The Honourable Chairman, Mr. Dennis Bloem, and members of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services,

Thank you for this opportunity to submit our comments on the strategic overview and key policy developments of the Department of Correctional Services for the next period.

The 2005 White Paper on Corrections has become the critical focal point that denotes the future strategic direction of the Department, and the way in which it aims to fulfil its constitutional obligations.

NICRO welcomes the critical attention placed on rehabilitation and social reintegration (community corrections) in the White Paper. We believe that the core purpose of custodial sentencing is rehabilitation, and the recognition of this in the White Paper, and the consequent realignment of services and practices to reflect this reality within the Department of Correctional Services, is acknowledged.

With this change in focus NICRO wants to highlight the approach that reintegration begins when the custodial sentence starts, and not only at the pre-release stage. This approach necessitates a different understanding of the role of family, community and civil society, and requires an open and positive attitude towards partnership. Reintegration cannot only be attained within the confines of the four walls of imprisonment. Participation of external significant stakeholders is a core requirement, and the partnership role of organised civil society, including NGO’s and CBO’s should be manifestly recognised.

In this regard Mr Chairman, the imbizos held in some parts of the country are welcome, as they invite input from members of society as well as create a deeper understanding of the function of rehabilitation and reintegration.

The renewed focus on rehabilitation and reintegration however, necessitates further systemic changes to our correctional system. Mr Chairman, NICRO propagates the introduction of the concept of family reconstruction and family reunification. Hereby we advocate that the approach be developed that persons serving custodial sentences require social services attention from professional agencies as part of the rehabilitation programme. This is based on the premise that it is inefficient and ineffective to attend to an individual’s rehabilitation within the confines of the correctional centre, and then release him or her to the same contributory home and / or community environment on release, in so-doing adding to the risk of re-offending. This system already prevails in our child care services, whereby, whenever a child is removed from the home, that home becomes the beneficiary of social services from either the Department of Social Development, or delegated NGO’s, with the objective of ‘reconstructing’ the home and family for the return of the child. This is a statutory requirement that is rigorously followed for all such children and families. NICRO believes that a similar system should be introduced for at least certain categories of prisoners, if not all. The introduction of the assessment and profiling tool, as well as the new offender rehabilitation path are very welcome and exciting developments, which can be broadened to become the foundation for the building of correctional reconstruction services. It is encouraging to note that the Department hopes to assess all new and existing admissions by the end of the 2006/7-year.

Such a family reconstruction service Mr Chairman, will necessitate a legal framework. It will also require dedicated resources, especially staffing. But it will re-engineer social reintegration, give it a substance it lacks now, and contribute to a reduction in re-offending and recidivism. It will add value to the rehabilitation program that occurs within correctional services, and bring the core components of family and community into the services continuum.

In recognition of this approach Mr Chairman, NICRO is currently developing services, including programmes to attend to the mal-effects of institutionalisation, developing social enterprises which seek to extend the skills development of ex-offenders, and expanding our offices in the country to become service centres for ex-offenders, offering a holistic package of services to meet their reintegration needs.

The focus on rehabilitation, Mr Chairman, also presupposes that programmes offered within correctional centres must be appropriate to the task at hand and not simply or only recreational in nature or aimed at keeping prisoners occupied. This will also require a refocus on the strategic relationship with agencies such as ourselves located outside prison. Our services within and without the confines of prison should form an integrated continuum, meeting the holistic needs of offenders and ex-offenders. We cannot work in isolation Mr Chairman, and we plead for more direct and strategic partnership between the Department and critical NGO’s such as ourselves.

NICRO is also pleased to note the start of the centres of excellence programme, and the inclusion of 36 centres in this programme. Whilst acknowledging the fact that this is phase one of an implementation plan, we would respectfully point out that this represents about 15% of the total number of centres.

With regard to personnel capacity NICRO also recognises the endeavours of the Department to increase its staff capacity and acknowledges achievements already attained in this regard. We would like to request that the Department provides more information on their staffing norms, current and desired, and the time frame in which it intends achieving these.

Mr Chairman, we are particularly concerned about the situation of HIV/AIDS affected prisoners, and specifically around those prisoners suffering from various debilitating conditions arising from their immune deficiency. We would like to request special consideration for release of such prisoners who require the comfort and dignity of family and home. No further rehabilitation purpose can be served by detaining such sufferers within the confines of a prison.

We also look forward with keenness to the release of the findings of the HIV prevalence survey and also acknowledge the Department’s efforts in increasing the number of trained staff and peer counsellors.

M r Chairman, it will be remiss of us if we do not draw attention to the matter of overcrowding. We are well aware that the Department is at the receiving end of the legal system continuum and cannot really regulate the number of convicted persons requiring custody. That lies in the ambit of the sentencing system. However, we do declare our misgivings about the continued high levels of overcrowding, which at current rates threaten to overrun available resources incapacity. NICRO recommends the doing away with minimum sentence legislation and strongly propagates the use of alternative non-custodial sentencing, not as a response to overcrowding per se, but in the conviction that certain individuals can best be rehabilitated within the bosom of family and community. It bears repeating that overcrowding compromises the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs, and amnesty or early remission programmes, whilst a useful vehicle to be used sparingly and judiciously, should not be utilised in the first instance to regulate the level of occupation in prisons.

Mr Chairman, please allow us to also congratulate the Department on the attainment of the new system of nutrition, viz. three-balanced meals per day. This has been a bone of contention for many years, and a welcome milestone.

We would also like to draw attention to the present research programmes viz. the completion of the arts evaluation, a copy of which has been provided to the Department, and the current research programme which looks at the effects of incarceration on young children with their mothers, and a second program which looks at the effects of children left behind in families and communities when parents, especially fathers, are incarcerated. We urge the Department to enable these research programs.

In conclusion Mr. Chairman, we want to highlight the issue of partnership/ NICRO’s role in the correctional services sector, and our core service, that of social reintegration. We have been active in this field for the last 96 years, and regard ourselves as unofficial partners of the Department of Correctional Services. Our status as a partner is however not recognised to the fullest extent. We respectfully request that the Department gives more substance to this concept of partnership, and that contractual recognition and other linkages be developed and maintained through a more structured relationship to which we can all be held accountable.

We wish the department well in the attainment of its objectives and commit ourselves to the common cause to which we strive i.e. a safer South Africa.