Oral Submission to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on the
DRAFT WHITE PAPER ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
3 FEBRUARY 2004

by

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CRIME PREVENTION AND THE REINTEGRATION OF OFFENDERS (NICRO,)
NATIONAL OFFICE, CAPE TOWN

Prepared by Khanyisile Mpuang
National Programme Specialist: Offender Reintegration

Firstly, NICRO would like to thank the Portfolio Committee for the opportunity of making an input into this important process of redrafting a White Paper (DWP) on Correctional Services.

We would also like to point out that the time frames have severely limited our ability to solicit completely representative input from all the NICRO role-players and stakeholders (ie offenders, ex-offenders, their families and NICRO staff), which we are sure would have enriched this submission.

Overall comments;
- the DCS is commended for the initiative and boldness of undertaking this process of inward looking and assessing the situation with intentions of improving the way in which prisons are managed and the purpose they serve for those incarcerated in them.
- the paradigm shift, from a closed and secretive department to one that is willing to be scrutinised by the public, within the top management of the DCS is both refreshing and promising.
- all DCS officials must embrace the new paradigm of rehabilitation within a safe, humane and respectful environment for any success to be realised with reintegration.
- the challenge would be for the department to be able to fully engage with external stakeholders as they find ways of implementing what is stipulated within the White Paper.
- overcrowding in prison continues to undermine all well intended efforts.
- understaffing of prisons and the under-qualified officials, pose a big challenge for the DCS.
- the DWP seen as a long-term strategic document, and it is important that the DCS puts concise short to middle-term implementation plans in place. The budgetary requirements must be realistically considered and all budget allocations should start reflecting the long-term intentions of DCS.

Draft White Paper:
In South Africa all offenders sentenced to imprisonment have the possibility of eventually leaving prison and going back to their communities. In fact, it is estimated that 99% of all sentenced offenders eventually leave prison. The death penalty is abolished in South Africa and life sentenced offenders can be considered for parole after serving a minimum of 25yrs.

1. The Draft White Paper (DWP) seems to have its focus on the ‘correcting’ and rehabilitating offenders for their eventual reintegration into their communities. NICRO welcomes the shift in focus.

2. The overall tone of the DWP is optimistic, which some might accuse of almost bordering on being unrealistic.

3. This optimism is important for the DCS, especially when considering the mammoth task that it is faced with, but should be accompanied by a detailed plan and budget with regard to the implementation of the stipulations in the DWP.

4. There are a lot of assumptions that other government departments and civil society will volunteer shared responsibility of rehabilitating offenders and supporting reintegration.

5. While it is true that most offenders are somewhat coerced into a life of crime through their circumstances, Chapter 3 seems to somehow imply that the blame for the offence lies with the society rather than the offender. This notion does not seem to acknowledge the element of choice. Many children from dysfunctional families do not become criminals and never see the inside of prison.

6. Section 3.3, talks about the involvement of other government departments. How will the DCS ensure that the other departments cooperate, especially looking at the high demands placed on such departments by what they would consider their core business? There seems to be an over-reliance on the other role-players, especially families, to play their part for the DCS to succeed in its ‘correction’ of offending. This seems like a risky prerequisite as the DCS has no way of controlling the actions of either the families or government departments. The DCS is at the receiving end of the line, which means that by the time offenders lend in prison, the damage has been done. What concrete strategy has the DCS to ensure change within the offender and their family? How will that be achieved looking at the present staff complement within the DCS? Is there a recruitment plan with specific time frames to effect a balance between the official / offender ratio?

7. Chapter 4, paragraph 4.1.2 states that "the responsibility of the DCS is first and foremost to correct offending behaviour, in a secure, safe and humane environment, in order to facilitate the achievement of rehabilitation and avoidance of recidivism". What does ‘correcting offending behaviour’ really entail? What will indicate that the offending behaviour is corrected? Would it be that the offender is not committing the same offence that was corrected but instead has moved to other forms of offending?

8. The DCS is commended for embracing the concept of restorative justice and its underlying principles which seek more to build, through dialogue than destroy through blame. The challenge is for the DCS to encourage the other role-players within the Integrated Justice System to do the same. The use of more non-custodial measures found within restorative justice will no doubt assist with the reduction of the overcrowding in prisons.

9.Section 5B focuses on the unit management approach, which it is agreed that if properly implemented, will result in more offenders having an increased chance of applying their incarceration period constructively. This will also help in lessening the pressure from the DCS officials when responsibilities are shared. However, there are no time frames to guide implementation and projected staff requirements.

10. Chapter 7 provides a form of rationale for the crime situation in South Africa. This chapter somehow seems to portray offenders as victims of circumstances rather than encourage taking responsibility for the choices they make.

In response to paragraph 7.2.9, NICRO offers services to victims of crime through the Community Victim Support Programme.

The DWP is an ambitious document that however, with concise short, mid, long-term planning, might be achieved overtime. The biggest threat to the implementation of the document is overcrowding and the DCS officials who either have not moved to the new paradigm or are not properly skilled for their job functions as rehabilitators. These have to be the priority of DCS as they consider their short-term strategy. Would it not be best for DCS to really concentrate efforts on reducing the numbers of people seating in their prisons, thus creating a safe, humane and secure environment.

NICRO supports the statement in paragraph 8.1.4 that "the implementation of the legal mandate of the DCS must be the primary reason for the employment contract of every person who is an official of DCS".

What are the cost or staffing implications of providing needs-based rehabilitation as espoused in chapter 10? Again, overcrowding and incompetent or unwilling officials will undermine this effort as not all offenders can be attended to with the present situation in the prisons.

When does the involvement of family begin within the correctional sentence plan? There is no mention of involvement of family in paragraph 10C.1.3. This does not seem to be in line with the emphasis placed on families as the primary source of containment for offenders both at pre- and post-offending. Again, there has to be a realistic cost and staffing projection. What is the realistic time frame for achieving this?

Although the re-naming of prisons as Correctional Centres can be understood within the framework of the new DCS mandate, somehow the way this comes through is as though offenders are "faulty" human beings that need to be "fixed" and sent back. This could be a perpetuation of stigmatization of offenders as "incorrect" human beings.

Will the DCS drive the process of Integrated Support Systems, paragraph 10c.3.1? Does the DCS have the infrastructure and personnel to do this considering the shortages they are experiencing now?

It seems like the DCS has not been able to find a solution to dealing with long-term and life sentenced offenders. Is it because the focus of DCS is on rehabilitation for reintegration that those with a prospect of spending their lives in prison cannot be accommodated in terms of programmes? There are international good practice models that the DCS could look into, to ensure that long-term offenders are not left to debilitate as DCS corrects shorter-term offenders for reintegration.

From the position where NICRO as an organisation sits, there is still a lot that has not been fully clarified by the DWP. We hope that this will be done by the DCS in due course.
In conclusion, again NICRO would like to commend the DCS for embarking on this process. We trust the doors of DCS will remain open and that we will be able to continue working with the DCS to fulfil its mandate.

Thank you