KHULISA CRIME PREVENTION
INITIATIVE COMMENT ON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ANNUAL REPORT
2006/07 FINANCIAL YEAR
Khulisa
wishes to thank the Honorable Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to
comment upon the Annual Report of the Department of Correctional Services for
the 2006/7 financial year.
As
we have noted previously before the august body, our overall awareness of the
activities of the Department is limited and therefore we restrict our comments
largely to those areas with which we are more familiar. We apologise, therefore, for a somewhat
restricted view and commentary.
We
have no comment on the Foreword by the Honorable Minister or on the National
Commissioner’s Introduction. We would,
however, like to add our congratulations to Commissioner Petersen on his
appointment and look forward to working under his direction for many years to
come.
Khulisa’s
interest lays largely in the programmes Corrections, Development and Care. We also have special interest in the
relationships of the Department with others, be it other Government
Departments, the community or other NGO’s.
We
have previously commented upon the Department’s current year budget
presentation – one of the points we made in connection with the White Paper: we
considered then and still do now, that the budget as presented did not allow
for rapid introduction of delivery in terms of the White Paper. Unfortunately,
we have no information as to whether the new budget was approved, or whether it
was increased or decreased. What does
strike one, however, is that throughout the report for the last financial year
there are instances of shortfall of delivery in terms of targets and that quite
often this is attributed to funding inadequacies.
Having
mentioned these shortfalls, however, it must be said that reading the report
helps to contextualise just how huge are the responsibilities of the
Department, how many different facets of the organization need to be managed
and brought into line and just how many differing strategies have to be
employed to achieve White Paper alignment.
We commend the Department in this respect, it has broken its strategy
into bite sized pieces and one has the impression it is digesting the pieces,
even if not as fast as planned, in a solid, orderly fashion that will bring
success in the future.
Under
the heading of programme performance, we are advised that 5,759 entry level
officials were recruited in the period.
The strategic overview indicates that this recruitment was for “the
realisation of the seven-day establishments”.
One was more hopeful of White Paper progress when one read in the
Introduction that the 11% increase in personnel “is aimed at ensuring that the
Department strengthens its capacity to deliver on the White Paper on
Corrections”. If, however, the overview
is more aligned to reality, one wonders when we will see significant action in
terms of the very hands on changes required to provide Corrections, Development
and Care.
The
other concern in these statistics is the staff attrition. The arithmetic
indicates that the Department lost 1,763 staff in the period, some 5% of the
beginning of the year work force.
Reading the report, the indications are that amongst these were a high
proportion of valuable professionals.
One cannot help but wonder what will be the short term effect of losing
experienced staff and taking in new relatively inexperienced people – how will
this affect the Department’s ability to perform? Perhaps, if the incoming recruits are inculcated
with the right value systems, this will, in due course, be helpful. What is, or should be, happening in the
Department at this time would, in a commercial situation, be regarded as
“Organisational Change” and would be managed accordingly. From experience I know that “new blood” entering
an organisation during such a process can be extremely helpful. One has to ensure, of course, that they do
not “join” the “old” establishment to retain the maximum effect of such an
injection.
In
terms of Programme 3 – Corrections we note that Khulisa’s Drugs Programme was
one of two externally supplied programmes quality assured in the period. This seems to be very limited progress. We are not aware of what has gone before and
maybe there are many programmes that were approved prior to the last financial
year. If there are not, and the report
does not enlighten us in this respect, one has to question what is being done
to utilize the resource that is both willing and able to assist the Department
to meet its ambitions, namely the NGO sector.
It is good to see that 336 service providers have been quality assured
but with only two external programmes in this category, surely there must be
other assistance that the Department could be taking advantage of?
The
report advises that both the Correctional Sentence Plan (CSP) and the
Correctional Sentence Plan Revision Framework were approved for implementation
at all C O E’s, yet we continue to read that funding restrictions prevent the
structured introduction of Corrections even into the C of E’s, let alone into
the system. It must be entirely accepted
that without policies and procedures in place the administration of programmes
is impossible, yet, it seems that progress is slow in this area, not just in
Corrections, but generally.
A
comment appears on Social Reintegration as part of “Corrections”, which is an
interesting concept. Logic would dictate
that any “Correction” would necessarily happen before reintegration and what is
needed at the reintegration phase is, in fact, Development and Care; Development
to ensure the releasee is prepared for a changed life before he or she
undertakes it and Care to ensure that maximum support is given to the
individual to ensure he or she avoids receding.
Throughout
the narrative section of Corrections, Development and Care one is frustrated by
a lack of ability to judge what is the reality of the Department’s
progress. There are ample quotations on
achievements but to understand this in context is difficult. It might be helpful, perhaps, to indicate in
the overview some assessment of the degree of completion, probably against
longer term planned progression.
The
important item here seems to be the Offender Rehabilitation Path (ORP),
(details of which have so far evaded us) around which requirements and
responsibilities will be developed. It
is to be hoped that in developing its policies and procedures around this ORP,
the Department will take due cognisance of the support available to it from the
NGO sector and the community at large.
One
small point on the commentary on overcrowding:-
Précised, the report seems to indicate (P.40) that the Department was
doing well in terms of reducing awaiting trial numbers until the SAPS started
catching more criminals and sorting out its own backlog! One can’t help but envision a newspaper
headline along the lines “Prisons blame Police efficiency for
overcrowding”. In view of the Department’s efforts to smarten up its public
image recently, which we think have been great, this is, perhaps, unfortunate
phrasing and is the kind of thing that might again damage the Department’s
efforts in this respect.
In
terms of Development (Programme 4) we are somewhat surprised to see that the
Department has not included Personal Development in its objectives, nor does
this figure in the Corrections Programmes.
This is not to say it is not recognised as being part of the necessary
process but it does not appear to have prominence. In Khulisa’s experience it is vital and
should, we believe, be recognised as such.
Certainly, as the basis of most of Khulisa’s success, it has shown its
worth. Quite apart from bringing about
behaviour change, it tends to change the offender’s view of the need to take
every opportunity for further learning and social engagement.
Coupled
with effective reintegration, we believe that this kind of programme provides
the best chances of success in terms of reducing tendencies to reoffend.
It
would be re-assuring to see some focus by the Department on this important
area. We would emphasise that this does
not in any way detract from the Departments efforts in the area of Development,
which are clearly advancing at a good pace, but we firmly believe that a more
solid foundation can be built by incorporating such a process in every
in-mate’s Sentence Plan. It is likely to
be particularly effective with first timers, who may be on relatively short
sentences and therefore miss out on other initiatives under present
circumstances.
With
regard to Care Programmes, Khulisa has had little involvement recently so we
have limited knowledge. It is obvious from the report that the Department has
fairly severe problems in meeting its targets and therefore in delivery, to the
extent that the reasons therefore, in some instances, are repeated in the
report! This is, presumably, by way of a subliminal communication of the
Department’s predicament. Perhaps it has been effective, because we have total
sympathy with the Department here. There
is a huge element of trying to push “muck” uphill in this area, particularly
when over crowding is a major factor.
The
relatively low delivery in terms of Voluntary Counselling and Testing (VCT),
Psychological and Social Services remains a concern (although close to target)
but is entirely understandable in the circumstances portrayed.
Social
Reintegration (Programme 6) is of course, a major interest for Khulisa. The achievement of delivery of pre-release
programmes to 76% of released offenders serving more than one year is
commendable but no evaluation has been seen as to what effect this has had on
recidivism. The programmes in use, as
far as we have seen, whilst at to some extent must be helpful, are of short
duration and of necessity, fairly superficial.
We believe that a more effective methodology could be introduced and we
suspect that, under present circumstances, what happens post release is
generally of more importance.
Reintegration
is a very broad area of operations requiring a very significant resource to be
effective. It probably gives the best
possible opportunity for achieving results in terms of reducing recidivism yet
it seems it has very little “space” in the report and in the overall scheme of
things. Certainly budgeting for this
area seems totally inadequate. Not
unreasonably the Department appears to focus more on what happens within its
walls than without.
Perhaps,
because of the inevitable community contact involved, it would be worth
considering a partnership or partnerships that takes significant interest in
assisting in this area, e.g. Khulisa?
Although
this may be a little like closing the stable door after the horse has nearly
bolted, looking at the Department’s Building Programme, the Renovation
Programme and the Department of Social Development Programmes for Secure Care
Centres, all coupled with a firm belief that rehabilitation and effective
reintegration can have a huge impact on recidivism, one wonders whether there
might be benefit in a somewhat different view of this whole picture.
In
the current D.C.S. circumstances, juveniles remain a problem in terms of the
special treatment they require.
Juveniles are our future, however, and must be given due
consideration. Juveniles, too, are
responsible for a large proportion of crimes, more so if the upper age limit is
considered at 25. (Perhaps Youth is a
better grouping).
In
our experience, paying particular attention to the needs of young offenders and
young people “in conflict with the Law” provides huge dividends. Is there, perhaps, justification for
something that might be, or be thought of, as a “Department of Juvenile/Youth
Corrections”? This could, at this stage
(but perhaps not further on into the capex programme) provide far more
effective capital expenditure, particular attention for the young in every way
and result in extremely effective Corrections, Development and Care, thus contributing
to significant reductions in recidivism.
Whilst
this may be totally outside current thinking and might slow down starting on
some new facilities, the efficiencies produced would bring huge savings and
might actually solve the overcrowding problem.
Khulisa
has formed some preliminary plans as to how this might be accomplished and, it
is only fair to warn, such a path would involve a lot more lateral and free
thinking and a severe case of “can do” attitude to put together a functional
process. The, delay, disruption and
general misery caused within hard pressed Government Department’s, however,
might very well be worth it!
We
regret that time pressures prevented a detailed inspection of the Department’s
financials but a couple of things did catch our attention:-
1. The transfer of some R250m out of running
costs into capital expenditure (principally into Kimberly) takes some
understanding, especially when there is so clearly a need for additional
expenditure in these areas. One can
understand that the under spends have arisen due to under accomplishment but
would suggest that both the under spend and under accomplishment could have
been relieved by the utilisation of service providers in the programmatic
areas.
(This sum, incidentally, is
close to that which Khulisa would calculate they would need to provide its
rehabilitation and reintegration processes to all major correctional
facilities, nationally)
2. The stock figure quoted for printing and
stationery at R68.7m is 167% of the annual appropriation shown (R41.1m), or the
equivalent of 20 months supply. Surely
this is worth a little explanation or investigation?
We regret that this
commentary has been somewhat superficial and introspective from a Khulisa view
point but time was a little short and we earnestly request that, should we be
invited to comment again, please may we have a little more notice?
Thank
you