………..…..59
Profile participants………………………….………………………….…59
Experience of the programme…………………………….……….….…..67
Compliance with diversion programme…………………………….…....77
Staying out of trouble…………………………………………………..…78
Recidivism………………………………………………………………….83
5 CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL………….....89
5.1 Children awaiting trial in prisons………………………...89
Regional distribution……………………………………………………...94
Age distribution…………………………………………………………...95
Offence profile………………………………………………………….…97
The growing number of awaiting-trial prisoners……………………….100
5.2 Children awaiting trial in other facilities………………..102
6 PROSECUTIONS, SENTENCING AND CONVICTIONS………………………………..107

6.1 Conviction rates…………………………………………..107
6.2 Children admitted to serve prison sentence………...…..109
Sentence profiles……………………………………………………..…...111
6.3 Sentenced children in prison……………………………..115
Provincial distribution…………………………………………….……...119
Age distribution…………………………………………………………..123
Types of crime……………………………………………………………125
6.4 Children serving non-custodial sentences administered by DCS………………………………………………………...….133

7 DEATHS IN CUSTODY……………………..137

7.1 Deaths in custody……………………………………….…137
7.2 Ten case reports on deaths in custody…………………...140
8 OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS………..145
9 LIST OF SOURCES………………………....146

Other sources of information………………………………………..….149


Children in Conflict with the Law: A Compendium of Child Justice Statistics: 1995-2001
LIST OF TABLES


Table 1. Children arrested per province per year for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. Source: SAPS Crime Information and Analysis Centre (2002)………………………………………….27
Table 2. Stepping Stones: Arrests September 1997 to March 2000 Port Elizabeth. Source: Department of Social Development: E Cape (2002) Unpublished figures, Stepping Stones Port Elisabeth……………………………………………………………………………30
Table 3. Children assessed at Wynberg Court for the period April 2002 to 30 October 2002 according to the age of the alleged offenders. Source: Provincial Administration: Western Cape Department of Social Services……………………………………………………..31
Table 4. Language profile; Wynberg assessment centre from April 2002 to October 2002. Source: Provincial Administration: Western Cape Department of Social Services………..31
Table 5. Offence profile of children assessed at the Wynberg Court. Source: Provincial Administration: Western Cape Department of Social Services………………………… ..32
Table 6. Age and number of children assessed at Cape Town Assessment Centre in 2002. Source: Western Cape, Department of Social Services……………………………………33
Table 7. Gender profile of children assessed at Cape Town Assessment Center 2002. Source: Western Cape, Department of Social Services…………………………………………….33
Table 8. Criminal Charges at Cape Town assessment Centre 2002. Source: Western Cape, Department of Social Services…………………………………………………………….34

Table 9. Awaiting-trial Placements: Western Cape. 1995-1997. Source: SAPS Western Cape Youth Desk (2002)………………………………………………………………………..38

Table10.Court Statistics For 1997, 2000 & 2001: Johannesburg Juvenile Court. Source: DSD (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………..39

Table 11. The total number of completed diversion programs per financial year per province. Source: Nicro reports unpublished……………………………………………...42

Table 12. Diversion Cases: 1996/7–2000/1. Regional Distribution. Source: Nicro reports unpublished……………………………………………………………………………….42

Table 13. Number of Diversion cases per programme per year. Source: Nicro reports unpublished……………………………………………………………………………….44

Table 14. Children In Nicro Diversion Programmes In 2001/2002: Age Distribution. Source: NICRO, Unpublished figures……………………………………………………..45

Table 15. Nicro Diversion Cases: 1996–1998/9. Gender Profile Of Participants. Source: Muntingh (1999, 1998b)…………………………………………………………………..46

Table 16. Offence Profile Of Nicro Diversion Cases According To Gender For 1997/8. Source: Muntingh (1997)………………………………………………………………….47

Table 17. Nicro Diversion Cases: 1997/8 & 1999. Offence Profile. Source: Muntingh (1999, 2001)……………………………………………………………………………………. .48

Table 18. NICRO Diversion Cases: 1997/8 & 1998/9. Offence Profile Of Cases (Grouped) (in percentage). Source: Muntingh (1999)…………………………………………………49

Table 19. Nicro Diversion Cases: 1996/7– 2000. Sources Of Referrals. Sources: Muntingh (2001, 1999, 1998b)………………………………………………………………………49

Table 20. Nicro Diversion Cases: 1997/8 & 1998/9. Compliance Rate Per Programme (in percentage). Source: Muntingh (1999)…………………………………………………….50

Table 21. Number of Diversions in Port Elizabeth 2002. Source: Dept of Social Development: E Cape (2002) Unpublished figures, Stepping Stones Port Elizabeth…… .50

Table 22. Number of children being diverted at Wynberg. Source: Provincial administration: Western Cape Department of Social Services…………………………………………… 51

Table 23. Number of children being diverted at Cape Town assessment center in year 2002. Source: Western Cape, Department of Social Services……………………………………51

Table 24. Percentage Of Assessed Cases Referred For Diversion At Two Assessment Centres: 1996–1998. Source: Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (1999)…………………………..52

Table 25. Geographical Distribution per magisterial district of NICRO Diversion Programmes Beneficiaries for 2001/2002.Source: Unpublished figures, Nicro…………....52

Table 26. Number of Magisterial Districts per province reached by NICRO Diversion Services. Source: Unpublished figures, Nicro……………………………………………..57

Table 27. Respondent numbers in 1998 and 2000 surveys. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………………………………………………………………………………58

Table 28. Gender of respondents. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000…………………………...60

Table 29. Race of respondent (percentages). Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………..61

Table 30. Programme profile of respondents. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………..61

Table 31. Offence profile of respondents. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………..62

Table 32. Type of referral. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000…………………………...64

Table 33. Source of referral. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000…………………………...64

Table 34. Summarised household structure. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000……………...…66
Table 35. Expectations of the programme. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………...67
Table 36. Retention of programme content. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000……………..…69
Table 37. Impressed most about programme. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………..70
Table 38. Impressed least about the programme. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000……………..72
Table 39. Learned from the programme. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………...73
Table 40.What was the best part of the programme? Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………………………………………………………………………………74
Table 41. What was the worst part of the programme?. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………………………………………………………………………………75
Table 42. Current opinion of the programme. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000……………….76
Table 43. Reasons for finishing the programme. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000……………..78
Table 44. Did anything change for you after the programme? Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………………………………………………………………………………80
Table 45. Reasons for staying out of trouble. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………..81
Table 46. Did the child react positively to the programme? Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………………………………………………………………………………83
Table 47. Recidivism profile and time lapse. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………...84
Table 48. Reporting of re-offending and respondent type. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000……………………………………………………………………………………....85
Table 49. Offering profile of recidivism period (1998). Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………………………………………………………………………………86
Table 50. Reasons presented why further offence was committed.. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000………………………………………………………………………………………87
Table 51. Gender Distribution. Children awaiting trial in prison (1995 – 2001). Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………..89
Table 52. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001). Regional Distribution. Source DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………….91
Table 53. Male Children awaiting Trial in Prison: Regional distribution. Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………..91
Table 54. Age Categories: Unsentenced prisoners in custody: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002………………………………………………92
Table 55. Unsentenced children in custody: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002……………………………………………………………….92
Table 56. Unsentenced children in custody per crime category: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002………………………………………………92
Table 57. Infants and young children in prison with their mothers per age category: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002………………………..93
Table 58. Infants and young children in prisons with their mothers per province: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002……………………….93
Table 59. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995 – 2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002). ……………………………………………………………………...94
Table 60. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995 – 2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………….95
Table 61. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001). Age Distribution Source: DCS (2002)………………………………………………………………………………..96
Table 62. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution (in %). Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………….96
Table 63. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001). Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………………….97
Table 64. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995 – 2001): Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………………….97
Table 65. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution (raw scores). Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………………………………98
Table 66. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995 – 2001: Crime Category Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………………………………99
Table 67. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution (raw scores). Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………………….99
Table 68. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution (percentages) Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………………..100
Table 69. Male & Female Children In Prison (1995–2001). Sentenced/Awaiting Trial. Source: DSD (2002)……………………………………………………………………...101
Table 70. Prison Population (1995–2001): Children/Adult Divide. Source: DSD (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………102
Table 71. Children Awaiting Trial In Places Of Safety In October 1998 & October 1999. Regional Distribution: A Snapshot. Sources: 1Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (2001); 2Department of Social Development (2002)……………………………………………..104
Table 72. Children Awaiting Trial In Police Cells: October 2000. Regional Distribution: A Snapshot. Sources: Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (2001); Department of Social Development (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………104
Table 73. Children Awaiting Trial. Places Of Detention: A Snapshot Comparison. Source: Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (2001)……………………………………………………….105
Table 74. Children Awaiting Trial. Places Of Detention. A Snapshot Comparison. Source: DSD (2002)……………………………………………………………………………...105
Table 75. Children Awaiting Trial: Heidelberg Places Of Detention. Source: DSD (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………106
Table 76. Children Awaiting Trial: Heidelberg Places Of Detention. Source: DSD (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………106
Table 77. Average Conviction Rate (All Offences) Per 100 000 Of The Population: 1995/6. Source: Schönteich (1999)……………………………………………………………….107
Table 78. Conviction Rate For Murder Per 100 000 Of The Population: 1995/6. Source: Schönteich (1999)……………………………………………………………………….108
Table 79 Conviction Rate For Robbery Per 100 000 Of The Population: 1995/6. Source: Schönteich (1999)……………………………………………………………………….108
Table 80. Conviction Rate For Assault Per 100 000 Of The Population: 1995/6. Source: Schönteich (1999)……………………………………………………………………….108
Table 81. Provincial distributions of admissions. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002……………………………………………………………………...110
Table 82. Sentence profile of admissions. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002……………………………………………………………………………..112
Table 83. Sentence profile of admissions in percentages. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002…………………………………………………………….113
Table 84. Percentage of total admissions sentenced to 6 months or less per province. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002……………………………………...113
Table 85. Percentage of total admissions sentenced to 12 months or less per province. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002..…………………………….114
Table 86. Age Categories: sentenced children in custody: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002……………………………………………..115
Table 87. Sentenced children in custody: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002……………………………………………………………..115
Table 88. Sentenced children (younger than 18 years) in custody per crime category: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002………………………116
Table 89. Sentence Profile Of Children (1999 & 2000). A Snapshot. Source: Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (2001)…………………………………………………………………………116
Table 90. Children and juveniles held in correctional centres and prisons throughout the country. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002…………………....117
Table 91. Sentence Profile Of 7 – 16 Yr. Old Children: 1999 Averages. Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………118
Table 92. Sentence Profile Of 17 Yr. Old Children: 1999 Averages. Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………118
Table 93. Sentence Profile Of Children: 1999 Averages. Source: DCS (2002)……………119
Table 94. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995 – 2001). Regional Distribution (raw data). Source: DCS (2002)………………………………………………………………..121
Table 95. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): Regional Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………….121
Table 96. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)………………………………………………………………………………122
Table 97. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Regional Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………….122
Table 98. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………...123
Table 99. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………………………124
Table 100. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)………………………………………………………………………………124
Table 101. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………….125
Table 102. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………………………....126
Table 103. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001). Crime Category Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………………….126
Table 104. Average Number Of Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………………...127
Table 105. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002)………………………………………………………127
Table 106. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (7-13 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002)………………………………………….128
Table 107. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (7-13 Years). Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002)………………………………………….128
Table 108. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (14 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002). …………………………………………129
Table 109. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (14 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………………..129
Table 110. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (15 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………………..130
Table 111. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (15 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………………..130
Table 112. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (16 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002)………………………….131
Table 113. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (16 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………....131

Table 114. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (17 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………132

Table 115. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (17 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002)……………………………………132

Table 116. Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences: Average Number Per Year (1995 – 2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002). ………………………………..134

Table 117. Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences: Average Number Per Year (1995 – 2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………134

Table 118. Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences (1995 – 2001): Gender Distribution In Percentages. Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………………………..135

Table 119. Average Number of Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences (1995–2001): Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002)………………………………………………….135

Table 120. Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences (1995–2001): Age Distribution in Percentages. Source: DCS (2002)…………………………………………………..136

Table 121. Deaths Of Children In Custody: 01/01/1999–30/04/2000. Place Of Death. Source: Skelton (2001)……………………………………………………………..137

Table 122. Deaths Of Children In Custody: 01/01/1999–30/04/2000. Cause Of Death. Source: Skelton (2001)……………138


FOREWORD

A compendium of this nature will hopefully provide a foundation for continuously updating the existing statistics and information presented in here, but it will also show us where the gaps are and where we need to collect more information and establish systems to collect information so as to inform our decision-making regarding children in conflict with the law. This report is by no means complete but it does provide a good overview of what happens to children in conflict with the law in South Africa in numerical terms.
The report would not have been possible without the support, contributions and persistence of a number of organisations and individuals. I would like to acknowledge the following here:
Community Law Centre (UWC) for commissioning this study
Sonke Development for the initial round of work
Therese Palm (NICRO) for her editing services
Monique Ritter (NICRO) for the information provided
Julia Sloth-Nielsen (UWC) for the Annual Juvenile Justice Review
Ann Skelton (UNDP Child Justice Project) for information and advice

Lukas Muntingh
Editor


GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

CJA Child Justice Alliance
CJB Child Justice Bill
DCS Department of Correctional Services
DoJ Department of Justice
DSD Department of Social Development
NICRO South African National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NPA National Prosecuting Authority
RSA Republic of South Africa
SAPS South African Police Service
UNCJP United Nations Child Justice Project


Children in Conflict with the Law: A Compendium of Child Justice Statistics: 1995-2001
ABSTRACT

The primary objectives of the research on which this report was based were to (i) collate useful statistical information on children in conflict with the law in South Africa, (ii) to categorise these statistics according to the stages if the criminal justice process, and (iii) to interpret the trends identified in the statistical data collected and categorised.
The extant literature and the data bases of key South African research and service agencies dealing with children in conflict with the law, as well as interviews with key role-players involved with these children were to constitute the key avenues via which the data referred to above were to be accessed.
A dearth of accessible statistical data, as well as the patent absence of adequate monitoring systems to record the relevant statistics pertaining to children in conflict with the law constituted the single most important obstacle to meeting the research objectives outlined above. Consequently, one of the key recommendations made in this report is that action to be taken to co-ordinate the development of appropriate systems to capture the relevant statistics – as well as other forms of appropriate information – pertaining to children in conflict with the law.
Notwithstanding some substantial gaps in statistics on children in conflict with the law, the following are some of the main findings in this report:
it is projected that in excess of 170 000 children would have been arrested in 2002
children are arrested primarily for property offences
the number of children referred to diversion programmes increased dramatically from 1996
diversion programmes show very encouraging results in terms of curbing recidivism
the number of children awaiting trial in prisons have increased six-fold since 1996
by 2001 there were more children awaiting trial in prisons than sentenced children in prisons
there were in 2001 roughly equal proportions of children awaiting trial prisons on the one hand and, on the other hand, children awaiting trial in other institutions (police cells and Dept of Social Development facilities)
the number of children sentenced to imprisonment has grown at an annual rate of 16% between 1999 to 2001
the length of prison sentences for children are on the increase
correctional supervision is used increasingly as a sentencing option for children
between 1 January 1999 and 30 April 2000, ten children died in custody, nine of which were due to "unnatural causes".


INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Child Justice Alliance (CJA) is a coalition of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) broadly in support of the Child Justice Bill (CJB) which was tabled in parliament in 2002. The CJA has, in support of the parliamentary processes initiated a research programme investigating a number of key issues pertaining to child justice in South Africa based on a gap analysis done by the Institute of Criminology (UCT). Four research areas have been identified, namely:
the compilation of a compendium of statistics pertaining to child justice
the development of baseline data for comparative use in longitudinal studies
the collection of qualitative narratives on children’s experiences of the criminal justice system
consultation with children in relation to the Child Justice Bill.
Context

Since 1992 a range of civil society initiatives, which were later supported by government, sought to improve the situation of children coming into conflict with the law. The most important of these are:
the establishment of referral and assessment procedures
the development of arrest, reception and referral centers
diversion programmes
monitoring of children awaiting trial in prison and in police cells
non-custodial sentencing options.
The establishment of these services was accompanied by a strong advocacy campaign initiated by civil society and supported by government. Many of the initiatives included the recording and reporting on statistical data around children in trouble with the law. The result is that there is currently a wide range of statistical information spread over reports, published articles and government documents. This explains the current need to compile a compendium of available statistics.
The Child Justice Bill proposes to establish:
a criminal justice process for children accused of committing offences which aims to protect the rights of children entrenched in the Constitution and provided for in international instruments; to provide for the minimum age of criminal capacity of such children; to incorporate diversion of cases away from formal court procedures as a central feature of the process; to establish assessment of children and a preliminary inquiry as compulsory procedures; to provide that children must be tried in child justice courts and to extend the sentencing options available in respect of children; to entrench the notion of restorative justice in respect of children; and to provide for matters incidental thereto.
(Preamble to Child Justice Bill, p. 1).
Given its ‘children’s rights’ orientation (Sloth Nielsen & Muntingh, 1998), there can be no doubt that the proposed legislation has the potential to contribute significantly to the amelioration of the circumstances of children in conflict with the law as well as to the latter’s integration or reintegration into their communities and broader society (Child Justice Alliance, 2001). No doubt, the implementation of the proposed legislation will be accompanied by various difficulties. However, the fact that the government would be able to reduce the expenses related to the administration of child justice by as much as 35 percent with the implementation of the new child justice legislation is a very compelling reason for the implementation of this legislation.
In essence, the present report, through the medium of a compendium of statistical data, endeavours to outline the context within the proposed legislation will be introduced and function (cf. Child Justice Alliance, 2001).


APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the purpose of the final evaluation, the conceptual framework underpinning the approach and the evaluation methods, and the instruments used to collect the data.
2.1 Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this research initiative was to compile an accessible compendium of statistics pertaining to children and the justice system in South Africa for the period 1995 to 2001.
The objectives of the research initiative briefly were as follows:
To collate useful statistical information on children in conflict with the law in South Africa.
To categorise these statistics according to the stages of the criminal justice process.
To draw basic conclusions from trends identified by the statistics.
There are a number of potential themes to be investigated. These include:
identifying blockages in the criminal justice system
determining the average length for completion of criminal cases
an accessible and useful format for child justice statistical data in respect of:
children’s arrest data
children arrested but not charged
deaths in custody
offence data
children pleading guilty/not guilty
number of children being prosecuted, diverted and convicted
sentencing of children
children awaiting trial in institutions
children and legal representation
children in prison (sentenced)
children in places of safety
recidivism figures
statistics on assessment centres
case management data
services to children (NGOs, state, etc.).

2.2 Research Approach
The research study was designed in the following way:
Research Data

In accordance with the research brief provided by the commissioning agency, the Child Justice Alliance, the types of data that the researchers endeavoured to collect for this report included the following:
general demographic information related to children in conflict with the law
statistics on children arrested but not charged with a criminal offence
statistics related to child deaths in custody
offence data
children pleading guilty/ not guilty to criminal charges
statistics related to the number of children prosecuted, diverted and convicted
the number of children awaiting trial in institutions
statistics related to children and their legal representation
the number of children in prison (sentenced)
the number of children in places of safety
statistics on recidivism trends
statistics on assessment centres
statistics related to the case management of children in conflict with the law
statistics related to the services available to children in conflict with the law.
Data Collection

The initial intention was to access the above-mentioned research data through the following sources:
the extant literature (including unpublished reports) dealing with children in conflict with the law
the data bases of key South African research, monitoring and service agencies dealing with children in conflict with the law
interviews with key informants or role-players involved with children in conflict with the law, with the aim of obtaining the former’s impressions of the current position of children in conflict with the law, as well as their views on the trends emerging from the statistics collected for this study.
Statistics drawn from the extant literature

While the corpus of literature consulted (see the List of Sources at the end of the report) provided important indicators on the position of children in conflict with the law since 1995, on the whole, the statistical information provided in this body of literature was fairly inadequate as far as the overall objectives of this study were concerned. This was largely a result of the fact that most of the reports and articles which contained statistical information focused on a diversity of phenomena over fairly short time periods with the result that there were many time periods that were not accounted for. Statistics obtained from research, monitoring and service agencies
Under normal circumstances, the gaps in the literature referred to above should not have posed an insurmountable obstacle, because there are various research and service agencies in South Africa, such as the South African Police Service, Statistics South Africa, the Department of Justice, the Department of Social Development and the Department of Correctional Services, which by virtue of their key business activities could have been expected to keep up to date and comprehensive statistics on children in conflict with the law. Unfortunately, the researchers’ requests for statistical information from these agencies were generally met with disappointment. On the whole, it appeared as though the collection of statistical data on children in conflict with the law did not constitute a priority with most of the agencies approached for data. However, as the following outline of the responses to requests for information from these agencies reveal, there were a few notable exceptions, such as the Department of Correctional Services, which had collected a very comprehensive set of data on children in conflict with the law for the period 1995 to October 2001. Very importantly too, this organisation was willing to make the data it had collected available for the present research initiative.
Department of Justice (DoJ)
The Department of Justice was unable to provide much statistical information on children in conflict with the law. Indeed, the only information which this department was able to make available to the researchers was a set of statistics on children awaiting trail in prison during 2001; statistics which the Department of Correctional Services had already made available to the researchers.
Statistics South Africa (SSA)
Following a request to Statistics South Africa for data on children in conflict with the law, this agency informed the researchers that they had discontinued the collection of the requested data in 1995. They referred the researchers to the South African Police Service.
South African Police Service (SAPS)
When approached, the South African Police Service (SAPS) informed the researchers that they could not provide the latter with any of the statistics requested as they did not have a centralised data bank. A range of reasons for this apparent lack of comprehensive statistics on children in conflict with the law were provided by the various officials contacted for the information. These included the following reasons. Firstly, it was claimed, the SAPS had decided to prioritise the collection of statistical data in relation to children as ‘victims’ of crime. Secondly, it was argued that a lack of financial and human resources has made it difficult for the SAPS to develop and maintain a data bank on children in conflict with the law.
One SAPS official did acknowledge that an effort had been made over the last two years to collect data relating to children in conflict with the law. However, he claimed that the collation of this data will only take place later this year. When the researchers requested access to this data (in whatever form), they were informed that permission from the SAPS National Office was required for the release of the information. While a request for the release of the data was subsequently forwarded to the relevant authorities, the data had not yet been made available to the researchers at the time of writing this report. It was only at a much later stage in the preparation of this report that arrest data on children became available per chance.
Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
The DCS is the only department that keeps accessible, comprehensive and up to date information on the children placed in their care. Data from this department figure strongly in this report.
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)
The National Prosecuting Authority informed the researchers that, other than statistics on diversions, they had no statistics on children in conflict with the law. Unfortunately, the statistics on diversion that they provided to the researchers overlapped in large measure with statistics previously obtained from NICRO.
Legal Aid Board
The Legal Aid Board could not provide any statistics on children in conflict with the law. Instead, this organisation provided the researchers with a list of Legal Aid Centres nationally and advised the researchers to approach the individual centres for the requested data themselves. All these centres were duly approached for whatever statistics on children in conflict with the law they have on record. Unfortunately, no statistics had been forwarded to the researchers by the time of writing this report.
Courts
The researchers contacted various magistrates’ courts for statistics on children in conflict with the law. On each occasion the researchers were informed that the only statistics kept on record were related to diversion, and that the statistics on diversion collected by NICRO were more comprehensive.
Some court statistics were however obtained via the Department of Social Development (see below).
Department of Social Development (DSD)
Initially, this department indicated that they did have some statistics on children in conflict with the law, but that they needed some time to collate the statistics. However, when the department was subsequently approached for these statistics, the researchers were informed that the department did not have any comprehensive statistics. Consequently, the researchers were advised to approach individual service centres. When approached, the general response from the service centres was that the requested statistics was not yet available, as they still had to be extracted from individual files. Three centres (viz. the Johannesburg, Nigel and Heidelberg centres) however forwarded statistics for their regions, and the researchers are continuing to follow up other centres for statistics.
United Nations Child Justice Project
The United States Child Justice Project provided the researchers with a range of statistics, as well as other material on children in conflict with the law.
In summary, therefore, the responses of institutions contacted for statistics on children in conflict with the law generally were fairly disappointing. This obviously does not mean that it would be impossible to meet the primary objective of this study – namely, to compile an accessible and comprehensive compendium of statistics pertaining to children in conflict with the law. In essence it means that there are same significant gaps or that the accuracy of the data can be questioned. The data presented should however give a fair idea of overall trends.



ARRESTS AND ASSESSMENTS

National and Provincial arrest figures

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current situation concerning children in conflict with the law. The report shall present the statistics available in an easy accessible way to the reader and shall be structured in a manner to enable updates.

First the data on the number of arrested children in the country will be presented followed by a presentation on the number of diverted cases. By comparing the total number of arrested children with the number of children that are being diverted by Nicro, information on how many cases are being diverted can be obtained easily. It must be noted though, that the number of diverted cases is not the total number of cases that are being diverted since there are other organizations/institutions providing diversion besides Nicro. Still the comparison can give an indication on the development and the trends as Nicro is one of the main providers of diversion in the country. The information on how many children are being diverted may then be compared to the number of children being prosecuted and thereby go through the whole criminal system.

It is important to know how many children are being diverted compared to how many that are being prosecuted of the total number of arrests to be able to plan the future development of the organization and to be able to meet the needs of society.

CHILDREN ARRESTED PER PROVINCE PER YEAR FOR 1999, 2000, 2002

PROVINCE

1999

2000

2001

2002 (6 months)

Eastern Cape

10291

11285

12270

7497 (14994)

Free State

8214

8635

9259

5299 (10598)

Gautang

19886

23213

31017

19311 (38622)

KwaZulu-Natal

21647

24235

27275

16072 (32144)

Limpopo

3277

4495

5864

3916 (7832)

Mpumalanga

4550

5370

6606

4025 (8050)

Northern Cape

6551

7092

7153

4010 (8020)

North West

3592

4122

5460

4076 (8152)

Western Cape

36765

31109

32954

20906 (41812)

TOTAL

114773

119556

137858

85112 (170224)

Table 1. Children arrested per province per year for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. Source: SAPS Crime Information and Analysis Centre (2002).














Figure 1. Arrests of children per province in year 2001, Source: SAPS Crime Information and Analysis Centre (2002).

Figure 2. Total numbers of arrests of children in year 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Source: SAPS Crime Information and Analysis Centre (2002).
The table on number of arrests shows an increase each year in the number of arrested children. Most probably will the year 2002 also show an increase when the year has passed given the trend from the previous years. All the provinces showed an increase in the number of arrested children accept the Western Cape where a decrease can be detected from 1999 to 2000. It should also be noted that the increase in annual arrests figures is part a function of the continous roll-out of the CAS system and as more police stations are linked up, more data is recorded. As can be expected, Western Cape, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal account for the highest numbers of arrests. These three provinces, based on the figures for 2001, account for 66.2% of arrests. Due to the role-out of the CAS system the annual increases in number of arrests, these figures should not be interpreted at face value.

3.2 Assessment

Assessment refers to an alleged child offender’s assessment by a probation officer, assistant probation officer or social worker. The purpose of the assessment is to determine the (social) circumstances of each child who comes into conflict with the law. As conceptualised by child justice activists as well as by the Child Justice Bill, assessment is central to the child justice system. This is so primarily because the assessment process allows for the protection of the child (see Sloth-Nielsen and Muntingh, 1999, for a more comprehensive discussion of this point). The assessment process also allows for the consideration of all the diversion options available to the child (see section on diversion below).
Despite the centrality of the assessment process to child justice, no national statistics on the application of the process could be obtained by the time of writing this report. Indeed the only statistics that could be obtained in relation to assessments are from Jonannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Wynberg.
Table 2 presents assessment data per charge for the period September 1997 to March 2000 for the Stepping Stones Centre in Port Elizabeth. This centre was established to centralise arrests, assessment and processing of cases in the Port Elizabeth area. All children arrested in the area are brought to the Stepping Stones Centre and assessed. Full year data are available only for 1998 and 1999. From the data it appears that Stepping Stones assess approximate 3400 cases per year.

STEPPING STONES: ARRESTS SEPTEMBER 1997 TO MARCH 2000 PORT ELIZABETH

Offence

Sept-97-Dec-97

1998

1999

To March 2000

Totals

Murder

31

32

44

13

120

Att murder

4

16

18

3

41

Assault with the intent to cause grievious bodily harm

47

84

112

41

284

Assault

 

6

   

6

Indecent assault

2

4

24

2

32

Rape

53

114

151

56

374

Att rape

5

2

14

 

21

Robbery

39

114

153

65

368

Armed robbery

16

28

45

14

103

Att robbery

   

12

2

14

Theft

353

953

1104

302

3065 (36.8%)

Theft of a motor vehicle

8

10

16

5

39

Theft from a motor vehicle

24

100

157

21

302

House breaking and theft

153

611

873

233

1870 (22.7%)

Possession of drugs

14

47

53

18

132

Dealing in drugs

6

7

7

5

25

Malicious damage to property

145

71

79

22

317

Possession of stolen goods

16

103

93

21

233

Possession of arms and ammunition

3

19

49

10

81

Totals

854

3041

3413

924

8232

Table 2. Stepping Stones: Arrests September 1997 to March 2000 Port Elizabeth. source: Department of Social Development: E Cape (2002) Unpublished figures, Stepping Stones Port Elizabeth.

As is consistent with other data and common understanding of child involvement in crime, property offences are by far in the majority. Theft and house breaking account for 59.5% of cases.

CHILDREN ASSESSED AT WYNBERG COURT FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2002 TO 30 OCTOBER 2002 ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENDERS

Age

1/4/2002-30/10/20002

%

10

1

0.2

11

2

0.3

12

8

1.4

13

21

3.6

14

53

9.2

15

99

17.2

16

139

24.1

17

253

44.0

Table 3. Children assessed at Wynberg Court for the period April 2002 to 30 October 2002 according to the age of the alleged offenders. Source: Provincial Administration: Western Cape Department of Social Services.

The total number of children assessed at the Wynberg Court during the period April 1st to October 30th is 576 of which 441 are male and 118 female. This 75/25 profile is consistent with other data.

LANGUAGE PROFILE; WYNBERG ASSESSMENT CENTRE FROM APRIL 2002 TO OCTOBER 2002

Language

N

%

Afrikaans

267

47.8

English

58

10.4

Xhosa

234

41.8

Total

559

Table 4. Language profile; Wynberg assessment centre from April 2002 to October 2002.. Source: Provincial Administration: Western Cape Department of Social Services.




OFFENCE PROFILE OF CHILDREN ASSESSED AT THE WYNBERG COURT

CRIME

No.

%

Murder

9

1.6

Attempted murder

11

2

Assault (common)

6

1

Assault GBH

8

1.4

Rape

2

0.4

Sodomy

2

0.4

Robbery (common)

27

4.8

Armed robbery

9

1.6

Theft

220

39.2

Theft of a fire-arm

3

0.5

Theft of a motor vehicle

10

1.8

Theft out of a motor vehicle

34

6

Att. Theft

4

0.7

Housebreaking and theft

80

14.3

Att. Housebreaking and theft

7

1.2

Att. Theft of a motor vehicle

1

0.2

Att. Theft out of a motor vehicle

4

0.7

Possession of illegal substance

45

8

Dealing with illegal substances

2

0.4

Possession of stolen property

29

5.2

Possession of unlicensed fire-arm

18

3.2

Possession of ammunition

1

0.2

Possession of housebreaking implements

1

0.2

Fraud

2

0.4

Crimen Injuria

1

0.2

Trespassing

3

0.5

Malicious damage to property

16

2.9

Bomb threat

1

0.2

Hijacking

4

0.7

Interference with members of SAPS

1

0.2

TOTAL

561

Table 5. Offence profile of children assessed at the Wynberg Court. Source: Provincial Administration: Western Cape Department of Social Services.

Comparing the Wynberg and Stepping Stones Centre offence profiles, it emerges that the proportions are similar in that theft and house breaking and theft account for 53.5% of the total, compared to Stepping Stone’s 55.5%.

AGE AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN ASSESSED AT THE CAPE TOWN ASSESSMENT CENTRE IN 2002

Age profile

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

%

Total

January

 

1

   

7

6

14

30

32

22

12.5

112

February

2

 

3

2

7

14

17

27

21

37

14.5

130

March

     

3

4

5

14

24

30

38

13.2

118

April

     

2

3

7

17

26

30

43

14.3

128

May

   

1

2

6

10

19

42

30

36

16.3

146

June

         

6

23

20

20

34

11.5

103

July

   

1

2

3

6

7

14

15

14

6.9

62

August

     

1

2

2

6

16

18

18

7.0

63

September

       

1

3

4

6

10

8

3.6

32

Total

2

1

4

13

33

59

121

205

206

250

 

894

Table 6. Age and number of children assessed at Cape Town Assessment Centre in 2002. Source: Western Cape, Department of Social Services.

GENDER PROFILE OF CHILDREN ASSESSED AT CAPE TOWN ASSESSMENT CENTER 2002

Gender

Female

%

Male

%

Total

January

18

15.9

95

84.1

113

February

22

16.8

109

83.2

131

March

25

21.2

93

78.8

118

April

31

24.2

97

75.8

128

May

40

27.4

106

72.6

146

June

39

37.9

64

62.1

103

July

13

21.0

49

79.0

62

August

12

18.8

52

81.2

64

September

3

9.4

29

90.6

32

Total

203

 

694

 

897

Table 7. Gender profile of children assessed at Cape Town Assessment Center 2002. Source: Western Cape, Department of Social Services

CRIMINAL CHARGES AT CAPE TOWN ASSESSMENT CENTRE 2002

Crime

No.

%

Murder

4

0.4

Att. murder

2

0.2

Rape

3

0.3

Att. rape

2

0.2

Assault

17

2.0

Assault GBH

9

1.0

Robbery

87

10

Armed robbery

4

0.4

Theft

56

6.0

Theft of a motor vehicle

12

1.0

Theft from a motor vehicle

67

7.0

Housebreaking and theft

61

7.0

Att. Theft

4

0.4

Att. Housebreaking and theft

46

5.0

Att. theft of a motor vehicle

12

1.0

Att. theft from a motor vehicle

52

6.0

Shoplifting

306

34.0

Possession of dagga

55

6.0

Poss. of dagga and mandrax

13

1.0

Poss. of dagga, mandrax and cocaine

4

0.4

Possession of mandrax

4

0.4

Possession of cocaine

1

0.1

Dealing in drugs

3

0.3

Possession of stolen gods

37

4.0

In possession of ammunition/ firearm

3

0.3

Fraud

4

O.4

Trespassing

5

0.5

Malicious damage of property

17

2.0

Bomb threat

1

0.1

Kidnapping

1

0.1

Pointing of a fire arm

5

0.5

Total

897

 

Table 8. Criminal Charges at Cape Town assessment Centre 2002. Source: Western Cape, Department of Social Services.

It appears that the Cape Town Assessment Centre uses slightly different offence categorization and it would therefore be somewhat risky to compare overall profiles with the other assessments centers.

Children co-accused with adults

The question on how many children are co-accused with adults arose from the fact that the Child Justice Bill proposes the separation of trials in such cases. The following statistics were collected from the SAPS records at the Stepping Stones One Stop Center in Port Elizabeth for the period January to March 2002. The data has been categorized according to the age of the alleged offender, offence and date. During this period a total of 109 children were co-accused with adults. In total, the center dealt with 983 arrested children. The age profile of the children is presented in the accompanying graph.


Figure 3. Age Profile, Source: L M Muntingh. Nicro National Office, Cape Town May 2002.


The number of children co-accused with adults per month is shown in the accompanying graph as well as the percentage they make up of the total number of cases dealt with at Stepping Stones.





Figure 4. Number of children per month & % of total. Source: L M Muntingh. Nicro National Office, Cape Town May 2002.

The offence profile of the children co-accused with adults is shown in the graphs below. Based on the available information, it can be concluded that between 9 and 13% of the children are co-accused with adults and that children who are co-accused with adults tend to be involved in more serious offences. The information also shows that older children tend to be co-accused more with adults than younger children.


Figure 5. Grouped offence profile, Source: L M Muntingh. Nicro National Office, Cape Town May 2002.
3.3 Awaiting trial placements

One of the key objectives of the assessment process and subsequent first appearance in court is to determine where the child will be placed pending a final decision on the case. In some instances it is possible to reach a decision to divert without the child having to appear in court. Nonetheless the assessment process need to make a decision on where the child be placed. The results of this process in the Western Cape is presented in Table 9.

SAPS Western Cape Youth Desk
AWAITING-TRIAL PLACEMENTS: 1995-1997

1995

1996

1997

f

%

f

%

f

%

Care of Guardian/s

6730

59.0

5625

51.1

6572

54.4

Own Consent

1162

10.0

1511

13.7

1693

14.0

Prison

1024

9.0

622

5.7

704

5.8

Police cells

1039

9.1

2132

19.4

2066

17.1

Places of Safety

1114

9.8

947

8.6

926

7.7

Reformatories

308

2.7

163

1.5

118

1.0

TOTAL ARRESTS

11377

11000

12079

Table 9. Awaiting-trial Placements: Western Cape. 1995-1997. Source: SAPS Western Cape Youth Desk (2002).
Figure 6. Awaiting-trial Placements: Western Cape. 1995-1997.

Based on the available figures the following conclusions can be made on awaiting trial placements in the Western Cape for the period 1995-1997.
There was an increased tendency to release children on their consent.
That the number of children placed in prison awaiting trial declined significantly from over 1000 to about 700.
The number of children placed in police cells increased significantly.
The number of children placed in places of safety decreased significantly as did reformatories.
The number of children released to their guardian hovered around 50%.
3.4 Legal representation

As indicated in Table 10, a relatively small proportion of arrested children managed by the Johannesburg Juvenile Court had access to legal representation, viz. 18.7%. The number of cases with legal representation is expressed as a percentage of the total number of cases on the role. It also appears that this proportion was on the decrease. Unfortunately, no other statistics on the legal representation of children in conflict with the law could be obtained for this report.

Johannesburg Juvenile Court:
COURT STATISTICS FOR 1997, 2000 & 2001

1997

2000

2001

Total no. of cases on roll

2042

4799

6361

New cases on roll

805

N/A

N/A

New cases assessed by Probation Officer

756

2620

3357

New cases with legal representation

382

629

871

% of new cases with legal representation

18.7

13.1

13.7

Code: N/A= statistics not provided

Table10.Court Statistics For 1997, 2000 & 2001: Johannesburg Juvenile Court. Source: DSD (2002).





4 DIVERSION


4.1 Overview of National figures
The new Child Justice Bill aims to entrench diversion as a central feature of the new structure that will govern criminal proceedings against children. Diversion can be defined as the "the referral of cases away from the criminal justice system to an approved programme, or mediation or community service" (Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh, 1998, p. 65). Diversion generally occurs subject to certain conditions and at the discretion of the prosecution. In essence, a case is diverted when ‘it is not in the best interest of the offender, the victim, the prosecution and the community that the case should proceed and that a conviction be secured’ (Muntingh, 1998, p. 3).
In keeping with the principles of restorative justice, diversion aims at "making offenders appreciate the consequences of their wrongful actions... [and]… the harm that they may have caused" (Tserere, 2002, p. 1). Furthermore, it aims at facilitating the integration or reintegration of the offender into her or his community and the broader society.
As implied by the definition provided above, diversion programmes can assume various forms, including life skills programmes, pre-trial community service, family group conferencing and victim-offender mediation. Largely as a result of the focus of recent activism and advocacy by various interest groups, diversion programmes, over recent years have increasingly been geared towards children (rather than adults) in conflict with the law (Muntingh, 1998).
Before discussing the diversion statistics obtained, it should be pointed out here that these statistics are fairly inadequate in terms of the objectives of the present research initiative. The most salient gap in relation to the statistical data on diversion cases pertains to the assessment procedures related to diversion. The assessment of children in conflict with the law is a pivotal aspect of diversion. While the first assessment centres in South Africa were established in 1994 (Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh, 1999), unfortunately no comprehensive statistics could be obtained in relation to these centres at the time of writing of this report.
Once again, the inadequacy of the data is largely a result of the apparent lacunae in the monitoring processes employed by various government departments in relation to capturing information on children in conflict with the law in South Africa. Ultimately, the researchers were therefore constrained to rely largely on the diversion research data collected by NICRO. Given that NICRO’s data focuses largely on diversion statistics related to its own diversion programmes, and given that there are a range of other institutions or agencies also involved with diversion cases, the statistics that will be discussed hereafter will unavoidably be somewhat partial (cf. Barberton, 2000; Madotyeni & Muntingh, 2000; Muntingh, 1998a). Nonetheless, as Muntingh (2001) observes, NICRO remains the primary provider of diversion programmes nationally. Furthermore, judging by its research and publications output, it seems to have put in place fairly comprehensive data capturing and reporting procedures. Consequently, the statistics provided in this section can perhaps be viewed as useful indicators of the overall trends in the provision and use of diversion services nationally.









THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPLETED NICRO DIVERSION PROGRAMMES PER FINANCIAL YEAR PER PROVINCE

PROVINCE

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

Western Cape

1078

1419

2434

3047

3190

2865

Eastern Cape

625

607

1601

1661

2113

2196

KwaZulu-Natal

1720

1541

1572

2328

2827

2626

Free State

577

298

495

656

765

822

Northern Cape

307

233

346

555

658

1725

Gauteng

1235

1370

1086

1637

3535

4112

Mpumalanga

110

101

183

325

316

598

North West

   

189

286

548

963

Limpopo

     

69

175

304

TOTAL

5652

5569

7906

10564

14127

16211

Table 11. The total number of completed diversion programs per financial year per province. Source: Nicro reports unpublished

DIVERSION CASES: 1996/7–2000/1
PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION

REGION

1996/71
(%)

1997/82
(%)

1998/93
(%)

1999/20003
(%)

2000/14
(%)

20015
(%)

E. Cape

5.33

10.88

18.6

16.3

9.26

11.52

Free State

5.97

5.33

6.0

5.8

3.87

4.2

Gauteng

23.30

24.41

13.4

19.6

11.81

30.85

KwaZulu Natal

27.95

28.04

19.2

22.1

22.72

18.46

Limpopo

0.9

2.94

2.05

Mpumalanga

1.38

1.85

2.6

2.4

5.23

2.73

N. Cape

3.01

4.14

4.9

5.4

13.57

7.2

N. W. Province

3.0

2.6

3.55

4.09

W. Cape

33.07

25.34

32.0

24.8

27.06

18.9

Table 12. Diversion Cases: 1996/7–2000/1. Regional Distribution. Source: Nicro reports unpublished


NICRO services were established in the North West Province in 1998/9 and in the Limpopo Province in1999/00.



Figure 7. Total number of diversions in all provinces, from financial year 1996/97 to 2001/02, Source: Nicro reports unpublished.

As the above graph indicates, the number of diversion cases rapidly increased each year at an average rate of 24.5 %. This trend will in all likelihood continue, given the centrality of diversion to the Child Justice Bill.


















NUMBER OF DIVERSION CASES PER PROGRAMME PER YEAR

 

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

%

YES

2168

4453

5711

6973

8242

7177

61.4

PTCS

 

548

1115

1692

2401

2893

15.3

YES & PTCS

 

250

400

525

593

903

4.7

VOM

 

21

32

35

54

62

0.4

YES & VOM

 

26

20

74

141

0.5

FGC

 

87

199

252

349

338

2.2

Journey

 

80

120

195

382

869

2.9

Support & counselling

 

47

83

176

611

801

3.0

Youth at risk

 

953

2214

5.6

Other

83

220

696

468

813

4.0

Total

2168

5569

7906

10564

14127

16211

Table 13. Number of Diversion cases per programme per year. Source: Nicro reports unpublished.
The life-skills Programme of Nicro, YES, account for 57.8% of the total followed by the Pre-trial Community Service Programme at 14.4%.
As reflected in the statistics contained in Table 11, the number of diversion cases remained stable between 1996 to 1997/8. Furthermore, for this period the majority of diversions took place in the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng for this period (see Table 12).
The uneven distribution of diversion cases across regions as reflected in Table 11, is generally viewed as a function of the uneven distribution of Nicro offices across the country and the establishment of diversion services. (Muntingh, 1999).
Table 14 reveals that young people aged 14 to 17 years constituted more than 86% of all diversion programme participants, while children aged 7 to 13 years constituted less than 14% of programme beneficiaries in 2001/02. Representing 26.0% of all diversion programme participants, 17-year-olds constituted the single largest age group amongst the diversion participants.
In terms of gender representation, substantially more male children appear to have benefited from diversion programmes than female children. For example, between 1996 and 1998/9 male children consistently constituted in excess of 74 percent of all diversion programme participants while female children constituted consistently less than 26 percent of the participants (see Table 15). It was only in 2000 that females constituted 28% of the total. However, in view of the absence of comprehensive statistics on the gender distribution of arrested children, it would be difficult to interpret the significance of the foregoing statistics.
Furthermore, as revealed in Tables 16 to 18, children charged with ‘property offences’ appear to have been more likely to benefit from diversion programmes than children who were charged with other offences, such as offences in the ‘aggressive crimes’ category.

CHILDREN IN NICRO DIVERSION PROGRAMMES IN 2001/2002
AGE DISTRIBUTION

AGE

F

Cum. F

%

Cum. %

7 years

59

59

0.5

0.5

8 years

48

107

0.4

0.9

9 years

32

139

0.2

1.1

10 years

76

215

0.6

1.7

11 years

194

409

1.5

3.2

12 years

468

877

3.6

6.8

13 years

937

1814

7.2

14.0

14 years

1708

3522

13.1

27.1

15 years

2691

6213

20.6

47.7

16 years

3443

13099

26.4

74.1

17 years

3397

16496

26.0

100

Total

13053

Codes: Cum. f = cumulative frequency; Cum. % = cumulative percentage

Table 14. Children In Nicro Diversion Programmes In 2001/2002: Age Distribution. Source: NICRO, Unpublished figures.


Figure 8. Children in NICRO Diversion Programmes in 2001: Age Distribution.

NICRO DIVERSION CASES: 1996–2000
GENDER PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS

SEX

1996/7

1997/8

1998/9

2000

Male

76.34%

74.1%

76.04%

72.00%

Female

23.42%

25.9%

23.76%

28.00%

Table 15. Nicro Diversion Cases: 1996–1998/9. Sex Profile Of Participants. Source: Muntingh (1999, 1998b).


Figure 9. Diversion Cases: 1996 – 2001/2: Gender Profile.

OFFENCE PROFILE OF NICRO DIVERSION CASES ACCORDING TO GENDER FOR 1997/8

MALES

FEMALES

OFFENCE2

CASES
(%)

OFFENCE3

CASES
(%)

Shoplifting

39.21

Shoplifting

70.94

Theft

23.74

Theft

17.57

Breaking & entering

9.65

Common assault

2.14

Possession of cannabis

4.95

Breaking & entering

1.80

Damage to property

3.29

Possession of cannabis

1.80

Common assault

3.13

Assault – g. b. h.

1.14

Assault – g. b. h.

1.73

Attempted theft

1.31

Possession of stolen property

1.29

Robbery

1.13

1. Ten leading offences.
2. Six leading offences.

Table 16. Offence Profile Of Nicro Diversion Cases According To Gender For 1997/8. Source: Muntingh (1997).

The offence profile for the males and females show significant similarities in the sense that both are charged with primarily property offences and that less than 6% are charged with violent offences.

NICRO DIVERSION CASES: 1997/8, 1998/9 & 2000
OFFENCE PROFILE IN PRESENTAGES

OFFENCE

% OF CASES

OFFENCE

% OF CASES

1997/8

1998/9

2000

1997/8

1998/9

2000

Murder

0.26

0.14

Fraud

0.5

0.54

Culpable homicide

0.26

0.08

Crimen Injuria

0.07

0.03

Attempted murder

0.17

0.08

0.3

Trespassing

0.34

0.25

Rape

0.05

0.15

Malicious damage to property

2.54

2.29

0.6

Attempted rape

0.09

0.21

Hijacking

0.01

Common assault

2.88

3.77

5.4

Pointing a firearm

0.17

0.05

0.3

Assault: GBH

1.58

1.98

Negligent discharge of a firearm

0.11

Indecent assault

0.64

0.97

0.3

Arson

0.03

0.14

0.6

Armed robbery

0.04

Attempted arson

0.07

Robbery

0.84

1.33

1.1

Contravention of Explosives Act

0.22

0.15

Theft

22.25

29.28

25.4

Driving under the influence of alcohol

0.36

0.92

0.6

Theft of motor vehicle

0.25

1.4

Reckless driving

0.38

0.33

1.1

Theft from motor vehicle

0.58

1.1

Driving without a licence

0.48

0.38

Attempted theft

1.03

0.78

0.3

Unauthorised use of a motor vehicle

0.6

0.19

0.3

Breaking and entering

7.66

9.14

6.5

Public violence

0.02

0.13

Shoplifting

47.54

36.16

48.3

Public indecency

0.15

Possession of narcotics

0.46

1.08

0.3

Sexual harassment

0.14

0.04

0.3

Possession of cannabis

4.16

4.6

2.8

Making indecent suggestions

0.02

Dealing in cannabis

0.14

0.3

0.3

Child abuse

0.03

Dealing in other narcotics

0.05

0.05

Incest

0.01

Dealing in alcohol

0.09

0.08

Mistreatment of an animal

0.05

0.05

Possession of stolen goods

0.96

0.93

1.1

Catching a crayfish in a reserve

0.02

Possession of firearm

0.62

0.82

Defeating the ends of justice

0.17

0.06

Possession of ammunition

0.14

0.13

Perjury

0.03

0.04

Possession of counterfeit money

0.14

0.05

Unknown

1.48

0.87

0.6

Possession of house-breaking equipment

0.31

0.29

0.6

Table 17. Nicro Diversion Cases: 1997/8 & 1999. Offence Profile. Source: Muntingh (1999, 2001)

NICRO DIVERSION CASES: 1997/8 & 1998/9
OFFENCE PROFILE OF CASES (GROUPED)
(in percentage)

OFFENCE

CASES 1997/8
(%)

CASES 1998/9
(%)

Person

6.3

9.1

Property

84.9

80.4

Victimless

8.8

10.5

Table 18. NICRO Diversion Cases: 1997/8 & 1998/9. Offence Profile Of Cases (Grouped) (in percentage). Source: Muntingh (1999).

NICRO DIVERSION CASES: 1996/7 – 2000
SOURCES OF REFERRALS

ORIGIN OF REFERRAL

1996/7

1997/8

1998/9

2000

Self-referred

0.00

0.05

0.1

0.00

Other & unknown

2.78

2.75

2.5

6.2

Family

0.03

0.5

1.15

0.6

School

0.28

0.68

1.2

1.1

SAPS

0.03

2.17

0.85

0.3

Magistrate

0.75

7.1

14.76

7.1

Prosecutor

96.13

86.75

79.45

84.7

Table 19. Nicro Diversion Cases: 1996/7– 2000. Sources Of Referrals. Sources: Muntingh (2001, 1999, 1998b).

NICRO DIVERSION CASES: 1997/8 & 1998/9:
COMPLIANCE RATE PER PROGRAMME (in percentage)

PROGRAMME

1997/8
(%)

1998/9
(%)

2000/1
(%)

Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES) & Victim Offender Mediation (VOM)

-

82.6

-

Other

82.87

54.9

-

Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES) & Pre-trial Community Service (PTCS)

82.87

82.8

86.0

The Journey

88.75

95

90.7

Victim Offender Mediation (VOM)

90.48

89.7

80.8

Family Group Conferences (FGC)

74.71

89.1

84.0

Pre-trial Community Service (PTCS)

82.85

82.2

83.0

Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES)

85.17

82.8

86.1

Table 20. Nicro Diversion Cases: 1997/8 & 1998/9. Compliance Rate Per Programme (in percentage). Source: Muntingh (1999).

4.2 Diversion at specific courts and per magisterial district

NUMBER OF DIVERSIONS IN PORT ELIZABETH

PROGRAM

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Totals

YES

42

53

35

34

44

31

38

32

40

479

PTCS

12

18

11

14

15

14

12

7

23

126

FGC

3

5

4

14

3

3

5

10

8

55

JOURNEY

           

10

   

10

Table 21. Number of Diversions in Port Elizabeth 2002. Source: Dept of Social Development: E Cape (2002) Unpublished figures, Stepping Stones Port Elizabeth.

NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEING DIVERTED AT WYNBERG, APRIL 2002 TO OCTOBER 2002

YES program

99

Drug information school

12

Pre-trial Community service

11

Children’s court inquiry

3

TOTAL

125

Table 22. Number of children being diverted at Wynberg. Source: Provincial administration: Western Cape Department of Social Services.

NUMBER OF CHILDREN BEING DIVERTED AT CAPE TOWN ASSESSMENT CENTRE IN YEAR 2002

Assessed month

Total

%

January

19

7

February

37

14

March

42

16

April

25

10

May

46

17

June

52

20

July

22

8

August

13

5

September

8

3

Total

264

100

Table 23. Number of children being diverted at Cape Town assessment center in year 2002. Source: Western Cape, Department of Social Services.
From the total number of assessed children, 897, at Cape Town Assessment Centre, 264 of them were diverted in the year 2002 or 29.4%. (Western Cape, Department of Social Services).

PERCENTAGE OF ASSESSED CASES REFERRED FOR DIVERSION
AT TWO ASSESSMENT CENTRES: 1996–1998

INSTITUTION

PERIOD

% CASES RECOMMENDED FOR DIVERSION

N

Assessment, Reception & Referral Centre (Durban)1

16/06/1996 to 16/06/1997

20.24%

2712

Stepping Stones Project
(Port Elizabeth)

15/08/1997 to 31/10/1998

26.53%

2688

Cape Town

1/1/2002 to 31/12/2002

29.4

897

1 A pilot project that functioned between June 16, 1996 and June 16, 1997.

Table 24. Percentage Of Assessed Cases Referred For Diversion At Two Assessment Centres: 1996–1998. Source: Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (1999).
As indicated by the data reflected in Table 24, a relatively small percentage of the cases assessed were recommended for diversion for the two time periods under consideration, namely, 20.24 percent in the case of the Durban Assessment, Reception and Referral Centre and 26.53 percent in the case of the Stepping Stones Project. Indeed, as Sloth-Nielsen and Muntingh (1999) point out, the percentage of cases diverted was significantly inferior to the target set for the Assessment, Reception and Referral Centres.
The following table indicates the magisterial district where programme participants reside for the year 2001/02.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION PER MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OF NICRO DIVERSION PROGRAMME BENEFICIARIES FOR 2001/2002

Province

Magisterial District

Number

Totals

WESTERN CAPE

Unknown

20

 

 

Beaufort-West

64

 

 

Bellville

257

 

 

Bonnievale

6

 

 

Bredasdorp

33

 

 

Caledon

3

 

 

Calitzdorp

9

 

 

George

142

 

 

Goodwood

136

 

 

Grabouw

12

 

 

Heidelberg

4

 

 

Kaapstad

222

 

 

Knysna

82

 

 

Kuilsrivier

197

 

 

Ladismith

20

 

 

Malmesbury

57

 

 

Mitchells Plain

463

 

 

Mosselbaai

82

 

 

Oudtshoorn

142

 

 

Paarl

78

 

 

Simonstad

83

 

 

Somerset West

42

 

 

Stellenbosch

54

 

 

Strand

31

 

 

Wellington

1

 

 

Worcester

187

 

 

Wynberg

440

2867

EASTERN CAPE

 

 

Ezibeleni

26

 

 

Graaff -Reinet

19

 

 

Grahamstown

165

 

 

Hankey

8

 

 

Humansdorp

24

 

 

Joubertina

13

 

 

Keiskammahoek

1

 

 

King Williams Town

87

 

 

Lady Frere

67

 

 

Mdantsane

169

 

 

East London

120

 

 

Peddie

2

 

 

Port Elizabeth

798

 

 

Queenstown

177

 

 

Uitenhage

204

 

 

Umtata

135

 

 

Whittlesea

43

 

 

Zwelitsha

137

2195

KZ-NATAL

Unknown

3

 

 

Babango

1

 

 

Camperdown

56

 

 

Chatsworth

78

 

 

Durban

721

 

 

Estcourt

3

 

 

Glencoe

1

 

 

Impendle

19

 

 

Inanda

233

 

 

Lower Tugela

13

 

 

Lower Umfolozi

227

 

 

Mapumulo

1

 

 

Ndwedwe

16

 

 

Newcastle

1

 

 

New Hanover

16

 

 

Nongoma

5

 

 

Pietermairtzburg

553

 

 

Pinetown

335

 

 

Port Shepstone

93

 

 

Richmond

4

 

 

Umbumbulu

21

 

 

Umlazi

330

 

 

Umvoti

1

 

 

Umzinto

5

 

 

Vryheid

1

2737

FREESTATE

 

 

Bloemfontein

593

 

 

Kroonstad

228

821

N-CAPE

 

 

Barkly West

21

 

 

Britstown

48

 

 

De Aar

301

 

 

Douglas

22

 

 

Fraserburg

1

 

 

Garies

22

 

 

Hanover

41

 

 

Hartswater

14

 

 

Jan Kempdorp

48

 

 

Kakamas

30

 

 

Keimoes

14

 

 

Kenhardt

2

 

 

Kimberley

538

 

 

Pofadder

27

 

 

Port Nolloth

8

 

 

Springbok

330

 

 

Upington

258

1725

GAUTENG

Unknown

45

 

 

Alberton -North

39

 

 

Benoni

140

 

 

Boksburg

56

 

 

Brakpan

43

 

 

Bronkhorstspruit

1

 

 

Cullinan

7

 

 

Germiston

75

 

 

Heidelberg

19

 

 

Johannesburg

1271

 

 

Kempton Park

35

 

 

Krugersdorp

1

 

 

Meyerton

29

 

 

Tembisa

10

 

 

Nigel

7

 

 

Pretoria

542

 

 

Pretoria North

295

 

 

Randburg

262

 

 

Randfontein

70

 

 

Roodepoort

213

 

 

Springs

88

 

 

VanderBijl Park

439

 

 

Vereeninging

304

 

 

Soshanguve

116

4107

MPUMALANGA

 

 

Amersfoort

1

 

 

Balfour

1

 

 

Bethal

9

 

 

Evander

44

 

 

Kriel

14

 

 

Kanyamazane

2

 

 

Morgenzon

1

 

 

Nelspruit

208

 

 

Kabokweni

84

 

 

Standerton

170

 

 

Volksrust

25

 

 

Witbank

2

 

 

Witrivier

14

 

 

Nkomazi

9

584

NORTH WEST

 

 

Bafokeng

97

 

 

Brits

119

 

 

Madikwe

22

 

 

Odi

442

 

 

Rustenburg

283

963

LIMPOPO

 

 

Bochum

113

 

 

Mankweng

34

 

 

Polokwane

51

 

 

Ritavi

7

 

 

Seshego

35

 

 

Tzaneen

64

304

 

 

 

16300

Table 25. Geographical Distribution per magisterial district of NICRO Diversion Programmes Beneficiaries for 2001/2002.Source: Unpublished figures, Nicro.

NUMBER OF MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS PER PROVINCE REACHED BY NICRO DIVERSION SERVICES

Province

NR Reached

Total number of Districts

%

Western Cape

26

48

54.2

Eastern Cape

18

80

22.5

KZ- Natal

24

67

35.8

Free State

2

65

3.1

Northern Cape

17

35

48.6

Gauteng

23

25

92

Mpumalanga

14

34

41.2

North West

5

32

15.6

Limpopo

6

47

12.8

TOTAL

135

433

 

Table 26. Number of Magisterial Districts per province reached by NICRO Diversion Services. Source: Unpublished figures, Nicro.


4.3 Impact evaluation of diversion programmes

Two surveys were conducted by NICRO in 1998 and 2000 respectively. The 1998 sample framework identified a stratified sample of 640 individuals who participated in a diversion programme at least 12 months prior to the survey according to geographical location and programme profile. Respondents were selected from seven provinces in proportion to the numbers in the five diversion programmes.

Of the 640 questionnaires that went out in 1998, 468 (67%) were received back. Owing to certain problems not all the questionnaires were completed. Of the 468 that came back, 64% were completed when interviewing the client and 36% when interviewing an alternative respondent, as the client was not available.

In 2000 the same group of 468 was targeted and 356 (76.1%) questionnaires were completed. In 55.3% of the cases the client was the respondent and in 44.7% of cases, an alternative respondent was interviewed. Table 27 summarises the tracking rate of the two surveys. As expected the proportion of questionnaires in which the client was the respondent decreased by 10% because the target group is at a very mobile stage in life.

RESPONDENT NUMBERS IN 1998 AND 2000 SURVEYS

   

%

Respondent

1998

Targeted

640

 

Client

65.8%

 

Received

468

73.1%

Alternative

34.2%

2000

Targeted

468

 

Client

55.3%

 

Received

356

76.1%

Alternative

44.7%

GENDER OF RESPONDENTS

 

Male

Female

N =

1998

72%

28%

468

2000

72%

28%

356

RACE OF RESPONDENTS (PERCENTAGES)

Race

1998

2000

Variance

African

54.3

57.9

3.6

Asian

4.5

5.1

0.6

Coloured

29.1

26.8

-2.3

White

12.0

10.2

-1.8

Programme profile of respondents

Programme

1998

2000

YES

72.2

74.0

PTCS

10.3

10.2

FGC

2.8

1.4

Journey

3.2

3.4

YES & PTCS

8.8

9.0

Other

1.7

1.4

OFFENCE PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

Offence

1998

2000

% 1998

% 2000

Unknown

4

2

0.9

0.6

Murder

1

0

0.2

0.0

Attempted Murder

1

1

0.2

0.3

Common Assault

28

19

6.0

5.4

Assault Gbh

1

0

0.2

0.0

Robbery

6

4

1.3

1.1

Theft

115

90

24.6

25.4

Shoplifting

213

171

45.5

48.3

Attempted Theft

3

1

0.6

0.3

Fraud

1

0

0.2

0.0

Malicious Damage to Property

5

2

1.1

0.6

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol

2

2

0.4

0.6

Pointing A Firearm

1

1

0.2

0.3

Reckless Driving

4

4

0.9

1.1

Possession of Dagga

15

10

3.2

2.8

Possession of Other Narcotics

3

1

0.6

0.3

Dealing in Dagga

1

1

0.2

0.3

Possession of Stolen Goods

4

4

0.9

1.1

Unauthorised use of a motor vehicle

1

1

0.2

0.3

Sexual Harassment

1

1

0.2

0.3

Arson

6

2

1.3

0.6

Gambling

1

0

0.2

0.0

Trespassing

1

0

0.2

0.0

Possession housebreaking equipment

2

2

0.4

0.6

Possession of Firearm

3

2

0.6

0.6

Theft from motor vehicle

4

4

0.9

1.1

Theft of motor vehicle

5

5

1.1

1.4

Housebreaking

34

23

7.3

6.5

Sodomy

1

1

0.2

0.3

Not Applicable

1

0

0.2

0.0

Total

468

354

   

TYPE OF REFERRAL

Type

1998

2000

Sentenced

15 (3.2%)

12 (3.4%)

Diverted

452 (96.8%)

341(96.6%)

SOURCE OF REFERRAL

SOURCE

1998

2000

1998

2000

Prosecutor

394

300

84.2

84.7

Magistrate

34

25

7.3

7.1

Police

2

1

0.4

0.3

School

5

4

1.1

1.1

Family

2

2

0.4

0.6

Other

27

20

5.8

5.6

Social worker

1

0

0.2

0.0

Unknown

3

2

0.6

0.6

Total

468

356

100.0

100.0

Table 33. Source of referral. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000.
Almost all the programme participants were still busy with their schooling while attending the programme. Other research has shown that school attendance strongly influences the decision of the prosecutor to divert a case or not.



Figure 12. Employment at time of programme. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000.

Consistent with the age profile in the 1998 survey, the majority of respondents were busy with their high school training at the time they participated in the programmes. It is, however, interesting to note that comparatively few participants were in the higher school grades at that time. The 2002 survey profile shows that there has been a clear educational progression, with more respondents now concentrated in Grades 11 and 12.

SUMMARISED HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE

Relation

Present

Not present

Grandparent(s)

18.0

82.0

Father

52.1

47.9

Mother

75.7

24.3

Table 34. Summarised household structure. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000.

In the 1998 survey respondents were asked what they were expecting to happen during the programme that they were about to attend. From the responses it is clear that there was a fair amount of misconception of what was to happen in the programme. The responses are listed in the table below according to the programme they were referred to.

Experience of the programme
Although there was some initial confusion in terms of what to expect from the programme they had been referred to, feedback from programme participants on programme content in both surveys was extremely positive and for most participants the programme they attended was a memorable experience. Most respondents were able to remember a fair amount of detail about the programme content, which is indicative of impact. Experiential and adventure education techniques appear to have been used to good effect by the programme facilitators. The fact that the majority of the respondents still had a positive opinion of the programme 24 months after they participated is also indicative of the programme effect. Limited negative feedback was received from the interviewed participants. Some negative feedback did in fact refer to intentionally difficult process that form part of the programme such as discussing personal matters.

EXPERIENCE OF THE PROGRAMME

EXPECTATIONS

YES

PCTS

FGC

Journey

YES & PTCS

Other

No idea what to expect

43

3

4

3

1

Learn about disadvantages of crime

32

1

1

 

2

 

Tough, have to work to repay crime

7

10

2

 

6

 

Learn about life skills

16

3

1

1

2

 

To receive some guidance/counselling

26

1

 

1

1

 

Would go to jail after programme

3

1

   

1

 

Would be treated like a criminal

13

1

3

 

3

 

To learn new things

6

         

Would have to talk to someone

3

         

Would help to solve problems

 

1

1

     

Clear name of criminal record

7

         

Learn skills to avoid crime

25

2

1

 

4

 

Good treatment

2

       

1

Physical punishment

12

2

 

1

3

 

Formal education

10

1

   

1

 

Skills to earn own income

1

         

To be sent away

1

         

To be like a reform school

6

     

1

1

To appear in the newspaper

1

         

Would be punished by victim

   

1

     

Negative response

4

     

3

 

Overt punishment

2

1

       

To receive a warning

1

1

       

To correct his/her mistakes

1

         

To be boring

3

     

1

 

To be disciplined

1

         

Total

226

28

10

7

31

3

Retention of programme content

RETENTION

YES

PTCS

FGC

Journey

YES & PTCS

Other

Unsure

4

1

Sessions on crime/ law

48

1

   

6

1

Sessions on drugs

5

1

       

Disadvantages of a criminal record

5

         

Sessions on relationships/sharing feelings

29

1

3

 

1

 

Life skills

11

1

 

1

2

 

Sessions on problem-solving

8

 

1

 

1

 

Not much

12

3

   

1

 

Sessions on decision-making

14

         

People involved; working/supporting

8

2

1

1

2

 

Role-playing

13

     

5

 

Physical work

 

17

2

1

3

 

Learning right from wrong

4

     

1

 

Effect of crime on victim

1

 

1

 

1

 

Session on being a good role model

1

         

The camp

     

2

   

Games

16

     

4

 

Group work

8

 

1

 

1

1

Introduction session

4

 

1

1

 

1

Self-awareness skills

9

     

2

 

Communication skills

3

         

Sessions on assertiveness

3

         

Everything

2

2

 

1

   

Session on bad influences/ friends

4

         

Educational talks

3

         

Setting goals for the future

6

         

Accepting responsibility for own actions

2

         

Sessions on trusting others

2

         

Farewell letter at end of programme

1

         

Felt relieved at receiving forgiveness

1

         

Total

227

28

10

7

31

3

IMPRESSED MOST ABOUT THE PROGRAMME

Description

YES

PTCS

FGC

Journey

YES & PTCS

Other

Unsure

3

Self-awareness skills

17

     

1

 

Co-ordination of programme/workers skills

23

1

1

 

3

 

Opportunity to voice own opinions/skills

17

   

1

3

 

Opportunity to think/plan future

4

         

Learned effect of bad friends

6

       

1

Problem-solving skills

7

     

2

 

Relationship skills

9

   

1

1

 

Everything

17

6

 

2

1

 

Victims' forgiveness

   

1

     

Games

24

     

2

2

Can't remember

3

1

       

Role-playing

13

1

2

 

7

 

Being treated with respect and understanding

6

4

1

 

1

 

Consequences of crime

15

     

2

 

Everyone working together

6

 

1

     

The hike

     

2

   

Group discussions

18

1

   

1

 

To learn the value of parents

1

         

Place where community service was done

 

5

1

 

2

 

Visit to the prison

1

         

Sessions attended by parents

5

         

Session on crime awareness/prevention

7

     

3

 

Physical work

 

3

1

1

1

 

Decision making skills

5

         

Session on gangsterism and drugs

1

         

Other children attending the programme

2

         

Introduction session

2

1

       

Parent-child relationship

4

         

Nothing

3

4

       

Educational talks

4

         

Achievement of goals

2

         

Sessions on trust

2

     

1

 

Victim's forgiveness

   

1

     

Planning careers

   

1

     

Total

227

27

10

7

31

3

IMPRESSED THE LEAST ABOUT THE PROGRAMME

Description

YES

PTCS

FGC

Journey

YES & PTCS

Other

Nothing

166

14

7

5

16

2

That the programme ran over a weekend

2

     

1

 

Long hours/times

5

4

   

1

 

Games

10

2

1

1

1

 

Knowing that if someone does not attend, there will be trouble

2

         

Sharing personal feelings/history of crime

17

 

1

 

5

 

Compulsory

 

1

       

Some children were fighting

4

   

1

1

 

Physical work

 

6

   

4

 

The venue

2

         

Questionnaire

3

         

Role-playing

2

         

Sessions attended by parents

1

1

   

1

 

Groups

1

         

Not enough participation by workers

1

         

Employees too strict

1

 

1

     

Being body-searched

1

         

Instructions not always clear

1

         

Dangerous activity during Journey

         

1

Learning about the consequences of crime

1

         

Sessions on HIV/Aids

1

         

Sessions on friends

2

         

Sessions on alcohol and drugs

1

     

1

 

Total

224

28

10

7

31

3

LEARNED FROM THE PROGRAMME

Learned from programme

1998

2000

% 1998

% 2000

Unsure

3

5

1.0

2.5

Respect for self and others

27

7

8.7

3.6

Crime doesn't pay

64

20

20.7

10.2

Effect of crime on victim

5

2

1.6

1.0

Basic life skills

5

8

1.6

4.1

To stay away from bad influences/friends

29

15

9.4

7.6

How to handle personal problems

8

6

2.6

3.0

Learned from his/her mistakes

12

6

3.9

3.0

Motivated to finish school - to get job one day

4

2

1.3

1.0

To accept responsibility for own actions/life

25

14

8.1

7.1

To understand other people

4

6

1.3

3.0

A criminal record can destroy your future

15

11

4.9

5.6

To do the right things

33

22

10.7

11.2

Humanity/compassion for others

1

4

0.3

2.0

Vision for future

3

0

1.0

0.0

To share personal problems/feelings

8

3

2.6

1.5

Responsible decision-making

12

10

3.9

5.1

Communication skills

13

10

4.2

5.1

To be a child again

1

0

0.3

0.0

Danger of alcohol and drug abuse

3

0

1.0

0.0

To obey the law

6

7

1.9

3.6

Nothing

2

5

0.6

2.5

Honesty is the best policy

1

2

0.3

1.0

Skills, eg cooking, etc

4

0

1.3

0.0

How to control temper/violence isn't an answer

6

4

1.9

2.0

People are willing to give you a second chance

6

4

1.9

2.0

To believe in oneself

5

10

1.6

5.1

You have many options in life

2

2

0.6

1.0

To work as part of a team

1

3

0.3

1.5

Importance of forgiveness

1

1

0.3

0.5

Have to work for what want in life-can't just steal if you want it

0

8

0.0

4.1

WHAT WAS THE BEST PART OF THE PROGRAMME

Response

1998

2000

% 1998

% 2000

Unsure

7

8

2.3

4.1

Learned right from wrong

12

5

3.9

2.5

Learning by participating, eg roleplaying, games

37

21

12.1

10.7

Being treated with respect and understanding

19

6

6.2

3.0

Meeting new people/friends

27

6

8.8

3.0

Games

22

23

7.2

11.7

Avoiding a criminal record

7

1

2.3

0.5

Problem-solving

7

4

2.3

2.0

Nothing

6

3

2.0

1.5

Learning about the consequences of crime

10

1

3.3

0.5

Crime-awareness sessions

13

14

4.2

7.1

Everything

27

20

8.8

10.2

Learning how to control your feelings

3

2

1.0

1.0

Outdoor activities

4

2

1.3

1.0

Chance to make own decisions

3

3

1.0

1.5

Group discussions

24

22

7.8

11.2

Beginning - reason for being there

3

0

1.0

0.0

Opportunity to voice own opinion

16

15

5.2

7.6

Questionnaires, worksheets

3

1

1.0

0.5

Communication skills

8

5

2.6

2.5

Visual aids, eg video

1

1

0.3

0.5

Physical work - serving community

7

6

2.3

3.0

Parent-child relationship

10

5

3.3

2.5

Self-concept session

11

12

3.6

6.1

Cooking for other people

1

1

0.3

0.5

Planning his/her own business

1

0

0.3

0.0

Ending - summary of how I have grown

6

3

2.0

1.5

Aids-awareness programme

1

1

0.3

0.5

Setting goals for the future

2

1

0.7

0.5

Learning to trust others

7

0

2.3

0.0

Facilitator

1

2

0.3

1.0

Session on peer pressure

0

2

0.0

1.0

Visit to prison

0

1

0

0.5

Total

306

197

100

100

Table 40. What was the best part of the programme? Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000.

Most of the respondents (56% in 1998 and 57% in 2000) identified no negative components of the programme in which they participated. The issues raised as negative aspects that received the highest frequencies related to the sharing of personal feelings and telling their "story", and feeling uncomfortable at the beginning of the programme, although the latter has dropped significantly and the former has increased. It should also be noted that not all the participants enjoyed the games and interactive learning techniques. The 2000 responses also yielded some new insights from the respondents, for example realising the impact of the programme on their parents who had to be present at the YES programme.

WHAT WAS THE WORST PART OF THE PROGRAMME

Response

1998

2000

% 1998

% 2000

Too short

8

2

6.5

2.4

Having to talk in a group

11

2

8.9

2.4

Long hours/times

15

7

12.1

8.4

Sharing personal feelings/history of crime

26

23

21.0

27.7

Feeling guilty

6

4

4.8

4.8

Felt uncomfortable in the beginning

19

7

15.3

8.4

Asked too many questions

2

0

1.6

0.0

Physical work

5

3

4.0

3.6

Games

12

5

9.7

6.0

Some people were rude/argued

11

3

8.9

3.6

Questionnaires

4

1

3.2

1.2

Promises were not always kept by workers

1

1

0.8

1.2

Working for no pay

1

0

0.8

0.0

The end

2

3

1.6

3.6

Being advised to look for new friends

1

2

0.8

2.4

Parent being present-saw how it hurt them

0

6

0.0

7.2

Long discussions

0

3

0.0

3.6

Venue

0

2

0.0

2.4

Transport cost-difficult to get to venue

0

5

0.0

6.0

Everything

0

1

0.0

1.2

Mixed with other race groups/racism

0

2

0.0

2.4

Not always enough depth to discussions

0

1

0.0

1.2

Total

124

83

100

100.0

CURRENT OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAMME

Response

1998

2000

% 1998

% 2000

Refer others to it

14

1

4.6

0.5

Useful tool to empower youth

19

26

6.2

13.2

Helped him/her to see life differently

13

13

4.2

6.6

Can open new doors for you

3

0

1.0

0.0

Very good/effective/helpful

112

68

36.5

34.5

You can learn a lot

29

2

9.4

1.0

Offers you a second chance

16

6

5.2

3.0

Should do it more than once

9

3

2.9

1.5

Should use client to talk to other youths

6

1

2.0

0.5

Tough, but really helps

5

1

1.6

0.5

Unsure

16

15

5.2

7.6

Saved me

4

3

1.3

1.5

More meaningful than going to jail

4

1

1.3

0.5

Makes you take responsibility for own life

4

3

1.3

1.5

Should continue good work

18

17

5.9

8.6

Learn how to serve your community

3

2

1.0

1.0

Helped to stay out of trouble

12

5

3.9

2.5

Programmes too abstract - use more visual aids, etc

2

2

0.7

1.0

Benefited a lot

5

1

1.6

0.5

Helps you realise your mistakes

3

5

1.0

2.5

Should be offered to communities/ schools

5

14

1.6

7.1

Monitoring of youth after programme is important

1

1

0.3

0.5

Teaches you to be yourself

2

0

0.7

0.0

Teaches you things you take for granted

2

0

0.7

0.0

Needs a skills training component

0

2

0.0

1.0

Should be run over holidays & weekends

0

3

0.0

1.5

Workers should be more positive

0

1

0.0

0.5

Parents should be more involved

0

1

0.0

0.5

Total

307

197

100.0

100.0

REASONS FOR FINISHING THE PROGRAMME

Description

YES

PTCS

FGC

Journey

YES & PTCS

Other

Afraid of law/prison/criminal record

90

12

6

 

10

1

Enjoyed the programme

10

2

 

1

5

 

Realised for own good

20

1

   

2

 

Committed to the rules of the programme

23

4

   

1

 

Social worker

7

         

Curious

6

   

1

   

To learn new things/interesting/ informative

15

1

   

3

 

To understand crime better

3

1

   

2

1

Unsure

9

2

   

1

 

To help others who might be in trouble

2

         

Vision for future - career, family, etc

5

   

1

1

 

To have a better life

12

   

2

1

 

To learn from mistakes

5

         

Felt guilty about crime

5

1

1

 

2

1

Stay out of trouble

       

1

 

Prove self to community/family

4

3

1

2

   

Motivated by family/friends

6

1

1

     

Didn't have any other options

3

     

1

 

Didn't want to waste this opportunity

1

1

       

Family dependent on him/her

   

1

     

Total

226

29

10

7

30

3

DID ANYTHING CHANGE FOR YOU AFTER THE PROGRAMME?

 

1998

 

2000

 

Description

Number

%

Number

%

Motivated person

22

7.2

2

1.0

Not interested in crime any more

57

18.6

26

13.3

Choosing friends more selectively

42

13.7

25

12.8

Better interpersonal skills

14

4.6

6

3.1

Knows what is the right thing to do

18

5.9

3

1.5

A total turnaround

16

5.2

8

4.1

Knows what he/she wants from life

4

1.3

4

2.0

Attending school regularly

13

4.2

10

5.1

Staying home more

15

4.9

13

6.6

Still the same

25

8.1

18

9.2

Think twice before doing something

15

4.9

9

4.6

Positive attitude

14

4.6

7

3.6

Given up possession of dangerous weapons

2

0.7

0

0.0

More responsible person

7

2.3

20

10.2

Relationship with parents improved

21

6.8

16

8.2

Taking part in community activities

4

1.6

10

5.1

Believes in self

7

2.3

8

4.1

Better time management

1

0.3

0

0.0

Could ask victim for forgiveness

1

0.3

0

0.0

Inform others about crime and consequences

5

1.6

4

2.0

Became more consistent

1

0.3

1

0.5

Learned to respect others

2

0.7

1

0.5

Stopped using dagga

   

2

1.0

Found employment

   

3

1.5

REASONS FOR STAYING OUT OF TROUBLE

Description

Number

%

Unknown

10

3.4

Crime does not pay

47

16.2

Realised the disadvantages of re-offending

36

12.4

Could see the error of his/her ways

6

2.1

Realised what he or she wants out of life

15

5.2

Good after-care

2

0.7

Now has a vision for the future

18

6.2

New friends

5

1.7

Support of parents/family/friends

17

5.9

Realised effect on family/parents

13

4.5

Got a job

3

1.0

Felt bad at seeing victim’s anger/pain

4

1.4

Doesn't want to go to jail

28

9.7

Advice from social worker

3

1.0

Keeps busy with meaningful activities

6

2.1

Didn't want to waste this opportunity

7

2.4

New knowledge gained from programme

26

9.0

Didn't want to repeat this experience

11

3.8

Programme helped me to believe in myself

3

1.0

Religion

3

1.0

Prove to community/family that he/she has changed

4

1.4

Has to provide for child/parents

1

0.3

Avoid criminal record

13

4.5

To be a role model for other young people

2

0.7

Wants to complete schooling

3

1.0

Doesn't want to be labelled a criminal

2

0.7

Better interpersonal skills

2

0.7

Table 45. Reasons for staying out of trouble. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000.

In those cases where the clients were not available and an alternative respondent was interviewed, this respondent was the mother in 50% of the interviews. Fathers and grandmothers also make up a significant proportions of the total.

Figure 16. Relation to client. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000.
The alternative respondents were asked if the child, in their opinion, had reacted positively to the programme. Table 46 summarises the responses. The overwhelming assessment in both surveys was that the children did respond positively to the programme in which they were involved. It is clear from these responses that the programme had a sustainable impact on the participants.







Did the child react positively to the programme?

 

1998

 

2000

 

Description

Number

%

Number

%

Yes

135

88.8

139

87.4

No

10

6.6

9

5.6

Unsure

5

3.3

10

6.3

For a short period

2

1.3

1

0.6

Total

152

100.0

159

100.0

RECIDIVISM PROFILE AND TIME LAPSE

 

Time period in months

   

OFFENCE

0-3

4-6

7-9

10-12

13-15

16-18

19-21

22-24

25-27

28-30

31-33

34-36

36+

Un-
known

TOTAL

Murder

4

 

2

                   

1

7

Common assault

1

       

1

 

2

     

1

   

5

Rape

 

1

 

1

   

1

             

3

Theft

4

2

1

6

2

2

 

5

 

1

 

1

 

3

27

Shoplifting

1

1

     

2

               

4

Driving under the influence

       

1

                 

1

Possession of dagga

1

     

1

   

1

           

3

Armed robbery

1

         

1

           

1

3

Housebreaking

2

4

 

2

     

2

           

10

Unknown

2

2

       

1

             

5

Damage to property

   

1

           

1

       

2

Hijacking

           

1

1

           

2

Possession of firearms

             

1

   

1

     

2

Discharge of firearm

                       

1

 

1

Possession of stolen gods

                   

1

     

1

TOTAL

16

10

4

9

4

5

4

12

0

2

2

2

1

5

76

REPORTING RE-OFFENDING AND RESPONDENT TYPE

OFFENCE

1998 Client resp. 1st offence

1998 Alternative resp. 1st offence

1998 Alternative resp. 2nd offence

2000 Client resp. 1st offence

2000 Client resp. 2nd offence

2000 Alternative resp. 1st offence

2000 Alternative resp. 2nd offence

Unknown

2

2

         

Murder

2

2

         

Attempted murder

           

1

Common assault

1

   

2

 

2

 

Rape

1

       

1

 

Robbery

         

2

1

Theft

4

7

1

3

1

8

1

Shoplifting

1

   

2

     

Malicious damage to property

     

2

     

Driving under the influence of alcohol

1

           

Possession of dagga

1

1

     

1

 

Possession of stolen gods

         

1

 

Possession of firearms

     

1

 

1

 

Armed robbery

 

1

         

Theft from a motor vehicle

         

1

 

Theft of a motor vehicle

         

1

 

Hijacking

     

1

 

1

1

Housebreaking

 

6

1

3

 

2

 

TOTAL

13

19

2

14

1

21

4

OFFENCE PROFILE OF RECIDIVISM (1998)

Period

Property to property

Property to violent

Violent to property

Property to victimless

Victimless to property

Violent to violent

Total

1 - 6 months

7

4

1

1

1

1

15

7 - 12 months

4

1

1

     

6

12 + months

2

1

 

2

   

6

Average

7.16

6.3

6

11

1

3

 

Total

15

5

2

3

1

1

27

REASONS PRESENTED WHY FURTHER OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED

None given

20

Influenced by friends/gangs

19

Wanted possessions/money

9

Under influence of alcohol

5

Believes is innocent

4

To support drug addiction

4

Anger

3

Unsure

2

Father doesn't support family

1

Mental illness

1

For the fun of it

1

Self-defence

1

Lack of support system

1

Retrenched

1

Table 50. Reasons presented why further offence was committed.. Source: L M Muntingh, The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes, A longitudinal evaluation of cases, NICRO 2000.

This study represents the second diversion follow-up study in South Africa and was in itself a learning experience for all those involved. The study, was however, not limited to tracing recidivists and yielded valuable programme feedback from former participants. Diversion programmes continue to operate without legislative support and this naturally impacts on the scope and extent of its utilisation. This study has nevertheless collected and analysed baseline information that will be used for further research. By way of conclusion a number of points are highlighted from the report.

Information systems remain inadequate and it was therefore not possible to trace former clients through official records. Well-developed information systems are vital for the proper administration and management of juvenile justice services. NICRO’s own information system will only provide part of the picture in so far as the scope of that individual client’s contact with the organisation is concerned. An integrated information system will not only enhance research but also service delivery to children in trouble with the law through accurate tracking.



5 CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL

Arrested children await trial in a variety of institutions and under diverse conditions. Given that the available information concerning children awaiting trial is most detailed for the category of awaiting-trial children in prisons, statistics pertaining to this category will be presented first.
5.1 Children awaiting trial in prisons

Despite the consistent calls over recent years for alternatives to imprisonment for awaiting-trial children (see for example, Sloth-Nielsen, 1996 and Muntingh, 1998), as well as the constitutional injunction that children should only be detained as a last resort (Article 40, 2001), the actual number of unsentenced children incarcerated in South African prisons increased nearly six-fold between 1995 and 2000: specifically, from 341 in 1995 to 2263 in 2000 (see Table 51).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
GENDER DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

MALES

FEMALES

N

f

%

f

%

1995

321

94.13

20

5.87

341

1996

494

93.92

32

6.08

526

1997

1082

95.84

47

4.16

1129

1998

1297

96.50

47

3.50

1344

1999

2017

97.06

61

2.94

2078

2000

2202

97.30

61

2.70

2263

2001

1972

97.43

52

2.57

2024

Codes: f = frequency; N = sum of frequencies/total

Table 51. Gender Distribution. Children awaiting trial in prison (1995 – 2001).. Source: DCS (2002).



Figure 18. Gender Distribution. Children awaiting trial in prison (1995 – 2001). Source: DCS (2002).
As indicated in Table 51, for the entire time-period under consideration, there was a consistently significant difference between the number of male and female awaiting-trial child prisoners in South African prisons, with male awaiting-trial prisoners outnumbering their female counterparts by more than 88 percentage points for any given year. Furthermore, and as also indicated in Table 51, this difference became progressively larger between 1995 and 2000, with male awaiting-trial child prisoners constituting 94.13 percent of all awaiting-trial juvenile prisoners in 1995, and 97.30 percent in 2000. While female children constituted 5.87 percent of all awaiting-trial child prisoners in 1995, they constituted only 2.70 percent of awaiting-trial child prisoners in 2000.




AVERAGE NUMBER OF MALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

REGION

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

E. Cape

40

144

241

324

344

373

344

Free State

10

17

60

88

150

130

142

Gauteng

52

27

140

116

269

293

274

KwaZulu Natal

133

120

278

288

514

694

616

Limpopo

12

4

7

38

45

18

11

Mpumalanga

3

6

20

31

40

55

46

N. Cape

4

14

36

53

60

85

49

N. W. Province

10

12

42

59

103

90

61

W. Cape

57

150

258

300

492

464

429

TOTAL

321

494

1082

1297

2017

2202

1972

Table 52. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001). Regional Distribution. Source DCS (2002).

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF MALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

REGION

1995
(%)

1996
(%)

1997
(%)

1998
(%)

1999
(%)

2000
(%)

2001
(%)

Average
(%)

Overall
Rank

E. Cape

12.46

29.15

22.27

24.98

17.06

16.94

17.44

20.04

3

Free State

3.12

3.44

5.55

6.78

7.44

5.90

7.20

5.63

5

Gauteng

16.20

5.47

12.94

8.94

13.34

13.31

13.89

12.01

4

KwaZulu Natal

41.43

24.29

25.69

22.21

25.48

31.52

31.24

28.84

1

Limpopo

3.74

0.81

0.65

2.93

2.23

0.82

0.56

1.68

9

Mpumalanga

0.93

1.21

1.85

2.39

1.98

2.50

2.33

1.88

8

N. Cape

1.25

2.83

3.33

4.09

2.97

3.86

2.48

2.97

7

N. W. Province

3.12

2.43

3.88

4.55

5.11

4.09

3.09

3.75

6

W. Cape

17.75

30.36

23.84

23.13

24.39

21.07

21.75

23.18

2

Table 53. Male Children awaiting Trial in Prison: Regional distribution. Source: DCS (2002).


AGE CATEGORIES: UNSENTENCED CHILDREN IN CUSTODY: 31 JULY 2002

GENDER

Number

Female

52

Male

2105

All Genders

2157

Table 54. Age Categories: Unsentenced prisoners in custody: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002.

AGE PROFILE: UNSENTENCED CHILDREN IN CUSTODY: 31 JULY 2002

GENDER

7-13 years

14 years

15 years

16 years

17 years

Total

Female

1

4

14

17

16

52

Male

6

137

346

685

931

2105

All Genders

7

141

360

702

947

2157

Table 55. Unsentenced children in custody: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002.

UNSENTENCED CHILDREN IN CUSTODY PER CRIME CATEGORY: 31 JULY 2002

Crime Categories

7-13 years

14 years

15 years

16 years

17 years

Total

Economical

4

92

192

301

361

950

Aggressive

2

39

122

283

436

882

Sexual

1

8

35

87

116

247

Narcotics

 

2

6

10

10

28

Other

   

5

21

24

50

All crime categories

7

141

360

702

947

2157

Table 56. Unsentenced children in custody per crime category: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002.





INFANTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN IN PRISON WITH THEIR MOTHERS PER AGE CATEGORY: 31 JULY 2002

Ages

Admitted with mother

Born in detention during month

Transferred to foster parents

In detention

< 1 year old

68

 

58

96

1-2 years old

26

 

28

60

>2-3 years old

11

 

8

26

>3-4 years old

5

 

5

5

4 years old

6

 

5

5

All ages

116

0

104

192

Table 57. Infants and young children in prison with their mothers per age category: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002.

Please note that this presumably includes sentenced and unsentenced mothers as prisoners.

INFANTS AND YOUNG CHILDREN IN PRISON WITH THEIR MOTHERS PER PROVINCE: 31 JULY 2002

Province

Admitted with mother

Born in detention during month

Transferred to foster parents

In detention

Eastern Cape

10

 

15

32

Free State

7

 

12

17

Gauteng

25

 

18

40

KwaZulu-Natal

27

 

22

37

Limpopo

14

 

10

28

Mpumalanga

12

 

9

13

North west

       

Northern Cape

7

 

7

7

Western Cape

14

 

11

18

RSA

116

0

104

192

Table 58. Infants and young children in prisons with their mothers per province: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002.

Regional distribution

As indicated in Tables 52 and 53, for the period between 1995 and 2001, the highest proportion of male awaiting-trial child prisoners in South Africa was found in KwaZulu-Natal, followed by Western Cape, Eastern Cape and Gauteng prisons. For the entire period, Limpopo Province prisons, followed by Mpumalanga prisons consistently had the lowest proportion of male awaiting-trial child prisoners.
For the same period, the highest proportion of female awaiting-trial child prisoners could be found in Gauteng, Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal jailprisons (see Tables 59 and 60). As indicated in Tables 59 and 60, the Northern Cape, followed by Mpumalanga had the lowest proportion of female awaiting-trial child prisoners for this period.

AVERAGE NUMBER OF FEMALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

REGION

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

E. Cape

3

7

9

8

5

7

10

Free State

1

1

1

3

2

6

3

Gauteng

5

7

12

7

12

13

12

KwaZulu Natal

6

6

5

7

12

11

10

Limpopo

1

2

5

4

4

2

Mpumalanga

1

2

4

5

3

1

N. Cape

1

1

2

3

2

3

N. W. Province

1

2

2

1

3

3

2

W. Cape

3

5

10

11

15

14

11

TOTAL

20

32

47

47

61

61

52

Table 59. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995 – 2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

REGION

1995
(%)

1996
(%)

1997
(%)

1998
(%)

1999
(%)

2000
(%)

2001
(%)

Average
(%)

Overall
Rank

E. Cape

15

21.88

19.15

17.02

8.20

11.48

19.23

15.99

4

Free State

5

3.13

2.13

6.38

3.28

9.84

5.77

5.08

6

Gauteng

25

21.88

25.53

14.89

19.67

21.31

23.08

21.62

1

KwaZulu Natal

30

18.75

10.64

14.89

19.67

18.03

19.23

18.74

3

Limpopo

5

6.25

10.64

8.51

6.56

3.28

5.75

5

Mpumalanga

3.13

4.26

8.51

8.20

4.92

1.92

4.42

8

N. Cape

3.13

2.13

4.26

4.92

3.28

5.77

3.36

9

N. W. Province

5

6.25

4.26

2.13

4.92

4.92

3.85

4.48

7

W. Cape

15

15.63

21.28

23.40

24.59

22.95

21.15

20.57

2

Table 60. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995 – 2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).
Age distribution

As indicated in Tables 61 and 62, the relative proportion of male awaiting-trial child prisoners progressively decreased between 1995 and 2000 for the following age groups: 7- to 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds, and 15-year-olds, with the decrease for the 7- to 13-year-olds being most significant (from 5.61 percent of the total awaiting-trial child prisoners in 1995, to 0.54 percent in 2000). For the same period, the proportion of awaiting-trial male child prisoners in the 16- and 17-year-old categories increased significantly.
As reflected in Tables 63 and 64, the trend for female awaiting-trial child prisoners differed slightly from that for male awaiting-trial child prisoners in terms of age-group distribution for the period 1995 to 2000. Specifically, while the proportion of awaiting-trial child prisoners decreased for the age groups, 7- to 13-year-olds, 14 year-olds and 17-year-olds from 1995 to 2000, it increased for the 15- and 16-year-old age categories, with the increase for the latter age category being most significant (from 20 percent in 1995 to 34.43 percent in 2000).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF MALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
AGE DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

AGES

N

7-13 yrs

14 yrs

15 yrs

16 yrs

17 yrs

1995

18

30

55

94

124

321

1996

10

48

84

157

195

494

1997

9

81

176

350

466

1082

1998

11

85

204

433

564

1297

1999

13

119

305

685

895

2017

2000

12

124

340

714

1012

2202

2001

9

122

330

672

839

1972

Table 61. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001). Age Distribution Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF MALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
AGE DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

AGES

7-13 yrs
(%)

14 yrs
(%)

15 yrs
(%)

16 yrs
(%)

17 yrs
(%)

1995

5.61

9.35

17.13

29.29

38.63

1996

2.02

9.72

17.00

31.78

39.47

1997

0.83

7.49

16.27

32.35

43.07

1998

0.85

6.55

15.73

33.38

43.48

1999

0.64

5.9

15.12

33.96

44.37

2000

0.54

5.63

15.44

32.43

45.96

2001

0.46

6.19

16.73

34.08

42.55

Table 62. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution (in %). Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF FEMALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
AGE DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

AGES

N

7–13 yrs

14 yrs

15 yrs

16 yrs

17 yrs

1995

3

2

3

4

8

20

1996

1

7

4

10

10

32

1997

1

5

13

13

15

47

1998

1

4

10

18

14

47

1999

2

6

13

21

19

61

2000

3

6

12

21

19

61

2001

0

3

9

20

20

52

Table 63. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001). Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
AGE DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

AGES

7 – 13 yrs
(%)

14 yrs
(%)

15 yrs
(%)

16 yrs
(%)

17 yrs
(%)

1995

15.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

40.00

1996

3.13

21.88

12.5

31.25

31.25

1997

2.13

10.64

27.66

27.66

31.91

1998

2.13

8.51

21.28

38.3

29.79

1999

3.28

9.84

21.31

34.43

31.15

2000

4.92

9.84

19.67

34.43

31.15

2001

0.00

5.77

17.31

38.46

38.46

Table 64. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995 – 2001): Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

Offence profile
The statistics reflected in Tables 65 and 66 indicate that the vast majority of male awaiting-trial child prisoners were detained on charges related to crimes in the following DCS crime categories: ‘aggressive crimes’ and ‘economic crimes’, with the proportion of male children detained on charges related to ‘aggressive crimes’ escalating significantly between 1995 and 2000 (from 27.68 percent of the total number of male awaiting-trial prisoners to 39.11 percent). Proportionately few male awaiting-trial child prisoners were detained on charges related to crimes in the following DCS crime categories: ‘narcotics-related crimes’ and ‘sexual crimes’. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the number of male awaiting-trial child prisoners detained in connection with sexual crimes increased significantly between 1995 and 2000 (see Tables 65 and 66).
With female awaiting-trial prisoners too, the majority of children were held on charges related to crimes in the ‘aggressive crimes’ and ‘economic crimes’ categories (see Tables 67 and 68). However, while there was a proportionate decrease in the relative number of male awaiting-trial child prisoners held for crimes in the ‘economic crimes’ category for the 1995 to 2000 time period, there was an increase in the number (in real and relative terms) of female awaiting-trial child prisoners held for crimes in this crime category for the same period (see Tables 67 and 68).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF MALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

N

Aggressive

Economic

Narcotics

Sexual

Other

1995

116

208

16

40

39

419

1996

175

282

17

63

38

575

1997

369

564

23

139

42

1137

1998

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1999

773

883

28

308

72

2064

2000

880

908

30

350

82

2250

2001

807

853

29

276

50

2015

Code: N/A = Data not available

Table 65. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution (raw scores). Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF MALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

27.68

49.64

3.82

9.55

9.31

1996

30.43

49.04

2.96

10.96

6.61

1997

32.45

49.60

2.02

12.23

3.69

1998

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1999

37.45

42.78

1.36

14.92

3.49

2000

39.11

40.36

1.33

15.56

3.64

2001

40.05

42.33

1.44

13.70

2.48

Code: N/A = Data not available

Table 66. Male Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995 – 2001: Crime Category Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF FEMALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

N

Aggressive

Economic

Narcotics

Sexual

Other

1995

10

12

5

1

4

32

1996

17

26

3

8

54

1997

19

28

4

1

9

61

1998

22

24

5

2

7

60

1999

15

25

3

8

51

2000

25

27

3

1

8

64

2001

24

22

3

6

55

Table 67. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution (raw scores). Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

31.25

37.50

15.63

3.13

12.5

1996

31.48

48.15

5.56

14.81

1997

31.15

45.90

6.56

1.64

14.75

1998

36.67

40.00

8.33

3.33

11.67

1999

29.41

49.02

5.88

0.00

15.69

2000

39.06

42.19

4.69

1.56

12.5

2001

24

22

3

6

Table 68. Female Children Awaiting Trial In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution (percentages) Source: DCS (2002).

The growing number of awaiting-trial child prisoners
It cannot be denied that the number of sentenced and awaiting-trial prisoners children increased at an alarming rate between 1995 and 2000. However, even more disturbingly, the proportion of awaiting-trial children in prison had increased much more significantly than sentenced children in prison (see Table 69). For example, in 1996, sentenced children constituted 67.02 percent of all children in South African prisons, while awaiting-trial children constituted 32.98 percent of the child population in prison. By 2000, however, awaiting-trial child prisoners outnumbered sentenced child prisoners by nearly 14 percent. According to Sloth-Nielsen and Muntingh (1999), the increase in the number of awaiting trial children in prisons is in all likelihood a consequence of the lack of alternative places of secure care, as well as the increasing period of time it takes to process criminal cases involving children.
The tragedy of the scenario described above, as Sloth-Nielsen (1996, p. 347) observes, is that many of the awaiting-trial child prisoners, more often than not, spend "an average of four months, extending to nine months in a substantial proportion of the cases... in prison"; and that "in the vast majority of cases, [they will not] receive prison sentences when convicted." Consequently, for many awaiting-trial child prisoners, the time spent in prison in reality constitutes "punishment by process" (Sloth-Nielsen, 1996, p. 347).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF MALE & FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
SENTENCED/AWAITING TRIAL

YEAR

SENTENCED

AWAITING TRIAL

N

f

%

f

%

1995

693

67.02

341

32.98

1034

1996

854

61.88

526

38.12

1380

1997

1217

51.88

1129

48.12

2346

1998

1275

48.68

1344

51.31

2619

1999

1557

42.83

2078

57.17

3635

2000

1705

42.97

2263

57.03

3968

2001

1712

45.82

2024

54.18

3736

Table 69. Male & Female Children In Prison (1995–2001). Sentenced/Awaiting Trial. Source: DSD (2002).

Figure 19. Prison Population (1995–2001): Children/Adult Divide. Source: DSD (2002).
Very disturbingly too, as indicated in Table 70, the proportion of child prisoners in relation to adult prisoners also increased quite significantly between 1995 and 2000. More specifically, while children constituted 0.93 percent of the total prison population of 111 090 in 1995, they constituted as much as 2.19 percent of the total prison population of 167 567 in 2000.

AVERAGE PRISON POPULATION PER YEAR (1995–2001):
CHILDREN/ADULT DIVIDE

YEAR

CHILDREN

ADULTS

N

f

%

f

%

1995

1034

0.93

110056

99.07

111090

1996

1380

1.15

119014

98.85

120394

1997

2346

1.72

133720

98.28

136066

1998

2619

1.84

139806

98.16

142425

1999

3635

2.33

152396

97.67

156031

2000

3968

2.37

163599

97.63

167567

2001

3736

2.19

167192

97.81

170928

Table 70. Prison Population (1995–2001): Children/Adult Divide. Source: DSD (2002).
Given the much-reported hazards accompanying the incarceration of children in prison, the statistics reflected in this section of the report are certainly a cause for concern (Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh, 1999).
5.2 Children awaiting trial in other facilities

Given that the Department of Social Development and the South African Police Service were unable to provide the researchers with any comprehensive statistics on children in conflict with the law, the statistics on children awaiting trial in institutions other than South African prisons are fairly sketchy. Nonetheless, the little statistical information on children awaiting trial in police cells and DSD (Department of Social Development) facilities that could be obtained from the DSD and other sources were collated and are presented in Tables 71 to 76 below. While clearly inadequate, these statistics nonetheless provide a ‘snapshot’ of the distribution of awaiting-trial child detainees in the various detention facilities in South Africa.
As reflected in Table 73, for more or less the same period in 2001, a larger number of institutionalised awaiting-trial children were detained in DSD facilities than in police cells nationally. However, as also indicated in this table, for more or less a corresponding period, significantly more awaiting-trial children were detained in prison. This pattern was broadly maintained a year later. However, by September 2001, the difference between the numbers of awaiting-trial children held in prison and DSD facilities (such as places of safety) had widened significantly (see Table 74). Indeed, at that point, according to the available statistics, more than 50 percent of awaiting-trial children were incarcerated in prison, as opposed to the 33.63 percent held in DSD facilities. At a more local level, as reflected in the Nigel and Heidelberg Court statistics reflected in Tables 75 and 76, a slightly different picture emerges. Firstly, none of the children whose cases were managed by the Nigel and Heidelberg Court systems awaited trial in police cells. Secondly, in general more children awaited trial in the care of their guardians than in prisons. However, as indicated in Tables 75 and 76, between 1998 and 2001, increasingly larger numbers of children whose cases were processed by the Nigel and Heidelberg Court systems, have been awaiting trial in prisons.
Still at a more local level, a slightly different picture emerges from the Western Cape (as opposed to Gauteng and nationally). As indicated in Table 9, while the majority of awaiting-trial children were placed in the care of their guardians, proportionately, the number of children awaiting trial in care of their parents decreased from 1995 to 1997. Furthermore, as had been the case for the Heidelberg and Nigel districts for the period 1998 to 2000, in the Western Cape a decreasing number of child offenders awaited trial in places of safety and reformatories for the period 1995 to 1997.
A breakdown of the regional distribution of awaiting-trial children detained in police cells on August 1, 2001 indicates that a disproportionately large number of awaiting-trial prisoners were detained in police cells in the Limpopo Province and the North West Province (202 and 228 children, respectively) (See Table 99). On the same day, no children were detained in police cells in the Western Cape and Gauteng. A month later (September 1, 2001), the picture was the same for the latter two provinces. However, at that point, 170 awaiting-trial children were detained in the Eastern Cape (94 more than the previous month) and 384 children were detained in Free State police cells (352 more than had been the case a month earlier). Unfortunately, no information could be obtained regarding the length of time children were detained in these facilities.

CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN PLACES OF SAFETY IN OCTOBER 1998 & OCTOBER 1999:
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION: A SNAPSHOT

REGION

Oct. 19981

Oct. 19991

E. Cape

44

71

Free State

--

--

Gauteng

642

391

KwaZulu Natal

70

155

Limpopo

--

--

Mpumalanga

--

--

N. Cape

--

--

N. W. Province

--

--

W. Cape

282

308

N

1038

925

Table 71. Children Awaiting Trial In Places Of Safety In October 1998 & October 1999. Regional Distribution: A Snapshot. Sources: 1Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (2001); 2Department of Social Development (2002).

CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL IN POLICE CELLS: SEPTEMBER 2000
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION: A SNAPSHOT

REGION

f

Eastern Cape

76

Free State

28

Gauteng

KwaZulu Natal

130

Limpopo

202

Mpumalanga

66

North West Province

228

Northern Cape

16

Western Cape

N

746

Table 72. Children Awaiting Trial In Police Cells: October 2000. Regional Distribution: A Snapshot. Sources: Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (2001); Department of Social Development (2002).


Figure 20. Children Awaiting Trial In Police Cells: October 2000. Regional Distribution: A Snapshot. Sources: Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (2001); Department of Social Development (2002).

CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL: NATIONALLY
PLACES OF DETENTION. A SNAPSHOT COMPARISON

LOCALITY

DATE

f

%

Children in police cells

10/2000

746

18.01

Children in prisons

10/2000

1862

44.95

Children in DSD facilities

12/2000

1534

37.04

N

4142

100

Table 73. Children Awaiting Trial. Places Of Detention: A Snapshot Comparison. Source: Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (2001).

CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL: NATIONALLY
PLACES OF DETENTION. A SNAPSHOT COMPARISON

LOCALITY

DATE

f

%

Children in police cells

01/09/2001

664

16.02

Children in prisons

01/09/2001

2087

50.35

Children in DSD facilities

30/09/2001

1394

33.63

N

4145

100

Table 74. Children Awaiting Trial. Places Of Detention. A Snapshot Comparison. Source: DSD (2002).

CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL: NIGEL
PLACES OF DETENTION

PLACEMENT

1998

1999

2000

2001

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Places of safety

26

43.33

17

27.42

30

36.14

2

2.11

Prisons

6

10.00

8

12.90

10

12.05

47

49.47

Care of guardian/s

28

46.67

37

59.68

43

51.81

46

48.42

N

60

62

83

95

Table 75. Children Awaiting Trial: Heidelberg Places Of Detention. Source: DSD (2002).

CHILDREN AWAITING TRIAL: HEIDELBERG
PLACES OF DETENTION

PLACEMENT

1998

1999

2000

2001

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

Places of safety

10

52.63

10

52.63

24

32.88

37

35.92

Prisons

1

5.26

8

10.96

13

12.62

Care of guardian/s

8

42.11

9

47.37

41

56.16

53

51.46

N

19

19

73

103

Table 76. Children Awaiting Trial: Heidelberg Places Of Detention. Source: DSD (2002).


6 PROSECUTIONS, SENTENCING AND CONVICTIONS

As indicated at the beginning of this report, one of the researchers’ key terms of reference was to determine the prosecution, sentencing and conviction patterns in relation to child offenders for the period 1995 to 2001. However, serious lacunae in the monitoring processes used to collect and analyse statistics on child offenders in key government departments (e.g. the Department of Justice and the Department of Social Development) and non-governmental organisations involved with child justice and related matters, meant that insufficient information was obtained to meet this research objective. Needless to state, this lack of statistics relating to prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates, seriously limits the interpretation of the other statistics contained in this report.

6.1 Conviction rates

At this point it might nonetheless be useful to briefly consider the available information related to prosecution, conviction and sentencing patterns available at the time of writing this report. As reflected in Tables 77 to 93, the bulk of this information pertains to the period 1995-1996.

AVERAGE CONVICTION RATE (ALL OFFENCES)
PER 100 000 OF THE POPULATION: 1995/6

AGE
CATEGORIES

MALE
f

FEMALE
F

TOTAL

7-17yrs

318

37

355

18-20yrs

2283

277

2560

>20yrs

1481

205

1689

N

4082

519

4601

Table 77. Average Conviction Rate (All Offences) Per 100 000 Of The Population: 1995/6. Source: Schönteich (1999).

Consistent with the patterns emerging from the statistics in the rest of the report, the conviction rates for male children were significantly higher for all crime categories than those for female children. However, in contradistinction to the pattern emerging from the statistics reflected in the preceding and next sections, the conviction rate for male juveniles in 1995/6 appears to have been higher for crimes involving violence than for economic crimes (See Tables 78, 79 and 80).

AVERAGE CONVICTION RATE FOR MURDER
PER 100 000 OF THE POPULATION: 1995/6

AGE CATEGORIES

MALE

FEMALE

7-17yrs

4.9

0.25

18-20yrs

41.9

2.7

>20yrs

26.9

2.1

Table 78. Conviction Rate For Murder Per 100 000 Of The Population: 1995/6. Source: Schönteich (1999).

AVERAGE CONVICTION RATE FOR ROBBERY
PER 100 000 OF THE POPULATION: 1995/6

AGE CATEGORIES

MALE

FEMALE

7-17yrs

16.1

0.2

18-20yrs

109.3

1.1

>20yrs

30.4

0.7

Table 79 Conviction Rate For Robbery Per 100 000 Of The Population: 1995/6. Source: Schönteich (1999).

AVERAGE CONVICTION RATE FOR ASSAULT
PER 100 000 OF THE POPULATION: 1995/6

AGE CATEGORIES

MALE

FEMALE

7-17yrs

38.7

5.5

18-20yrs

432.3

61.1

>20yrs

329

48.8

Table 80. Conviction Rate For Assault Per 100 000 Of The Population: 1995/6. Source: Schönteich (1999).

6.2 Children admitted to serve prison sentence

The following provides an overview of children admitted to prison to serve prison terms over a three year period from 1999 to 2001. The data was made available by the Department of Correctional Services through the UNDP Child Justice Project.

Some basis definitions are required for the correct interpretation of the data. All the data relate to prison admissions and should not be confused with daily averages or date specific counts, for example on 31 December. Thus, the figures refer to children that have been admitted to prison to serve a prison sentence. As far as could be established, these figures refer to children actively serving prison sentence and would not include sentences to correctional supervision which are administrated by the DCS.

Figure 21. Number of children admitted per month. Source : L M Muntingh Nicro National Office, August 2002.
During the period under review an average of 427 sentenced children were admitted to South African prisons per month. When averages are calculated for each year, they are 390.8 for 1999, 438.5 for 2000 and 451.6 for 2001. This reflects an increase of nearly 16% in the monthly average number of sentenced children admitted to prison from 1999 to 2001.

The highest number of admitted in a single month was in March 2000, a total of 557, and the lowest was in December 2000, a total of 287.

The data made available by the DCS was divided into two cohorts, 7 –16 years and 17 years. The monthly totals for the two cohorts over the three year period is presented in the accompanying graph. As can be seen from the graph, the two age cohorts mirror each other in terms of the monthly number of admissions. From the graph it appears, as can be expected that the number decrease substantially towards the end of the calender year (December to January) and is then followed by a sharp increase from February to April in order to erase the backlog created over the festive season.

Figure 22. Admissions, 7-16 years and 17 years old. Source:: L M Muntingh, Nicro National Office, August 2002.

PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF ADMISSIONS

PROVINCE

1999

%

2000

%

2001

%

TOTAL

W-Cape

833

17.8

835

15.9

913

17.3

2581

E-Cape

740

15.8

1038

19.7

998

18.9

2776

KZ-Natal

674

14.4

714

13.6

717

13.6

2105

Free State

462

9.9

602

11.4

659

12.5

1723

N-Cape

251

5.4

309

5.9

209

4.0

769

Gauteng

683

14.6

763

14.5

760

14.4

2206

Mpumalanga

296

6.3

289

5.5

244

4.6

829

N-West

461

9.8

434

8.2

442

8.4

1337

Limpopo

290

6.2

278

5.3

332

6.3

900

Total

4690

5262

5274

15226

Table 81. Provincial distributions of admissions. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002.

On an annual basis the proportional contributions of each of the nine province to the total number of admission appear to vary between 1% to 4%. Over the three year period the total highest number of admissions was in the Eastern Cape, followed by the Western Cape and then Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal. These four provinces account for 63.5% of all admissions between 1999-2001.

Sentence profiles
The overall sentence profile is presented in the tables below. From these tables the following points emerge:
Over the three year period more then 15 000 children were admitted to prisons to serve a sentence.
Sentence lengths are not equally distributed across the provinces, for example 79.9% of admissions in the Limpopo province was for six months or less in 2000 compared to the 30.1% in Gauteng for the same year.
Four provinces show substantial decreases in the number of children admitted for terms of 12 months or less, they are Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Mpumpalanga and North West.
It needs to verified if the children admitted to these prisons were in fact sentenced in that province and therefore if these figures are an accurate reflection of sentencing trends or whether the trends are a function of the placement of prisoners across provincial boundaries.
Seven of the nine provinces show a decrease in the proportion of children admitted for sentences of less than 12 months, the two showing an increase are Western Cape and Free State.
Although the numbers are very low, there appears to be an increase in the use of longer sentences, ie longer than 3 years.

Figure 23. Provincial distribution of all admissions. Source: : L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002.

SENTENCE PROFILE OF ADMISSIONS

Sentence

1999

2000

2001

Total

0-6 months

1587

1784

1697

5068

>6-12 months

755

778

733

2266

>12->24 months

400

484

468

1352

2-3 years

909

974

967

2850

>3-5 years

466

495

614

1575

>5-7 years

183

209

219

611

>7-10 years

183

226

198

607

>10-15 years

96

118

152

366

>15-20 years

35

42

42

119

>20 years

17

33

34

84

Other sentences

59

119

296

474

Total

4690

5262

5420

15372

Table 82. Sentence profile of admissions. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002.


SENTENCE PROFILE OF ADMISSIONS IN PERCENTAGES

Sentence

1999

2000

2001

% Increase/Decrease

0-6 months

33.8

33.9

31.3

-2.5

>6-12 months

16.1

14.8

13.5

-2.6

>12->24 months

8.5

9.2

8.6

0.1

2-3 years

19.4

18.5

17.8

-1.5

>3-5 years

9.9

9.4

11.3

1.4

>5-7 years

3.9

4.0

4.0

0.1

>7-10 years

3.9

4.3

3.7

-0.2

>10-15 years

2.0

2.2

2.8

0.8

>15-20 years

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.0

>20 years

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.3

Other sentences

1.3

2.3

5.5

4.2

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

 

Table 83. Sentence profile of admissions in percentages. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002.

PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL ADMISSIONS SENTENCED TO 6 MONTHS OR LESS PER PROVINCE

PROVINCE

1999

2000

2001

Western Cape

28.2

29.2

31.8

Eastern Cape

47.3

45.4

37.5

KwaZulu-Natal

31.0

32.2

31.7

Free State

25.9

27.9

24.1

Northern Cape

40.2

36.6

30.6

Gauteng

19.9

19.9

25.3

Mpumalanga

39.5

36.7

35.7

North West

27.9

25.8

16.5

Limpopo

65.5

67.6

69.6

Table 84. Percentage of total admissions sentenced to 6 months or less per province. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002.



PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL ADMISSIONS SENTENCED TO 12 MONTHS OR LESS PER PROVINCE

PROVINCE

1999

2000

2001

Western Cape

46.5

46.6

47.0

Eastern Cape

62.1

60.9

54.4

KwaZulu Natal

43.7

45.4

41.4

Free State

38.7

43.4

42.5

Northern Cape

62.9

52.8

50.7

Gauteng

38.6

30.1

36.8

Mpumalanga

56.1

60.2

45.4

North West

44.6

38.7

30.1

Limpopo

77.9

79.1

74.1

Table 85. Percentage of total admissions sentenced to 12 months or less per province. Source: L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002.


Figure 24. Number of children for sentences of 12 months or less, 2001. Source : L M Muntingh Nicro National Office August 2002.

The growth in the number of children in prison is most disturbing. In the 7 years since January 1995 (date from which statistical information is available), the number of unsentenced children have increased by 209% and sentenced children by 178%.

Another problem with children and juvenile prisoners is that many of them (36 at Pollsmoor), have been sentenced by court to attend reformatory school, however, they remain in prison for long periods because of the limited accommodation that these reformatory schools offer.

6.3 Sentenced children in prison


The following presents data on children serving prison sentences. The data is presented in primarily two formats namely, date specific counts and averages.

AGE CATEGORIES: SENTENCED CHILDREN IN CUSTODY: 31 JULY 2002

GENDER

Number

Female

42

Male

1762

All Genders

1804

Table 86. Age Categories: sentenced children in custody: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002.

AGE PROFILE: SENTENCED CHILDREN IN CUSTODY: 31 JULY 2002

GENDER

7-13 years

14 years

15 years

16 years

17 years

Total

Female

1

15

26

42

Male

9

34

175

506

1038

1762

All Genders

9

34

176

521

1064

1804

Table 87. Sentenced children in custody: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002.



SENTENCED CHILDREN IN CUSTODY PER CRIME CATEGORY: 31 JULY 2002

Crime Categories

7-13 years

14 years

15 years

16 years

17 years

Total

Economical

3

17

82

259

435

796

Aggressive

3

6

55

189

436

689

Sexual

1

8

33

54

157

253

Narcotics

   

1

1

7

9

Other

2

3

5

18

29

57

All crime categories

9

34

176

521

1064

1804

Table 88. Sentenced children (younger than 18 years) in custody per crime category: 31 July 2002. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002.

SENTENCE PROFILE OF CHILDREN (1999 & 2000)
Averages

SENTENCE

1999
(%)

2000
(%)

0 - 6 months

13.00

11.08

>6 – 12 months

16.90

12.50

>12 – 24 months

11.20

11.08

>2 - 3 years

26.80

25.80

>3 - 5 years

14.70

16.44

>5 - 7 years

6.80

7.75

>7 – 10 years

6.40

8.00

>10 – 15 years

2.60

3.69

>15 – 20 years

1.20

0.98

>20 years+

0.4

1.12

N

1375

1624

Table 89. Sentence Profile Of Children (1999 & 2000). A Snapshot. Source: Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh (2001).


CHILDREN HELD IN CORRECTIONAL CENTRES AND PRISONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AS ON 20/9/2002

PROVINCE

CENTRE

NUMBER OF CHILDREN

CAPACITY

% Overcrowding

Western Cape

Brandvlei

369

348

6.0

Hawequa

383

225

70.0

Drakenstein Med B

685

474

NA

Pollsmoor Med A

2029

1111

82.0

Gauteng

Leeuwkop Med B

729

723

0.8

Baviaanspoort

555

640

NA

Emthonjeni

     

Boksburg Med B

417

274

65.0

North West

Rustenburg

153

182

NA

KwaZulu-Natal

Durban

1124

629

78.0

Ekuseni

636

600

6.0

Free State

Groenpunt

206

255

NA

Kroonstad

86

67

28.0

Mpumalanga

Baberton

374

517

NA

TOTAL

 

7746

6045

 

Table 90. Children and juveniles held in correctional centres and prisons throughout the country. Source: Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, 20 September 2002.

SENTENCE PROFILE OF 7 – 16 YR. OLD CHILDREN SERVING PRISON SENTENCES: 1999 AVERAGES

SENTENCE

E. Cape

Free State

Gauteng

KwaZulu
Natal

Limpopo

Mpuma
langa

N. Cape

N. West

W. Cape

0 - 6 months

146

53

64

97

85

55

31

43

87

>6 – 12 months

44

25

63

44

16

23

21

34

57

>12 – 24 months

23

33

22

18

7

11

13

9

34

>2 – 3 years

52

55

60

63

15

24

18

52

65

>3 – 5 years

11

28

49

47

5

4

4

33

32

>5 – 7 years

9

7

13

13

0

7

1

15

3

>7 – 10 years

5

6

17

14

3

4

2

9

10

>10 – 15 years

3

2

8

9

7

13

>15 – 20 years

2

2

3

1

>20 years+

1

1

3

3

Other

6

4

5

1

28

N

Table 91. Sentence Profile Of 7 – 16 Yr. Old Children: 1999 Averages. Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCE PROFILE OF 17 YR. OLD SERVING PRISON SENTENCES:
1999 AVERAGES

SENTENCE

E. Cape

Free State

Gauteng

KwaZulu
Natal

Limpopo

Mpuma
langa

N. Cape

N. West

W. Cape

0 - 6 months

204

67

72

112

105

62

70

86

148

>6 – 12 months

66

34

65

42

20

26

36

43

96

>12 – 24 months

37

20

26

17

8

13

17

13

79

>2 – 3 years

60

65

91

91

18

30

20

41

89

>3 – 5 years

21

34

41

34

5

11

10

40

57

>5 – 7 years

11

10

16

30

0

13

4

13

18

>7 – 10 years

19

8

39

16

1

8

3

14

5

>10 – 15 years

5

10

15

12

2

2

1

4

3

>15 – 20 years

6

7

7

2

1

4

>20 years+

1

1

6

1

Other

8

1

1

5

N

Table 92. Sentence Profile Of 17 Yr. Old Children: 1999 Averages. Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCE PROFILE OF ALL CHILDREN SERVING PRISON SENTENCES:
1999 AVERAGES

SENTENCE

E. Cape

Free State

Gauteng

KwaZulu
Natal

Limpopo

Mpuma
langa

N. Cape

N. West

W. Cape

0 - 6 months

350

120

136

209

190

117

101

129

235

>6 – 12 months

110

59

128

86

36

49

57

77

153

>12 – 24 months

60

53

48

35

15

24

30

22

113

>2 - 3 years

112

120

151

154

33

54

38

93

154

>3 - 5 years

32

62

90

81

10

15

14

73

89

>5 - 7 years

20

17

29

43

20

5

28

21

>7 – 10 years

24

14

56

30

4

12

5

23

15

>10 – 15 years

8

12

23

21

2

2

1

11

16

>15 – 20 years

8

9

10

2

2

4

>20 years+

2

1

7

4

3

Other

14

4

6

1

1

33

N

Table 93. Sentence Profile Of Children: 1999 Averages. Source: DCS (2002).
In terms of sentencing patterns, as indicated in Table 89, the majority of children convicted for criminal offences received sentences of less than five years, with 39.5 percent and 42.24 percent of all convicted children receiving sentences of between two and five years in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Disturbingly, between 13.2 and 15.75 percent of children convicted for criminal offences received sentences of between five and ten years in 1999 and 2000, respectively.
As indicated by the average statistics reflected in Tables 91 to 93 the above-mentioned trends pertained to all provinces.
The problems associated with the incarceration of children in prisons has been the focus of considerable scrutiny and debate for some time now (Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh, 1999). Despite this, the numbers of sentenced children detained in prison have been increasing with relentless regularity since 1995.
Provincial distribution

As reflected in Tables 94 and 95, for the period 1995 to 2000, the majority of sentenced male child prisoners were incarcerated in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape prisons. For the same period, the smallest proportion of sentenced male child prisoners were serving sentences in Northern Cape and Limpopo Province jailprisons. Furthermore, from 1995 to 2000, the average number of sentenced male child prisoners increased sharply in the Eastern Cape (from 7.58 percent of the national total in 1995 to 17.8 percent in 2000) and Northern Cape (from 1.93 percent of the national total in 1995 to 7.09 percent in 2000); while decreasing sharply in Gauteng (from 33.28 percent of the national total in 1995 to 16.47 percent in 2000). Moderate increases in the sentenced male child prisoner populations were recorded in the Western Cape, North West Province, Limpopo Province and the Free State from 1995 to 2000, while a moderate decrease was recorded in Mpumalanga (See Table 95).
A slightly different pattern emerges in relation to sentenced female children. As Tables 96 and 97 reveal, the Limpopo Province, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape had the highest average proportion of sentenced female child prisoners for the period 1995 to 2000, while the Northern Cape, followed by the North West Province and Mpumalanga, respectively, had the lowest proportion. Given the small size of the population of sentenced female child prisoners, a detailed interpretation of Tables 96 and 97 will not be appropriate.

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON
(1995–2001)
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

REGION

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

E. Cape

51

79

146

186

203

283

298

Free State

54

66

102

112

162

170

157

Gauteng

224

237

278

242

298

274

298

KwaZulu Natal

156

148

185

198

240

261

266

Limpopo

20

48

76

61

55

60

69

Mpumalanga

32

51

71

77

86

83

76

N. Cape

13

22

57

68

93

118

105

N. W. Province

34

45

88

114

136

128

129

W. Cape

89

126

177

179

250

287

276

N

673

822

1180

1237

1523

1664

1674

Table 94. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995 – 2001). Regional Distribution (raw data). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON (1995–2001)
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION (percentages)

REGION

1995
(%)

1996
(%)

1997
(%)

1998
(%)

1999
(%)

2000
(%)

2001
(%)

Average
(%)

Overall
Rank

E. Cape

7.58

9.61

12.37

15.04

13.33

17.01

17.80

13.25

4

Free State

8.02

8.03

8.64

9.05

10.64

10.22

9.38

9.14

5

Gauteng

33.28

28.83

23.56

19.56

19.57

16.47

17.80

22.72

1

KwaZulu Natal

23.18

18.00

15.68

16.01

15.76

15.69

15.89

17.17

2

Limpopo

2.97

5.84

6.44

4.93

3.61

3.61

4.12

4.50

9

Mpumalanga

4.76

6.20

6.02

6.22

5.65

4.99

4.54

5.48

7

N. Cape

1.93

2.68

4.83

5.50

6.11

7.09

6.27

4.92

8

N. W. Province

5.05

5.47

7.46

9.22

8.93

7.69

7.71

7.36

6

W. Cape

13.22

15.33

15.00

14.47

16.41

17.25

16.49

15.45

3

Table 95. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): Regional Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON (1995–2001)
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

REGION

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

E. Cape

3

4

7

5

4

7

4

Free State

2

1

2

5

2

9

4

Gauteng

3

4

6

4

5

4

4

KwaZulu Natal

3

6

6

7

5

5

5

Limpopo

4

6

7

4

6

4

5

Mpumalanga

2

2

2

3

2

2

3

N. Cape

1

2

2

2

1

3

5

N. W. Province

1

3

2

3

3

3

1

W. Cape

1

4

3

5

6

4

7

N

20

32

37

38

34

41

38

Table 96. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON (1995–2001):
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION (percentages)

REGION

1995
(%)

1996
(%)

1997
(%)

1998
(%)

1999
(%)

2000
(%)

2001
(%)

Average
(%)

Overall
Rank

E. Cape

15

12.5

18.92

13.16

11.76

17.07

10.53

14.13

3

Free State

10

3.13

5.41

13.16

5.88

21.95

10.53

10.01

6

Gauteng

15

12.5

16.22

10.53

14.71

9.76

10.53

12.75

4

KwaZulu Natal

15

18.75

16.22

18.42

14.71

12.20

13.16

15.49

2

Limpopo

20

18.75

18.92

10.53

17.65

9.76

13.16

15.54

1

Mpumalanga

10

6.25

5.41

7.89

5.88

4.88

7.89

6.89

7

N. Cape

5

6.25

5.41

5.26

2.94

7.32

13.16

6.48

9

N. W. Province

5

9.38

5.41

7.89

8.82

7.32

2.63

6.64

8

W. Cape

5

12.5

8.11

13.16

17.65

9.76

18.42

12.09

5

Table 97. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Regional Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002).


SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON (1995–2001):
AGE DISTRIBUTION (percentages)

YEAR

AGES

7–13 yrs
(%)

14 yrs
(%)

15 yrs
(%)

16 yrs
(%)

17 yrs
(%)

1995

0.89

2.08

4.9

20.65

71.47

1996

1.09

1.95

6.45

22.99

67.52

1997

1.1

1.95

6.78

23.98

66.19

1998

1.21

1.7

8.25

25.95

62.89

1999

0.79

1.58

7.75

30.01

59.89

2000

0.48

2.34

8.23

27.1

61.84

2001

0.42

2.39

8.96

27.3

60.93

Table 98. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002).
Age distribution

As indicated in Tables 98 and 99, the majority of sentenced male child prisoners fell within the 16- and 17-year-old age categories. Indeed, as the contents of Table 91 reflect, for the period 1995 to 2000, between 88.84 percent and 92.12 percent of all sentenced male child prisoners fell into these age categories. However, while the proportion of sentenced male child prisoners aged 16 years increased substantially between 1995 and 2000 (from 20.45 percent of the national total of all sentenced male child prisoners in 1995 to 27.1 percent in 2000), the proportion of sentenced male child prisoners in the 17-year-old age category showed a significant decline over the same period. For the corresponding period, the proportion of male child prisoners in the 14- and 15-year-old age categories increased, though only marginally so in the case of the 14-year-old age category. Conversely, the proportion of male child prisoners in the 7- to 13-year-old age category decreased fractionally between 1995 and 2000.

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON (1995–2001):
AGE DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

AGES

N

7–13 yrs

14 yrs

15 yrs

16 yrs

17 yrs

1995

6

14

33

139

481

673

1996

9

16

53

189

555

822

1997

13

23

80

283

781

1180

1998

15

21

102

321

778

1237

1999

12

24

118

457

912

1523

2000

8

39

137

451

1029

1664

2001

7

40

150

457

1020

1674

Table 99 Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON (1995–2001):
AGE DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

AGES

N

7–13 yrs

14 yrs

15 yrs

16 yrs

17 yrs

1995

1

6

13

20

1996

1

5

11

15

32

1997

1

3

7

8

18

37

1998

3

1

8

9

17

38

1999

2

1

6

9

16

34

2000

1

1

8

11

20

41

2001

6

10

22

38

Table 100. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON (1995–2001):
AGE DISTRIBUTION (percentages)

YEAR

AGES

7–13 yrs
(%)

14 yrs
(%)

15 yrs
(%)

16 yrs
(%)

17 yrs
(%)

1995

5

30

65

1996

3.13

15.63

34.38

46.88

1997

2.7

8.11

18.92

21.62

48.65

1998

7.89

2.63

21.05

23.68

44.74

1999

5.88

2.94

17.65

26.47

47.06

2000

2.44

2.44

19.51

26.83

48.78

2001

15.79

26.32

57.89

Table 101. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Age Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002).
As reflected in Tables 100 and 101, at least one of the trends discerned in the statistics related to male child prisoners, is mimicked in the statistics related to female child prisoners. Specifically, among the sentenced female child prisoners too, the largest proportion of prisoners fell in the 16- and 17-year-old age categories between 1995 and 2000. While there are undoubtedly other interesting features emerging from the data contained in Tables 100 and 101 as previously noted, in view of the relatively small population size of sentenced female child prisoners, further definitive statements concerning these features would not be appropriate.
Types of crime

As indicated in Tables 112 to 115, the majority of sentenced male and female prisoners were serving sentences for crimes falling into the ‘aggressive crimes’ and ‘economic crimes’ categories. This was particularly true for children aged 7 to 14 years (See Tables 106 to 115). While there was a general decrease in the proportion of female child prisoners serving sentences for economic crimes between 1995 and 2000, there was a slight increase in the number of male child prisoners serving sentences for the same types of crimes during this period (To a certain extent, this contradicts the pattern discerned in respect of unsentenced male child prisoners). Across all categories and for both genders a relatively small proportion of children were serving sentences for narcotics-related offences. Furthermore, as indicated in Table 102, a significant proportion of the male child prisoners were serving sentences for crimes falling in the ‘sexual crimes’ category.

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON (1995–2001):
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

N

Aggressive

Economic

Narcotics

Sexual

Other

1995

246

335

19

95

28

723

1996

296

335

17

124

39

811

1997

385

561

28

201

53

1228

1998

393

572

26

249

48

1288

1999

475

883

25

246

56

1685

2000

580

812

21

225

61

1699

2001

632

748

23

231

75

1709

Table 102. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON (1995–2001):
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentages)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

34.02

46.33

2.63

13.14

3.87

1996

36.50

41.31

2.96

15.29

4.81

1997

31.35

45.68

2.28

16.37

4.32

1998

30.51

44.41

2.02

19.33

3.73

1999

28.19

52.40

1.48

14.60

3.32

2000

34.14

47.79

1.24

13.24

3.59

2001

36.98

43.77

1.35

13.52

4.39

Table 103. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001). Crime Category Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995 – 2001):
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

N

Aggressive

Economic

Narcotics

Sexual

Other

1995

7

17

8

32

1996

14

20

3

1

10

48

1997

19

28

4

1

9

61

1998

22

24

5

2

7

60

1999

15

25

3

8

51

2000

25

27

3

1

8

64

2001

24

22

3

6

55

Table 104. Average Number Of Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR
(1995–2001):
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentages)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

21.88

53.13

24.99

1996

29.17

41.67

6.25

2.08

20.83

1997

31.15

45.90

6.56

1.64

14.75

1998

36.67

40.00

8.33

3.33

11.67

1999

29.41

49.02

5.88

15.69

2000

39.06

42.19

4.69

1.56

12.5

2001

43.64

40.00

5.55

10.91

Table 105. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): Crime Category Distribution (percentages). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(7-13 YEARS):
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

20.00

50.00

20.00

10.00

1996

20.00

46.67

20.00

13.33

1997

29.17

33.33

12.5

25.00

1998

22.22

40.74

3.70

22.22

11.11

1999

35.00

35.00

10.00

15.00

5.00

2000

30.77

46.15

7.69

15.38

2001

28.57

35.71

14.29

21.43

Table 106 Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (7-13 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(7-13 YEARS)
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

1996

1997

100.00

1998

33.33

66.67

1999

50.00

50.00

2000

100.00

2001

Table 107 Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (7-13 Years). Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(14 YEARS)
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive (%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

40.00

30.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

1996

33.33

37.04

7.41

11.11

11.11

1997

10.13

73.42

3.80

8.86

3.80

1998

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1999

29.41

44.12

2.94

20.59

2.94

2000

33.33

39.58

2.08

20.83

4.17

2001

25.00

50.00

2.08

14.58

8.33

Code: N/A = Data not available

Table 108. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (14 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(14 YEARS)
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive (%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

1996

100.00

1997

33.33

66.67

1998

100.00

1999

100.00

2000

100.00

2001

Table 109. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (14 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(15 YEARS)
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

35.71

38.10

4.76

14.29

7.14

1996

26.15

44.62

3.08

16.92

9.23

1997

25.53

43.62

4.26

18.09

8.51

1998

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1999

20.93

53.49

3.88

17.05

4.65

2000

28.08

52.05

1.37

13.70

4.79

2001

31.25

46.25

3.13

13.75

5.63

Code: N/A = Data not available

Table 110. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (15 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(15 YEARS)
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

100.00

1996

28.57

42.86

14.29

14.29

1997

38.46

46.15

7.69

7.69

1998

45.45

45.45

9.09

1999

33.33

66.67

2000

100.00

2001

37.50

50.00

12.50

Table 111. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (15 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(16 YEARS)
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

33.33

47.33

2.00

12.67

4.67

1996

31.63

44.90

1.02

16.84

5.61

1997

25.23

53.50

2.13

15.50

3.65

1998

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1999

29.05

48.13

1.24

14.73

6.85

2000

31.15

50.33

1.96

12.85

3.70

2001

37.77

42.49

0.86

14.81

4.08

Code: N/A = Data not available

Table 112. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (16 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(16 YEARS)
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

9.09

36.36

54.55

1996

23.53

41.18

5.88

29.41

1997

29.41

41.18

5.88

23.53

1998

40.00

33.33

6.67

20.00

1999

26.67

46.67

26.67

2000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

50.00

37.50

6.25

6.25

Code: N/A = Data not available

Table 113. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (16 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED MALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(17 YEARS)
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

34.13

47.31

2.20

13.17

3.19

1996

36.74

44.98

1.43

13.80

3.05

1997

41.16

33.65

2.19

19.25

3.76

1998

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1999

31.80

47.65

1.31

15.63

3.61

2000

36.40

46.47

0.87

13.07

3.19

2001

38.20

43.78

1.27

12.83

3.92

Code: N/A = Data not available

Table 114. Sentenced Male Children In Prison (1995–2001): (17 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

SENTENCED FEMALE CHILDREN IN PRISON PER YEAR (1995–2001):
(17 YEARS)
CRIME CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION (percentage)

YEAR

CRIME CATEGORY

Aggressive
(%)

Economic
(%)

Narcotics
(%)

Sexual
(%)

Other
(%)

1995

25.00

50.00

25.00

1996

29.17

41.67

4.17

4.17

20.83

1997

29.63

44.44

7.41

3.70

14.81

1998

33.33

36.67

13.33

3.33

13.33

1999

29.17

45.83

12.50

12.50

2000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2001

41.94

38.71

6.45

12.90


Code: N/A = Data not available

Table 115. Sentenced Female Children In Prison (1995–2001): (17 Years): Crime Category Distribution (percentage). Source: DCS (2002).

6.4 Children serving non-custodial sentences administered by DCS

As indicated in Tables 116 to 120, for the period 1995 to 2000, there was a significant increase in the number of children serving non-custodial sentences. While this pattern mimics the trends in children serving prison sentences, the increases in the number of children serving non-custodial sentences were generally much more significant than the increases in the number of children serving prison sentences (See Tables 94 to 97).
As reflected in Tables 116 and 117, these significant increases in the number of children serving non-custodial sentences occurred across all provinces. However, the increases in KwaZulu-Natal and the Limpopo Province appear most substantial.
As reflected in Tables 94 to 96, while there was a general decrease in the proportion of female child prisoners (in relation to male child prisoners) for the period 1995 to 2000, there was a proportionate increase in female children (in relation to male children) serving non-custodial sentences for the same period (See Table 118). Furthermore, the increase in the proportion of female children serving non-custodial sentences is more significant than the decrease in the proportion of female children serving prison sentences.
As indicated in Tables 119 and 120, the age distribution of children serving non-custodial sentences mimic the age distribution of children serving prison sentences (Also see Tables 98 to 101). However, the increase in the number of children between the ages of 15 and 17 years serving non-custodial sentences is much more significant than the increase in the number of children in the same age category serving prison sentences. It is also worth noting that while children younger than 15 years constituted 90.91 percent of all children serving non-custodial sentences in 1995, they constituted only 5.41 percent of all children serving non-custodial sentences in 2000.

CHILDREN SERVING NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES: AVERAGE NUMBER PER YEAR (1995–2001):
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

REGION

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

E. Cape

3

0

8

9

13

65

160

Free State

4

2

2

13

34

81

164

Gauteng

4

5

9

11

13

31

108

KwaZulu Natal

2

4

4

12

26

107

261

Limpopo

3

3

11

22

72

196

Mpumalanga

2

2

1

6

16

103

N. Cape

2

3

6

3

25

49

N. W. Province

1

2

2

6

4

52

135

W. Cape

3

2

4

6

4

32

131

N

22

17

37

75

125

481

1307

Table 116. Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences: Average Number Per Year (1995 – 2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

CHILDREN SERVING NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES (1995–2001):
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENTAGES

REGION

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

E. Cape

13.64

0.00

21.62

12.00

10.40

13.51

12.24

Free State

18.18

11.76

5.41

17.33

27.20

16.84

12.55

Gauteng

18.18

29.41

24.32

14.61

10.40

6.44

8.26

KwaZulu Natal

9.09

23.53

10.81

16.00

20.80

22.25

19.97

Limpopo

13.64

8.11

14.67

17.60

14.97

15.00

Mpumalanga

9.09

5.41

1.33

4.80

3.33

7.88

N. Cape

11.76

8.11

8.00

2.40

5.20

3.75

N. W. Province

4.55

11.76

5.41

8.00

3.20

10.81

10.33

W. Cape

13.64

11.76

10.81

8.00

3.20

6.65

10.02

Table 117. Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences: Average Number Per Year (1995 – 2001): Regional Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

CHILDREN SERVING NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES (1995–2001):
GENDER DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENTAGES

GENDER

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

MALE

100.00

100.00

97.37

90.12

93.60

90.07

93.25

FEMALE

2.63

9.88

6.40

9.93

6.75

Table 118. Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences (1995 – 2001): Gender Distribution In Percentages. Source: DCS (2002).


Figure 25. Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences (1995 – 2001): Gender Distribution In Percentages. Source: DCS (2002).

AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN SERVING NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES (1995–2001):
AGE DISTRIBUTION

YEAR

AGES

N

7–13 yrs

14 yrs

15 yrs

16 yrs

17 yrs

1995

20

1

1

22

1996

11

2

4

17

1997

19

1

4

3

10

37

1998

29

2

1

6

37

75

1999

10

4

3

21

87

125

2000

15

11

29

96

330

481

2001

23

30

122

357

775

1307

Table 119. Average Number of Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences (1995–2001): Age Distribution. Source: DCS (2002).

CHILDREN SERVING NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
(1995–2001)
AGE DISTRIBUTION IN PERCENTAGES

YEAR

AGES

7–13 yrs
(%)

14 yrs
(%)

15 yrs
(%)

16 yrs
(%)

17 yrs
(%)

1995

90.91

4.55

4.55

1996

64.71

11.76

23.53

1997

51.35

2.70

10.81

8.11

27.03

1998

38.67

2.67

1.33

8.00

49.33

1999

8.00

3.20

2.40

16.80

69.60

2000

3.12

2.29

6.03

19.96

68.61

2001

1.76

2.30

9.33

27.31

59.30

Table 120. Children Serving Non-Custodial Sentences (1995–2001): Age Distribution in Percentages. Source: DCS (2002).


7 DEATHS IN CUSTODY

7.1 Deaths in custody
The only statistics related to child deaths in custody were those provided by the Child Justice Project. These statistics are categorised in Tables 121 and 122. As reflected in Table 121, for the period January 1999 to April 2000, most child deaths in custody occurred in police cells. Three child deaths occurred in reform schools, one death in prison and one in a place of safety. Very disturbingly, as reflected in Table 122, nine of the child deaths that occurred while the victims were held in custody, were due to ‘non-natural’ causes.

DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CUSTODY
01/01/1999–30/04/2000
PLACE OF DEATH

PLACE OF DEATH

F

Police Cells

5

Reform Schools

3

Prison

1

Place of Safety

1

N

10

Table 121. Deaths Of Children In Custody: 01/01/1999–30/04/2000. Place Of Death. Source: Skelton (2001).





Figure 26. Deaths Of Children In Custody: 01/01/1999–30/04/2000. Place Of Death. Source: Skelton (2001).

DEATHS OF CHILDREN IN CUSTODY
01/01/1999–30/04/2000
CAUSE OF DEATH Source: Skelton (2001)

OFFICIAL CAUSE OF DEATH

F

‘Natural'

1

‘Non-natural'

9

N

10

Table 122. Deaths Of Children In Custody: 01/01/1999–30/04/2000. Cause Of Death. Source: Skelton (2001).


Figure 27. Deaths Of Children In Custody: 01/01/1999–30/04/2000. Cause Of Death. Source: Skelton (2001).
In view of the paucity of statistics on child injury and deaths in custody, as well as the fact that statistics can never really capture the full horror of the physical and psychological trauma suffered by many children in custody, it was decided to include the following descriptive case material related to the statistics contained in Table 121 and 122 in this report.


7.2 Ten case reports on deaths in custody


Case 1: J, male, aged 11 years
J died in the police cells at [Place Name], on 18 February 1999. He was only 11 years of age at the time of death. According to the post-mortem reports, J’s death was cause by "trauma to the chest and abdomen". J had been spotted breaking into a building together with two other boys. Security officials allegedly assaulted the boys. The boys were then taken to the police and placed in the [Place Name] police cells. When J appeared at the [Place Name] Magistrate’s Court on 17 February he had visible wounds on his face. The boys were subsequently remanded to the [Place Name] Police Station, where the police recorded J’s injuries. J subsequently complained that he was not feeling well, and requested that he be taken to hospital for treatment. He was found dead in the [Place Name] police cells at 12h30 on the same day, 18 February 1999. He had not received treatment. The case was initially investigated by the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD), but when the other boys identified security officers as suspects, the case was handed over to the SAPS for further investigation. The Directorate for Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided to prosecute the security officers on a charge of culpable homicide. The ICD continued to investigate the role of the police in this matter, and have handed the case docket over to the DPP, whose decision is still awaited.

Case 2: K, female, aged 15 years
K died in the [Place Name] police cells on 6 December 1999. She had been arrested on a housebreaking charge. She appeared in the [Place Name] Magistrate’s Court for the first time on 6 December 1999, and was remanded by the magistrate to the [Place Name] police cells. She was detained alone, and was found dead in the cell at 13h35 on the same day (6 December 1999). It would appear that she had committed suicide by hanging herself with a piece of cloth. An ICD investigation found that there had been no foul play on the part of the SAPS, although there may have been negligence. The ICD has forwarded the case docket to the Public Prosecutor in [Place Name] on 10 January 2001 and a decision by the DPP is awaited.

Case 3: L, male, aged 15 years
L died in the [Place Name] police cells on 16 July 2000. He had been arrested on the afternoon of 15 July 2000 and was charged with trespassing, stock theft and resisting arrest. He was placed in the police cells. He died the next day before appearing in court. It was originally believed that he had hanged himself. However, evidence that raised concerns about the exact circumstances of his death later surfaced. At the request of the ICD, L’s body was exhumed for a second post mortem to be conducted and further forensic evidence is being examined. The investigation into this matter is not yet complete.

Case 4: S, male, aged 17 years
S died in the [Place Name] police cells on 8 August 2000. On 7 August 2000, this 17-year-old had been arrested on a charge of theft of a motor vehicle. At about 19h00 hours on the same day he was placed in a cell together with a number of adults. At 02h00 on 8 August 2000, he was found dead wearing only his underwear. It would appear that he was raped and murdered by one or more of his adult cellmates. A post-mortem was held on 11 August 2000, and a case of murder is being investigated against a number of the adult detainees. The ICD has investigated the police’s conduct in relation to this case, and has recommended to SAPS that the three officers involved be charged under Regulation 18(21) for allowing a minor to be detained with adults in the same cell, and that the Station Commissioner should be charged for failing to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations, and for failing to discipline members when this was brought to his attention. The outcome of the disciplinary proceedings is awaited.

Case 5: M, male, aged 15
M died in the [Place Name] police cells on 10 March 2001. M had been arrested on Friday 9 March 2001 on a charge of housebreaking and theft. He was detained and placed in a cell at the [Place Name] Police Station. Initially he was alone in the cell, but in the early hours of the morning of Saturday 10 March 2000, another detainee aged 18 years, was placed in the same cell. He was charged with drunkenness, resisting arrest, attempting to escape and refusing to furnish a police officer with his name and address. At about 03h05 on 10 March 2000, police officers found the cell covered in blood. M had apparently been battered to death. His 18-year-old cell-mate was charged with murder. The matter was not reported by police to the ICD as is required by law. The ICD is now investigating the matter.

Case 6: N, male, aged 16 years
N died at the [Place Name] Prison on 28 May 1999. N had been accused of killing his stepbrother. As a result if his emotional state, he was sent to [Place Name] Hospital for mental observation. He was however found fit to stand trial. A bail application was subsequently submitted on 31 April 1999, but was refused, and N was remanded to [Place Name] Prison to await trial. He was due to appear in court again on the date of his death. He had apparently hanged himself with a sheet in the early morning. An inquest was held which found that the cause of death was "suffocation due to suicide hanging".

Case 7: O, male, aged 14 years
O died at the [Place Name] Place of Safety on 23 January 2001. O had been awaiting trial at the [Place Name] Place of Safety, run by the KwaZulu Natal Department of Social Development. On the evening of 22 January 2001, a child and youth care worker was leading a group of children to the sleeping quarters and had just unlocked the gate that separates two sections of the facility, when she was called to the phone. During her absence a number of boys allegedly attempted to escape by climbing out of the dining room window, up the drainpipe and onto the roof of the facility. O fell from the roof and was taken to hospital. He died of his injuries the next day. The department has conducted its own investigation. Police are investigating the matter and according to the Magistrate at [Place Name] an inquest will be held if necessary

Case 8: P, male, aged 17 years
P died at [Place Name] Reform School on 21 March 1999. P had served a sentence at [Place Name] Reform School. He completed his sentence and was discharged in November 1998. He was living in the community prior to his death. According to staff at [Place Name] Reform School he had been visiting other boys at the school and was suspected of having stolen goods during his visit. The staff at [Place Name] Reform School lured him to the school where they detained him in a holding cell at the facility. He was locked up on Wednesday 17 March 1999. Several days later, on 21 March 1999, he hanged himself using a blanket tied to the grille bars of the door. An investigation was carried out by the Department of Education. Criminal charges were laid against the relevant members of staff, and the [Place Name] Reform School was closed down as part of the provincial department’s "rationalization" of facilities.

Case 9: Q, male, aged 17 years
Q died at the [Place Name] Reform School on 24 January 2000. He was serving a sentence at the reform school. Q was stabbed in a fight that had broken out at the facility. He subsequently died of his wounds. The police were called in and a number of youths were charged with murder. They are currently awaiting trial in [Place Name] Prison. No internal investigations were conducted.
Case 10: R, male, aged 17 years
R died at the [Place Name] Reform School on 12 February 2000. He was serving a sentence at the [Place Name] Reform School. On the morning of 12 February 2000, R complained of a headache. He was initially given pain killers, but when these did not help he was taken to hospital by the reform school staff. He died later the same day. The death certificate indicated that he had died of natural causes linked to congestion of the lungs. No inquest was held. No internal investigations were carried out.



OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
The dearth of reliable statistical data, as well as the patent absence of adequate monitoring systems to record the relevant statistics pertaining to children in conflict with the law constituted the single most important obstacle to meeting the key objectives of the present research initiative. Consequently, the researchers hereby wish to recommend that a serious attempt be made to co-ordinate the development of appropriate systems aimed at ensuring the adequate capturing of relevant statistics – as well as other forms of information (e.g. narrative material) – related to children in conflict with the law. Only when such systems had been put in place can the objectives of a project such as the present one be met. Moreover, the development of these monitoring systems would be key to the implementation of the proposed child justice legislation.




LIST OF SOURCES
Article 40 (2001).
The house arrest project. An alternative to children being held in custody awaiting trial. Article 40, 3(2), pp. 6 – 7.

Barberton, C. (2000).
Costing child justice. Article 40, 2(1), pp. 1 – 11.

Barnoski, R (1997).
Standards for Improving Research Effectiveness in Adult and Juvenile Justice, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Washington.

Child Justice Alliance (2001).
Advocacy campaign planned around the Child Justice Bill. Article 40, 3(1), pp 1 – 3.

Community Law Centre (undated).
Children in prison. A situational analysis.
Bellville: Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape.

Gilbert, S. (1999). The draft Justice Bill. "What the children said". Bellville: Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape.

Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, (2002).
Briefing to the Joint Monitoring Committee on improvement of quality of life and status of children, youth and persons with disabilities. Cape Town.

Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons, Annual report 2001/2002,
Prison and Prisoners, Office of the Inspecting Judge, Cape Town.

Madotyeni, Z. & Muntingh, L. M. (2000).
Editorial. Article 40, 2(2), p. 3.

Muntingh, L. M. (2002).
Children co-accused with adults at the Port Elisabeth Stepping Stone Centre, Cape Town, NICRO.

Muntingh, L.M, (2002).
Sentenced children admitted to prison 1999-2000, Cape Town, NICRO.

Muntingh, L. M. (2001).
The effectiveness of diversion programmes. A longitudinal evaluation of cases. Unpublished report, Cape Town: NICRO.

Muntingh, L. M. (2001). Update:
Sentenced and unsentenced children in prisons. Article 40, 3(1), pp. 6 – 7.

Muntingh, L. M. (2001). Sentence and diversion statistics: 1999-2000.
Article 40, 3(3), p. 8.

Muntingh, L. M. (1999).
Diversion statistics: a two year review: 1997-1999. Occasional Paper, 13, Cape Town: NICRO.

Muntingh, L. M. (1998a).
The effectiveness of diversion programmes. Unpublished report, Cape Town: NICRO.

Muntingh, L. M. (1998b).
Statistical report on NICRO’s services for the financial year 1997/8. Unpublished report, Cape Town: NICRO.

Muntingh, L. M. (1997).
Submission prepared for the White Paper on Safety and Security on diversion from the criminal justice system. Unpublished report, Cape Town: NICRO.

Muntingh, L. M. (1996).
Sentencing trends: 1977/8 to 1995/6. Unpublished report, Cape Town: NICRO.

Muntingh, L. M. (1995).
The conviction of juvenile offenders: 1977/8-1993/4. An overview of selected statistics. Occasional Paper, 5, Cape Town: NICRO.

Muntingh, L. M. & Shapiro, R. J. (1997). NICRO annual report: 1996/7.
An introduction to diversion from the criminal justice system. Cape Town: NICRO.

Pinnock, D., Skelton, A. & Shapiro, R. (1994).
New juvenile justice legislation for South Africa: giving children a chance. SACJ, 3, pp. 338 - 347.

SA Law Commission (2000).
Report on Juvenile Justice, Project 106, Pretoria.

Schönteich, M. (1999).
The dangers of youth? Linking offenders, victims and age. Nedcor ISS Crime Index, 5, pp. 22 - 28.

Sewpaul, O. (2000).
South African presentation to the UNCRC: setting the agenda for transformation. Article 40, 2(2), pp. 1 – 3.

Skelton, A. (2001).
Report on the deaths of children in custody. Unpublished report. Pretoria: Child Justice Project.

Skelton, A (1993).
Children in Trouble with the Law, Lawyers for Human Rights, Pretoria.

Sloth-Nielsen, J. (1996).
Juvenile justice review. 1996. SACJ, 9, pp. 342 - 353.

Sloth-Nielsen, J. (1995).
No child should be caged-Closing the doors on the detention of children. SAS, 89, pp. 47 - 59.

Sloth-Nielsen, J. & Muntingh, L. M. (1998).
Juvenile justice review. SACJ, 12, pp. 65 - 80.

Sloth-Nielsen, J. & Muntingh, L. M. (1998).
Juvenile justice review. 1999- 2000, Unpublished Report (later published in the South African Journal of Criminal Justice (2001), 3, pp. 384-405).

Tserere, M. (2002).
A diversion case audit. Unpublished report. National Prosecuting Authority: Pretoria.

United Nations (1986).
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, United Nations, New York.

Other sources of Information


Child Justice Project

Department of Correctional Services

Department of Social Development

National Prosecuting Authority

South African Police Service Youth Desk (Western Cape)

Stepping Stones Youth Justice Centre.