CENTRE FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Mr JN Mashimbye

Chairperson: Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services

Parliament

Cape Town

21 January 2004

Dear Mr Mashimbye

Please find attached a submission to your Portfolio Committee on the Draft White Paper on Corrections in South Africa. The submission was drawn up by the staff of the Prisons Transformation Programme of the Centre for Conflict Resolution.

Our Prisons Programme is essentially a training organisation that has been running training programmes particularly for correctional staff, but also for inmates, in Western Cape prisons since 1998. Some of our staff have had relationships with the Portfolio Committee and South African prisons in general since 1994, so we are familiar with many of the issues raised in the White Paper.

We would be grateful if you would provide us with a slot in order to make an oral submission to your Committee when you hear such submissions from 3-5 February 2004. We would like to discuss with your Committee some of the issues raised in this written submission, and be available to answer any questions that your Committee members might have.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Chris Giffard

Senior Researcher

Prisons Transformation Programme

 

Centre for Conflict Resolution

Prisons Transformation Programme

Submission to Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services:

Comments on Draft White Paper on Corrections in South Africa

 

The development of a new White Paper to serve as policy for the Department of Correctional Services in the years and decades to come, is to be welcomed. The last White Paper, published in 1994 has long since lost it’s relevance. Although the DCS has produced a number of smaller documents on its developing policy in recent years, the production of a more general policy document is long overdue.

The Prisons Transformation Programme of the Centre for Conflict Resolution (CCR) welcomes also the opportunity to make a submission on the White Paper. Public participation in activities in South Africa’s prisons is important, as acknowledged in Section 14A of the White Paper. This is so both for those in NGOs who engage in prison work, and for individual members of the community who volunteer their time to work in prisons. But for all those who work in the field of prisons and corrections, it is important to be able to have their say. There has to be a sense of joint ownership of the process. CCR is keen to make a contribution to the policy development of the Department of Correctional Services, and to support the DCS in its transformation initiatives.

The CCR Prisons Programme has been operating in prisons in the Western Cape since 1998. The bulk of the work involves the training of correctional staff, in the prisons and in administration, in conflict resolution, mediation and other skills so important in these conflictual institutions. Some training is also done with offenders and awaiting-trial detainees, while increasingly the Programme is working with Departmental trainers in order to enhance their methodological and practical skills.

The White Paper is a lengthy document. It is not possible to comment on the document in its entirety. So the submission by the CCR Prisons Programme will largely focus on areas that we have some direct experience, or areas about which we have learnt during our work with prison staff.

The submission is divided into four parts:

  1. General issues facing the DCS, such as rehabilitation and correction, overcrowding and prison gangs.
  2. Staff issues
  3. Prisoner issues, and
  4. Miscellaneous issues, dealing with evaluation and open prisons.

 

General Issues facing the Department:

Rehabilitation and Correction:

A new focus on rehabilitation as expressed in both Mvelaphanda and the White Paper is warmly welcomed. For too long prisoners have sat idle in institutions bemoaning the lack of opportunities for them "to rehabilitate". In particular, the new policy:

There are, however, some questions about this approach:

The White Paper makes clear the distinction between development and correction throughout the document. Development is easy enough to understand, as it deals with issues such as life-skills, and basic education. The White Paper also explains what the DCS understands by correction, but there is no clarity about what types of programmes are envisaged to form part of this corrections plan. It is important that this is made clear.

It is also critically important that all corrections programmes that are implemented by the DCS are evidence-based, that is, that emphasis is placed on independent evaluations that will be determine the efficacy of the programmes. This also implies a commitment to ongoing funding of this evaluation practice. There is a vast body of international literature dealing with rehabilitation programme evaluations, and it is clear that while some programmes have been shown to be effective, an even larger number have been shown to be ineffective. Only rigorous independent evaluation will show whether scarce resources are being used effectively.

Finally, there is some evidence of a lack of clarity regarding these programmes. Clause 4.4.1 contains a contradiction. First it is stated that rehabiliation "must be approached as a sine qua non of any sentence. It is not an option that offenders can choose to participate in or not to participate." Later the same clause suggests that "rehabilitation cannot be imposed on one. It is a process that must become part of the person’s choices if it is to be successful." It is unclear here which of these two opposite views are held by the DCS. It is suggested that the latter is a far more realistic position to take.

Gangs:

Gangs are an integral and dominating part of prison life, for both other prisoners and for staff. They have been playing this role for over a century. Sometimes the power of the gangs within the prison is exaggerated, when it is claimed that gangs completely control prisons. It is closer to the truth that gangs control some areas of prisons at certain times, such as after lock-up every night in some communal cells. But it is certainly true that gangs in some way touch all prisoners and all staff in some way.

The White Paper does speak about prison gangs, but this discussion is isolated to a small section, and consists of only one clause (11B.2.1). The rest of the White Paper does not take the existence of gangs, and their power and influence into account, when other key issues are discussed. The reality is that the gangs and their activities will impact on the whole gamut of plans expressed in the White Paper.

Clause 11B.2.2 suggests that an anti-gang strategy needs to be adopted by management. But the White Paper is silent about what that strategy might consist of. The approach that the DCS intends to use to address the serious problem of prison gangs needs to be spelt out.

Overcrowding:

The problem of overcrowding in South Africa’s prisons is one that has not escaped notice over the past few years. Up to 190 000 prisoners have been living in space that was designed to hold perhaps 110 000. The Judicial Inspectorate, in partnership with the DCS, has done its utmost – successfully at times – to keep these numbers down, but the structural pressures on increasing numbers continue: the bulk of the increases have been among awaiting-trial detainees, and the Department has forecast vast increases in inmate populations if the rise is not arrested.

It needs to be understood that the reasons for the overcrowding of prisons lie to a large extent outside the scope of Correctional Services. It is a problem handed on to them as the end of the line of the criminal justice system. As the White Paper points out (2.9.2), it has to do with inefficient functioning of the criminal justice system (awaiting trial numbers), and minimum sentences (sentenced offenders) amongst other things. But it is a problem that the DCS has to deal with.

The White Paper does address the issue of overcrowding. In fact, it is suggested that overcrowding is the Department’s "most important challenge". It is conceded that it may have "significant negative implications on the ability of the Department to deliver on its envisaged new Core business" (2.9.2). But thereafter in the White Paper, overcrowding does not become an integral part of the analysis of the plans of the Department. This is despite the fact that it is clear that the new plans will have to be carried out in the context of significant overcrowding in a large number of prisons for some years at least. It will take a serious and concerted effort from a variety of sectors (not just the DCS) to properly get the prison numbers crisis under control, and it seems that a long-term solution is a long way off.

Any plans – particularly with regard to rehabilitation - which the Department wishes to implement must be considered in the context of an overcrowded system. Even if some of the proposed Centres of Excellence, dealt with below, succeed in keeping their numbers reasonable, the overall overcrowding is so severe that these plans will likely fail.

Centres of Excellence:

The idea of developing Centres of Excellence (WP 13.2.1) is strongly supported. South Africa has too many prisons to attempt to implement new policies throughout all of them at the same time. The energy of new ideas will dissipate too quickly if this is attempted. These Centres should be used as test centres where ideas can be tried out and evaluated. These evaluations can then be used to fine-tune the new policies before implementing a country-wide roll-out.

This approach has been used by the CCR Prisons Programme in rolling out its own training programme. Concentrating scarce resources on a small number of institutions can ensure that there is a greater likelihood that the reforms would be successful. In addition, the Centres of Excellence would serve as examples to which other institutions can aspire. Of course, all this should be with the proviso that those every effort is made to improve those other prisons, and to bring them up to the level of the Centres of Excellence.

Restorative Justice:

There is little mention of Restorative Justice, as such, in the White Paper. This is interesting because the DCS has made restorative justice a large part of their focus over recent years: restorative justice is featured prominently on the Department’s website, brochures have been published dealing with the issue, and the Department has held Restorative Justice focus weeks. The White Paper does speak of restoration in relation to rehabilitation, and this is perhaps a different way of dealing with the same thing (5A.2).

This restoration, however, seems to be restricted to dialogue and mediation. The principles of this approach is dealt with in Section 5A.2.3. However there is more to restorative justice (or to restoration) than victim-offender mediation. An important part of restoration is reparation. This could possibly be seen in the way work is organised in prisons. While the White Paper does not deal with reparative work done in prisons, it does discuss the poverty alleviation projects of the DCS. This is an increasingly well-developed aspect of the work of the DCS. The poverty alleviation projects could easily be made a part of the Restorative approach. This would depend on the context in which the work is performed: if it is done within the framework of restoration, and what that understanding, then it plays the additional role of being part of a rehabilitation process. In other words, if the offenders are involved in a poverty alleviation project, and their intentions are to give something back to the community as a part of a reparations project, then this could also be part of a restorative initiative.

The White Paper also refers to the possible use of a Restorative Justice approach within the correctional environment (4.4.10). This is welcomed because it entails the creation of a living environment in the institution which models for offenders the alternative way it is hoped they would live outside: a harsh living environment inside prison prepares offenders for a harsh life outside, while a more understanding social environment is more likely to encourage offenders to live with understanding after their release. In the United Kingdom, the International Centre for Prison Studies and the NGO Inside Out Trust are involved in partnerships with a number of prisons. They are working on the development of a "Restorative Prison’. In line with the White Paper, this idea could usefully be explored in the context of South Africa, preferably as part of the notion of Centres of Excellence.

 

Unit Management:

The implementation of Unit Management in the DCS should be welcomed. Unit Management involves a far more efficient use of the scarce human resources available in the Department. In addition, the system allows for the decentralisation of functions to the unit level, and the empowerment of staff working within the prison. Unit management may be in place in some prisons, but in many cases the practical benefits are at this stage not realistic. The intended outcomes of the successful implementation of Unit Management expressed in 2.8.7 will be extremely difficult to attain.

The main problem is that – in the experience of the CCR Prisons Programme – many staff members working in the units, including unit managers, and sometimes also prison management –do not fully understand unit management, and are confused about their roles. In addition to this, the staff: inmate ratio is so unfavourable that staff face great difficulty in carrying out their duties. A further problem faced in many of the older prisons in the country (anything built prior to 1994) is that the buildings are not conducive to Unit Management principles.

In Unit Management, it is important to be clear about what authority is delegated to the Unit Managers and their units. This is important because it concerns the development and empowerment of unit staff. But the White Paper, in its discussion about Unit Management, does not spell out what powers should be delegated to this level of management. Clarity on this issue would assist both prison managements and unit staff.

Staff Issues:

Military Culture:

It is positive that the White Paper recognises the importance of transforming the institutional culture of prisons in South Africa. It is the proliferation of this culture – to a large extent a hangover from the apartheid era – that is a major obstacle to the DCS successfully implementing many of the new ideas expressed in the White Paper.

Military culture is not merely the insignia or uniforms, or the forms of address that is used between staff members. It is far more deeply embedded in the way correctional staff relate to each other, and to offenders, and how they think and deal with problems. Even the most avid supporters of the new rehabilitation approach of the Department carry within their practice a measure of this culture. This is more so if they have been in the Department since before the mid-1990s.

The WP (8C.7.1) states that the DCS has "committed itself to a culture devoid of militaristic practice". This is an easier commitment when dealing with the formal mechanisms of communication between members of the Department. But the culture is deep-rooted and tends to survive the more formal solutions. For example, in trying to implement Unit Management in a prison, attempts to delegate certain responsibilities might be frustrated by the prison management’s inclination to keep power centralised (as in the military model), and to expect unit managers to merely transfer orders to unit staff. This is not uncommon.

In response to transforming the institutional culture (see 2.9.5 and 8.1, and also point 11 of the Executive Summary), the White Paper refers to good governance and corruption-busting. While this is important, it does not adequately address the issue of the problematic institutional culture. This has to be done by addressing this culture head-on at all levels of prisons and administration, particularly through forms of staff retraining. Retraining staff "to the new paradigm" (8C.2) involves far more than merely informing them of the new policy: it is a complex process for each staff member, as it involves not only the formalities, rules and regulations, but also questioning the ways they have lived their working lives, often for many years.

 

Training and Retraining:

Staff retraining (see above) is important not only in terms of providing practical skills, but also in trying to turn around attitudes and challenge negative cultures: this cannot be done by memo or decree.

The methodology of the CCR Prisons Transformation Programme offers much that the DCS can learn from. It is well-known in training circles that retraining in forces such as the police and the prisons is very often undermined when the trainees return to work (see Reiner, R The Politics of the Police, 1992: page 110). In order to counter this tendency, the Prisons Programme decided to train prison staff within their units and their other working collectives. The training experience can thus far more easily be taken back into the work-place, and be kept alive there. This is a key part of the Programme’s methodology despite the difficulties faced by prison management of finding staffing for those units for a full week. The results of this approach have been outstanding. Follow-up is also made easier. There is no doubt that this form of in-house training is more effective than the approach which draws participants from a range of differing locations in the prison, who may be isolated when they return to their posts.

Code of Conduct:

The Code of Conduct for staff is referred to throughout the White Paper. This too is welcome: a Code of Conduct can play an important role in providing a framework of ethical behaviour. But the Code was drawn up at a central level, thus excluding the large mass of staff members from participation, and thus ownership of their own Code. In at least some prisons, the Code of Conduct was not even discussed with staff: staff members were merely instructed to collect (and sign for) their copy of the Code. For many staff members, the Code of Conduct was, from the beginning, a dead document.

For the Code to play a meaningful role in the lives of staff, it is necessary for them to have a sense of ownership. Preferably they should have been involved in the process of drawing up the Code, but at the very least there should have been a concerted effort to engage members in discussions around the contents of the Code.

Prisoner Issues:

Access to families:

Throughout the White Paper, the point is made very strongly that prisoner’s access to their families is a crucial part of their rehabilitation. The Prisons Programme agrees fully with this argument. It is also correctly stated that offenders are often held far enough from their families to make communication difficult. It should be noted, though, that telephonic communication, while important, will never be a substitute for proper family access. In addition, the suggestion that video conferencing communication be considered is unrealistic.

Awaiting Trial Detainees:

It is common knowledge that most (though not all) of the pressure of increasing prison numbers is due to the rapid increase in numbers of awaiting trial detainees. Over the past ten years, larger numbers of accused persons have been spending time in prisons until their trials, and those who are there are staying there for longer periods.

As such, the suggestion in the White Paper (9A.4.3) that awaiting-trial detainees represent an important opportunity for development work (such as life skills and social development) should be supported. This is especially so in the case of those who spend a long period awaiting trial. There should of course be the proviso that awaiting trial detainees should not be subject to any rehabilitation programmes as such, as they are as yet presumed innocent.

The White Paper makes the interesting argument that awaiting-trial detainees should not be held in institutions that are administered by the Department of Correctional Services (9A.7.1), but acknowledges that there needs to be a transition policy. Clearly we are some way from a situation where a new security authority can take responsibility for more than 60 000 detainees. But it is also noteworthy that the White Paper suggests that the Justice Department should take financial responsibility for the awaiting-trial detainees being held in DCS institutions.

This is an important proposal. Not only would it take pressure off the DCS budget and allow the Department to better plan its spending on rehabilitation and development, but it would also provide an incentive for the Justice Department to keep awaiting-trial detainee numbers as low as possible.

Accommodation:

The White Paper suggests that awaiting-trial detainees should be held separately from sentenced offenders, and that the former should also be accommodated on the basis of previous convictions, status and nature of alleged offence.

It is suggested that further separations are also made. First, it is important that gang members should be accommodated in separate sections from non-gang members, and that every effort should be made to maintain this separation during visits, exercise and other activities. (This should apply also to sentenced offenders who are members of prison gangs). Non-gang members have a right to protection from the gangs.

This does not necessarily mean that the gangs need to be separated from each other. The experience of the Pollsmoor Admission Centre in the late 1990s, when a separate gang section was established, in which gangs were equally mixed within each of the communal cells, shows that this approach can be effective.

And finally, it is important that those prisoners, awaiting-trial or sentenced, who are at risk of abuse by the general prison population, should be accommodated in secure sections.

Codes and Discipline:

A Code of Conduct for inmates (as suggested in 4.2.5) is also welcomed as it sets the parameters for establishing relationships in what is a conflictual institutional community. As with the Code of Conduct for staff, it is important that the Code exists as a "live" document. It needs to be simple and easy to understand, must be visible in all living units, and must be a constant source of reference. This is the responsibility of the prison authorities.

It is also suggested that Paragraph 11A.3.3 is reworded. As it stands now, the first principle puts the onus on the inmates to "know in advance what the rules and regulations of the correctional centre are". This should be reworded to shift the onus to the prison authorities to inform all new inmates of the rules and regulations. It could be done creatively, through videos or cartoon books.

Other Issues:

Evaluation:

The idea that community-based service providers should be evaluated (14A.1.1) should also be supported. There are a large number of service providers with interests in working with prisoners. It is important to ensure that certain standards are met and that inmates are not subjected to those who have their own agendas.

The other form of evaluation mentioned is "continuous evaluation" of rehabilitation programmes (10C.6.1). This is a critical form of evaluation. If prison-based programmes are not evidence-based, then they would be based on faith alone. There would be no way of knowing whether they have any impact and if they are worth the money being spent on them. It is noticeable that nowhere does the White Paper elaborate on this important evaluation process. It is important that the DCS prioritises this area of evaluation.

Open Prisons:

There has been no discussion on "Open Prisons". Perhaps it is time for this to be put on the agenda for debate. Essentially open prisons are institutions with lower levels of security than the more common medium security prisons, in which inmates are encouraged to take far greater responsibility for their own discipline. Of course, they can only hold non-dangerous prisoners, as inmates can escape at will, but if they do, then they are subject to transfer to a more secure environment.

Open prisons have a number of advantages:

It is suggested that a study is undertaken in South African prisons, to ascertain what proportion of sentenced offenders may be more appropriately accommodated in open prisons.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, we would briefly like to support the section on the building of relationships with other countries on the African continent. At senior government level this is already well advanced. But at a local level too, exchanges should be encouraged. Much can be learned by how some of our neighbours have managed with even fewer resources than we have. Perhaps in some cases this is precisely because of the scarcity of resources, such as the experiment in open prisons in Mozambique. Similarly, South African prisons, with probably the best infrastructure in Africa, has much to offer our continent.

21 January 2004

Contact:

Chris Giffard

Senior Researcher

Prisons Transformation Programme

Centre for Conflict Resolution

Phone (021) 4222512