ATC140226: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on Oversight visits Undertaken in July and August 2013 to Correctional Centres in the Eastern Cape, Kwazulu Natal, Western Cape and Free State Provinces - 26 February 2014

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ON OVERSIGHT VISITS UNDERTAKEN IN JULY AND AUGUST 2013 TO CORRECTIONAL CENTRES IN THE EASTERN CAPE, KWAZULU NATAL, WESTERN CAPE AND FREE STATE PROVINCES - 26 FEBRUARY 2014

INTRODUCTION

1. A delegation of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services (the Committee) visited the East London, Mdantsane, Harrismith, Qalakabusha, Oudtshoorn Female and Goodwood correctional facilities in July and August 2013.

2. This report comprises observations made during each of the visits (Parts A-D) as well as the Committee’s recommendations (Part E).

3. The visits comprised orientation briefings by the regional and/or area management, tours of the facilities, interactions with sentenced and unsentenced inmates, officials, independent correctional centre visitors (ICCV) and Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB) chairpersons, and, finally, debriefing sessions during which prelimenary observations were discussed with all stakeholders.

4. In addition to the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) the Committee had also invited the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Legal Aid South Africa (Legal Aid SA), and Department of Public Works (DPW) to participate in the visits.

5 Numerous allegations of, for example, misconduct, abuse of power and corruption were levelled against the management of, and officials at, some of the the centres visited. Some of these have been captured in the report, but have not been tested. The matters raised will be revisited once the DCS has had opportunity to investigate and report on them.

6. Given the recurring nature of the challenges faced by South Africa’s 241 correctional centres, the recommendations in this report should be read along with those in the Committee’s previous reports.

PART A: VISITS TO CENTRES IN THE EASTERN LONDON MANAGEMENT AREA

1. OVERVIEW OF THE EAST LONDON MANAGEMENT AREA

1.1 Corporate Services

1.1.1 The East London and Mdantsane correctional centres are situated in the East London management area, in the DCS’s Eastern Cape management region. The management area comprises four correctional centres: Mdantsane, East London Maximum, East London Remand and East London Female. At the time of the visit the area had the second largest inmate population in the region.

1.1.2 The management area has a financed post establishment comprising 960 posts, of which 942 were filled at the time of the visit. As is the case in practically all other management areas across the country, the centres suffered acute staff shortages .

1.1.3 The Transkei Decree which had only been applicable in the Eastern Cape during the Apartheid era, allowed officials to retire at 55 years of age, and is identified as a significant contributor to the staffing challenges experienced in the region. The impact of the shortage is exacerbated by the head office-imposed shift system, and the DCS’ overall poor recruitment history.

1.2 Offender management

1.2.1 The area could accommodate 2 244 inmates, but at the time of the visit accommodated 3 393 inmates, and was approximately 75% overcrowded.

1.2.2 The area management did their best to reduce overcrowding through the application of legislative provisions allowing for non-custodial sentencing. In terms of section 63A of the Criminal Procedure Act (No 51 of 1977) bail conditions may be amended, and certain categories of offenders may be released if the overcrowding posed a threat to, amongst others, an inmate’s safe incarceration. The area reported that of the 156 such applications processed in the nine months preceding the visit, 71 had been successful.

1.2.3 None of the centres in the management area accommodated children. At some stage the area had had 12 child offenders in its care, but they were diverted through the DCS’s cooperation with the departments of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), and Social Development (DSD).

1.3 Maintenance

1.3.1 Many of the centres in the region were old and dilapidated. The dilapidation affected ablution facilities especially. Water shortages, inadequate plumbing and poor access to electricity were widespread. Needless to say, the above-mentioned overcrowding placed even more strain on already weak infrastructure.

1.3.2 The regional management pointed out that the old dilapidated facilities were not designed for the unit managed envisaged in the White Paper on Corrections (White Paper). Many of the centres in the region were too small, making it impossible to separate different categories of inmates as per the legislative requirements. This was most visible at the Mdantsane centre, where maximum , juvenile and medium adult offenders were separated by a courtyard only.

1.3.3 The long delays in the completion of renovation and refurbishment projects managed by the DPW was identified as a major contributor to the region’s chronic overcrowding. When the large-scale renovations underway in the region commenced, inmates incarcerated at the affected centres, had to be temporarily transferred to other centres in the area. At the time of the visit renovations at the Port Elizabeth, Mthatha, and Patensie correctional centres had been underway for two to three years, placing strain on those centres that had to temporarily accommodate offenders.

1.3.4 Renovations at the Mdantsane and Port Elizabeth correctional centres had to be interrupted when the contractor who had been awarded the tender was liquidated in June 2012. At the time of the visit renovations had not yet been resumed.

1.3.5 The DPW representatives present explained that 19 correctional centres had been identified for repair and renovation through a phased implementation programme. At the time of the visit the projects were at various stages of completion.

1.4 Security

1.4.1 Gangsterism was identified as a major challenge at East London and St Albans correctional centres in particular. All litigation matters in the region related to assaults: the regional management believed that gangs were involved in a scam that involved gang-affiliated inmates assaulting each other, and then instituting legal action against the centres in which they were incarcerated, arguing that they had not been incarcerated safely.

1.5 Rehabilitation and Development

1.5.1 At the time of the visit the area had thirteen social workers, eighteen spiritual care workers (nine of whom were volunteers) and two psychologists. The area provided correctional programmes designed to provide inmates with life orientation skills, and were aimed at addressing sexual violence, anger issues, and substance abuse especially.

1.5.2 The area employed 16 permanent officials delivering training courses, and 22 educators. At the time of the visit 434 offenders were participating in formal education programmes, and 99 had registered for National Certificate Vocational (NCV) training courses.

1.6 Parole Administration and Social Reintegration

1.6.1 The area had one correctional supervision and parole board (CSPB), two case management committees (CMC), and two community corrections offices in Mdantsane and East London respectively. At the time of the visit all CSPB posts were filled, and the delegation was informed that it was fully functional.

1.6.2 The area reported that it had hosted four victim-offender dialogues (VOD) in the six months preceding the visit.

1.7 Care

1.7.1 The area had only two sessional doctors, two sessional dentists and 24 nurses. The East London centre was an accredited anti-retroviral (ARV) site and HIV/AIDS and health awareness programmes were regularly conducted. The area management reported no serious health-care related challenges.

2. VISIT TO THE EAST LONDON CORRECTIONAL CENTRES

2.1 Administration

Corporate Services

2.1.1 The centres have a combined staff establishment of 960 and at the time of the visit 942 of those were filled.

2.2 Incarceration

Security Operations

2.2.1 The access control gates and control rooms at the Medium A centre had been out of operation since the contract with the service provider expired. At the time if the visit the control rooms from which access should be controlled were not manned, as the control room operators were receiving training at the training colleges.

2.2.2 Although inmates and officials were searched at access points, officials at times neglected this duty, which made smuggling possible. A day prior to the visit, an official was arrested for attempting to smuggle 770g of dagga concealed in a Weatbix container into the Medium A centre. Internal and criminal investigations were underway at the time of the visit.

2.2.3 Inmates alleged that when fights broke out amongst them, officials failed to intervene. In addition, officials often assaulted male inmates, and such assaults were seldom, if ever investigated. The presentation the management of the centre had made to the delegation prior the site visit, made no reference to official-on-inmate, or inmate-on-inmate assaults however.

Offender Management

2.2.4 The Medium A centre accommodated maximum security offenders. In addition to the small group of medium security offenders who had work opportunities at the centre, the centre also accommodated a group of medium security offenders who, owing to the overcrowding in other parts of the region, could not be accommodated elsewhere. The centre which at the time of the visit accommodated 1 562 inmates, was the most over-populated of all three of the East London centres.

2.2.5 High profile, as well as vulnerable offenders were accommodated in single cells for their own safety. Of the centre’s 48 single cells, 25 were occupied at the time of the visit. An additional seven such cells were situated in the hospital section.

2.2.6 The Female centre accommodated all the female remand and sentenced inmates in the region. The centre could accommodate 273 inmates, but at the time of reporting accommodated 294 inmates, of whom 266 were sentenced, and 28 remand detainees.

2.2.7 The Female centre had a mother and baby unit which at the time of the visit accommodated seven sentenced and three unsentenced mothers with babies. As the unit could not meet the infants’ medical needs, they received medical treatment at the local public hospital. The mothers reported that they struggled to access clothing for their infants, and that although the situation had been reported to the centre’s management, it had at the time of the visit not yet been resolved.

2.2.8 Inmates across all the centres complained that they struggled to be granted permission to be transferred to centres nearer their families, or to centres able to meet their educational needs.

2.2.9 All inmates complained that they received no orientation upon admission, and that this impacted on their ability to adjust to life in incarceration, and to understand the centres’ requirements of them. Centre managers denied that this was the case.

2.2.10 Inmates complained that the goods sold in the centre’s tuckshop, which included personal hygiene items, were too expensive. This was particularly frustrating to inmates who were far from the families, and therefore did not receive regular visits from family members who could provide them with the items they needed. The regional management pointed out that 5% of the proceeds from the tuckshops went towards recreation activities for inmates, and confirmed that the concern about exorbitant prices was heard across correctional centres. At the time of the visit the Regional Commissioner was expecting a report on how the tuckshops operated, and how prices were determined.

2.2.11 Several inmates alleged that officials subjected them to racist remarks. The regional management confirmed that similar allegations had been received from inmates a week before the visit, and that an investigation was underway. At the time of reporting the outcome had not yet been communicated.

Remand Detention

2.2.12 The Medium B centre was a dedicated remand detention centre which at the time of the visit also accommodated approximately 27 sentenced offenders who had work opportunities at the centre.

2.2.13 An audio visual remand (AVR) system has been in use at the centre since 1 June 2013, and at the time of the visit, 37 cases had already been processed via it.

2.2.14 According to section 49G of Correctional Matters Amendment Act (No 5 of 2011) a remand detainee could not spend more than two years in a remand detention facility, without his or case having been brought to the attention of the relevant court. Concerns were raised about the high number of remand detainees who appeared to have been awaiting trial for more than 24 months. Legal Aid South Africa (Legal Aid SA) representatives present assured the delegation, that the matters of those who have been in remand for longer than 24 months were being monitored and tracked.

2.2.15 Several remand detainees who relied on the services provided by Legal Aid SA practitioners alleged that they received poor service. Despite reports to the Committee that Legal Aid SA was adequately resourced, and that they were able to meet with their clients before hearings, many inmates still claimed that they only saw their legal representatives at court, and that court proceedings were not adequately explained to them.

2.2.16 The Legal Aid SA representatives present assured the delegation that its practitioners served every court in the area, and that each practitioner had one consultation day per centre. Paralegals visited Mdantsane and East London once per week. Justice Centre managers visited courts to ensure that practitioners prepared their witnesses, and clients. Its attorneys had to withdraw from cases in which there was a conflict of interest, and such cases were then outsourced to judicare practitioners.

Facilities

2.2.17 The dining hall at the Medium A centre was not fully utilised. The DCS-run kitchen was supervised by four officials, with 34 inmates working as cooks and kitchen staff. The Medium B centre did not have its own kitchen.

2.2.18 The Medium B centre had no stand-by generator which meant that during power outages both service-delivery and security were compromised.

2.2.19 The visitation areas at all the centres were inadequate: there was limited space for contact visits at both the Female and Medium A centres. Although the facilities for contact visits at the Medium A centre had been extended, the microphones in the non-contact visiting area were not working. At the Medium B centre, the visitors’ waiting room required renovation.

2.2.20 All the centres in the management area faced challenges as far as the recruitment of artisans, and therefore the East London centres did not have adequately-equipped maintenance teams to attend to anything but minor maintenance needs. The DPW explained that the repair and renovation project underway was only 50% complete. The slow progress was due, in part, to the fact that work had to be undertaken while the inmates were still at the centre.

2.3 Rehabilitation

Correctional Programmes & Offender Development

2.3.1 Given the shortage of professional staff, serious doubts were voiced about the centres’ ability to deliver the various correctional programmes it reportedly had on offer. Female offenders claimed that they received no structured day programmes, and that rehabilitation services were practically non-existent.

2.3.2 Inmates working at the Medium A kitchen complained that the R14 ,50 gratuity they received was too little, particularly given the very high prices charged by the centre’s tuckshop. The Area Commissioner had been requested to review gratuities and the centre was awaiting the outcome of that process.

2.3.3 Inmates working in the in the kitchen at the Medium A centre did not receive accreditation for the training they underwent, and the DCS was waiting on the Department of Labour (DOL) to advise when it would be able to enrol offenders in accredited training courses.

2.3.4 While there was some agricultural activity at the Medium A centre, staff shortages and the shift system imposed on the centre, impacted negatively on agricultural productivity, and work opportunities for inmates. At the time of the visit only 18 offenders participated in agricultural work activities. They were supervised by four officials.

2.3.5 Female offenders complained that they were offered very few opportunities for skills development. Some offenders were registered at tertiary institutions, but their studies were negatively affected by staff shortages: at the time of the visit they had not had any study groups for approximately two weeks. The centre manager who had not been aware of the situation, agreed that not having had access to education services for two weeks was unacceptable.

2.3.6 The female offenders claimed that although the centre had a library it had not been operational for more than two years, and that therefore inmates were unable to borrow library books, or work in the library. Maximum offenders interviewed claimed that even when the library was open, they were not allowed to borrow books.

2.3.7 Female offenders expressed an interest in computer literacy, and claimed that although the centre had computers that could be utilised for training purposes, computer literacy programmes were not being offered.

2.3.8 The kitchen in the Female centre employed ten offenders at the time of the visit. They were supervised by three officials, one of whom was the kitchen manager. Four of the offenders had participated in an accredited training course provided by the DOL, and facilitated by the DCS.

2.3.9 The Female centre operated a textile factory manufacturing shirts and trousers for male sentenced offenders, as well as sheets and pillow cases. The factory provided for the needs of the Eastern Cape region mainly, and, when there was a need, provided uniforms and bedding to the KwaZulu Natal region too. At the time of the visit the factory provided work opportunities to 45 offenders, who were supervised by three officials. Offenders received gratuities ranging from R30 for new workers, to R60 for those who have been working for longer.

Psychological, Social and Spiritual services

2.3.10 The inmates in the Medium A centre claimed that as the centre only had one social worker, they had limited access to social work-sessions which impacted on their readiness for parole consideration.

2.4. Care

Health services

2.4.1 The hospital section in the Medium A centre had 15 nurses, four of whom were on duty at the time of the visit. The centre had no permanent doctor, but was visited by a sessional doctor once a week. At the time of the visit, the hospital accommodated 17 inmates.

2.4.2 The medical staff at the Medium A centre indicated that at times they felt unsafe owing to the lack of security staff available to work in the hospital section: at times only one security official was on duty in the entire hospital unit.

2.4.3 Medical staff at the Medium A centre were confident that the medical parole process was adequately understood. A week prior to the visit an inmate had been released on medical parole, and another application was submitted on behalf of an inmate who had since been transferred to the Mount Frere centre. This notwithstanding the delegation did come across an inmate who was disabled from the waist down and who had applied for medical parole in December 2012, but at the time of the visit had still not had any feedback from the authorities. The medical staff explained that the application forms had been returned to the centre for additional information related to the inmate’s pre-release plan. The CMC undertook to meet with the inmate that day.

2.4.4 Medical personnel at the Medium A centre complained that the head of the correctional centre (HCC) at times put pressure on them to hospitalise inmates who did not require hospitalisation. In the most recent incident they had been requested to accommodate an inmate among patients who were still in the infectious stages of tuberculosis.

2.4.5 The inmate who had spent the longest time in the Medium A hospital section, suffered from a mental illness which could not be controlled to such an extent that he could be safely incarcerated with the rest of the population. Responding to the delegation’s concern about the appropriateness of accommodating persons with mental illnesses in correctional centres, it was explained that the DCS had no choice but to accommodate persons sent to them for incarceration. While the DCS agreed that state patients should be in the Department of Health’s (DOH) care, the shortage of mental health facilities resulted in those sentenced to incarceration often having to remain in the DCS’s care until bed spaces became available.

2.4.6 The hospital section in the Female centre had 13 bedspaces; those requiring emergency medical care were referred to the hospital in Mount Frere. Until shortly before the visit, it had an establishment of four medical professionals and one security officer, but that had since been reduced to three health professionals only. Although the staff were able to manage with three, a fourth nurse would have been useful to attend to the administrative duties. The regional management’s intervention had been sought. The centre was visited by a doctor two times per week.

2.4.7 The hospital section in the Female centre did not have single cells, and therefore it was not possible to accommodate inmates with infectious diseases separately. In addition it was observed that the medication was poorly managed: the drug cabinet was not kept sufficiently secure, and medicine did not appear to be adequately controlled. Patients raised a serious concern about their safety at night: the intercom system was not working, and the inmates only had a whistle to use to summon officials in case of an emergency. At times the response time was very slow. Although the HCC was aware of the situation, little had been done to resolve it.

Hygiene services

2.4.8 Inmates in the mother and baby unit at the Female centre claimed that although they had been requesting clothing for their babies since January 2013, nothing was done to assist them. The HCC confirmed the shortage of clothing, and indicated that the centre had a week before the visit, submitted a request for baby clothes.

2.4.9 The female inmates also complained that they had insufficient bed linen, but upon inspection of the storerooms, the delegation found that it was sufficiently stocked. The HCC explained that each inmate received two sheets, but that they chose to use those to make curtains.

2.5. Social Reintegration

Parole Administration

2.5.1 Many inmates complained that they had no access to information related to conditions of incarceration, or to information related to their specific minimum sentencing periods, and conditions for parole.

2.5.2 Several inmates complained that the reclassification process was not properly managed, and that many inmates who ought to have been reclassified were still considered a maximum security risk. Delays in the reclassification process impacted on inmates’ access to skills programmes, education services, and their eligibility for parole consideration.

2.5.3 Inmates also complained that they were not timeously considered for parole, and that female offenders were not considered for day parole. Several inmates alleged that they were not provided with sufficient assistance to contact the victims or victims’ families prior their parole hearings, and that this impacted on the success of their applications.

2.5.4 The CSPB chairperson explained that although its decision-making was independent, the DCS was responsible for providing the services that would ultimately result in successful parole applications i.e. implementing the offender rehabilitation path (ORP), ensuring that inmates had correctional sentence plans (CSPs), that CMCs were functional, and that the necessary social worker and psychologist reports were completed by the time an inmate reached the period at which he or she became eligible for parole consideration. Outstanding reports, incomplete case profiles, lack of victim participation and inadequate support systems were the most common reasons for CSPBs refusing to grant parole.

Community reintegration

2.5.5 The Regional Management reported that weekend transfers to centres nearer their families were arranged for those female offenders whose support systems were far from the centre. Although the DCS reported that the system which, at the time of the visit had been running for four years, was functioning smoothly, inmates expressed dissatisfaction with the service. Complaints included that only 18 inmates were allowed to visit their families per weekend, that visits were to Port Elizabeth and Queenstown only, that the vehicle used was poorly maintained , and that no food and water were provided to inmates during the journey. The Regional Management explained that vehicle had been replaced, and that the other allegations, which he had not been aware of, would be attended to.

2.6 Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

2.6.1 Inmates claimed that the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services’ (JICS) independent correctional centre visitors (ICCVs) were not visible or accessible, and that therefore they were unable to assist inmates with their complaints. Inmates appeared to have little confidence in the ICCVs’ ability to assist them with their challenges.

3. VISIT TO THE MDANTSANE CORRECTIONAL CENTRES

3.1 Administration

Corporate Services & Financial management

3.1.1 The Mdantsane Correctional Centre also suffered acute staff shortages. The most notable vacancy was that of the HCC, which had been vacant since its HCC was transferred to the KwaZulu Natal region.

3.2 Incarceration

Security Operations

3.2.1 As was the case at the East London facility, inmates at the Mdantsane centre alleged that officials assaulted them, and that in such instances no action was taken.

Offender Management

3.2.2 The centre accommodated both juvenile and adult, sentenced male offenders and was severely overcrowded. It could accommodate 682 inmates only; but in mid-July housed 644 juvenile, and 582 adult inmates. The overcrowding impacted negatively on conditions of incarceration: in the cells that were visited, juveniles were sleeping two to a bed, and several had no choice but to sleep on mattresses on the floor. In an attempt to manage the overcrowding the regional management had the night before the visit instructed that 72 juveniles be transferred.

3.2.3 The centre was classified as a medium security facility, but accommodated both medium and maximum security offenders. All the juvenile maximum security offenders in the area were accommodated there, as well as number of juvenile and adult medium security offenders.

3.2.4 Inadequate infrastructure severely compromised offender management. In one section, 88 maximum and 116 medium security juvenile offenders were accommodated in separate cells, but in the same unit/courtyard. In another , adult medium security, and juvenile maximum security offenders were accommodated in the same fashion.

3.2.5 Although the centre management attempted to separate juvenile and adult, and medium and maximum security offenders, the fact that there were no dedicated facilities for maximum security juvenile offenders presented a major challenge. At the time of the visit adults and juveniles were accommodated in the same unit, but shared different meal and exercise times.

3.2.6 As observed at the East London centre, inmates indicated that they were frustrated by how transfers were managed. Many claimed that their transfer requests were summarily rejected, which meant that they were not able to receive visits from their families, and were not able to pursue education programmes.

3.2.7 Inmates were frustrated by the lack of orientation at admission, and the lack of information regarding their specific conditions of incarceration and the parole process.

Facilities

3.2.8 The Centre was situated in an old dilapidated building dating back to before 1994. The infrastructure was not suited to the DCS’s rehabilitation objectives. Renovations at the centre started on 1 February 2011, but were interrupted in June 2012 when the contractor was liquidated.

3.2.9 The DPW explained that following the liquidation of the contractor who had been awarded the tenders for the projects at the Mdantsane and East London centres, a new process had had to be embarked upon. The contract for the Mdantsane project was cancelled in October 2012. Before a new contractor could be appointed, the DPW had to assess what work had been completed, so as to determine what the scope of the new tender should be. At the time of the visit the process was at the tender stage, and the DPW anticipated that a contractor would have been appointed by December 2013.

3.2.10 As was observed at the East London correctional centres, the Mdantsane centre too faced challenges as far as the recruitment of artisans, and therefore did not have adequately-staffed maintenance teams to attend to its maintenance needs.

3.2.11 The roads to the centre were in very poor condition, but the area management reported that the repair and maintenance of all roads leading to the centre was in the pipeline.

3.2.12 The visitors area was situated outside, and was unprotected during inclement weather, when visits became virtually impossible. The structure was not conducive to visits between inmates and their families, legal representatives, etc.

3.3 Rehabilitation

Correctional Programmes & Offender Development

3.3.1 As was the case at the East London centres, the shortage of professional staff led the delegation to question whether it was possible for the centre to deliver the various correctional programmes it reportedly had on offer.

3.3.2 Juvenile offenders complained that the centre was unable to meet the needs of all those who wished to participate in formal education programmes. In addition, those who have matriculated had no access to information that would assist them to pursue further education.

3.3.3 Inmates showed a keen interest in boxing, but the space set aside for use as a gymnasium was completely unsuitable: it was situated in what may have earlier been a cell, had little ventilation, was very damp, and had hardly any equipment.

3.4 Social Reintegration

Parole administration

3.4.1 As was observed at the East London centre, the inmates at the Mdantsane centre raised several concerns about how parole-related matters were managed i.e late scheduling of parole hearings resulting in inmates reaching their mininum sentence period before having been considered for parole.

3.4.2 Slow reclassification processes also caused much frustration, particularly because it impacted on maximum offenders’ parole eligibility, and access to work and training opportunities.

Community Reintegration

3.4.3 Many inmates who were not from the area, indicated that they had not received visits from their families for long periods. The inmates’ prolonged separation from the families who were their support systems, was of major concern, as the breakdown in their relationships with their families could jeopardise their reintegration.

3.5 Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

3.5.1 Inmates at this centre too complained about the services provided by the ICCV.

PART B: VISITS TO CENTRES IN THE KWAZULU NATAL REGION

4. OVERVIEW OF THE EMPANGENI MANAGEMENT AREA

4.1 Corporate Services, Finance and Management

4.1.1 The Qalakabusha Correctional facility is situated in the Empangeni management area, in the DCS’ Kwazulu Natal management region. The management area comprises seven correctional centres: Qalakabusha, Mthunizini, Empageni Remand, Maphumulo, Stanger, Ingwavuma and Eshowe. The area had six social reintegration offices. The delegation only visited the Qalakabusha Correctional Centre.

4.1.2 The area’s staff establishment allows for 21 artisans, but at the time of the visit only one of the posts were filled. The official was responsible for attending to the maintenance needs of the entire area.

4.1.3 According to the presentation, the area received a budget of approximately R208 700 000 in 2013/14 of which 30% had been spent by the end of the first quarter.

4.1.4 Between April and July 2013 the number of vacancies in the region had increased from 377 to 395. The region identified resignations, natural attrition and transfers as a major contributor to its high vacancy rate. Of major concern was the fact that the deputy regional commissioner’s post had been vacant for a considerable period of time.

4.1.5 At the time of the visits no posts had been advertised yet in the 2013/14 financial year, and the non-adherence to timeframnes for filling vacancies was identified as a major concern. In June 2013 regions had been informed that the recruitment processes for levels 2 to 12 had been decentralised, and it was expected that this development would fast track the filling of vacancies at those levels. At the time of the visit however, regions were still awaiting implementation directives.

4.2 Offender management

4.2.1 The Empangeni management area could accommodate 2 662 inmates, but at the time of the visit its centres accommodated 3 414, and were 128% overcrowded. The overcrowding placed enormous strain not only on infrastructure, but also on the 252 security staff in the area.

4.2.2 The area management ascribed the overcrowding to inadequate implementation of legislative provisions: magistrates’ reluctance to implement sections 49G and 5(2 )( b) of the Correctional Services Amendment Act ; delays in court cases owing to slow investigations; and witnesses not attending court The temporary closure of the Eshowe Correctional Centre which could accommodate 507 inmates increased the numbers at the centres to which those inmates had had to be transferred.

4.2.3 According to the presentation made, the Area Management tried to reduce overcrowding through the implementation of section 276(1)(i) of the Correctional Services Act (Act 111 of 1998), timeous address confirmation and parole hearings, transfers out of the management area, and the promotion of non-custodial sentences.

4.3 Parole Administration and Social Reintegration

4.3.1 At the time of the visit the area had 288 probationers, and 1 538 parolees. At the time of the visit the area reported that 51 parolees and probationers had absconded over a period spanning several years.

5. VISIT TO THE QALAKABUSHA CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

5.1 Administration

Corporate Services & Financial Management

5.1.1 The Qalakabusha Centre had a staff establishment of 309 funded posts, of which 299 were filled at the time of the visit. The area management indicated that even with all vacancies filled, the establishment which was last reviewed in 2003, would be insufficient to meet the centre’s needs. The impact of the shortage was exacerbated by the high number of officials on temporary incapacity leave, inappropraie shift patterns, and temporary vacancies caused when officials had to act in critical posts that were vacant.

5.1.2 Attracting and retaining professionals, especially health care workers, was a major challenge. At the time of the visit the centre had no pharmacist, and only nine nurses. Education and social work services were compromised for the same reason: at the time of the visit the centre had only six social workers, and six educators. The centre also reported a shortage of artisans and technicians which impacted on the delivery of development programmes.

5.1.3 Officials were accommodated in single and family quarters, but the management reported that more official accommodation was required to ensure that staff were available in case of emergency.

5.1.4 Despite the negative impact overcrowding and understaffing have had on officials’ wellbeing, the management area did not provide any employee wellness services.

5.1.5 The centre management reported that it regularly met with staff in daily parades, monthly personnel and management meetings, and quarterly bi-and multi-lateral meetings.

5.1.6 Several measures were reportedly in place to combat corruption. These included daily searches, regular surprise searches, and sensitising officials during personnel and management meetings. Only one case of corruption was reported, and was still under investigation at the time of the visit.

5.1.7 The Centre reported ten disciplinary incidents. Two of the matters were pending at the time of the visit and related to unlawful industrial action (implicating 41 officials), and the loss of a firearm. In seven of the remaining eight matters which included non-compliance with regulations, reporting late for duty, and various incidents that could be deemed breaches of security, written warnings were issued. A final written warning was issued to an official who had intimidated a colleague with a firearm.

5.1.8 In a meeting requested by a delegation comprising staff and managers, officals lodged a number of serious concerns related to the manner in which the region was managed. Officials claimed that managers with “political clout” were protected, and that consequently the centre was run like those managers’ “personal fiefdoms”. The situation had resulted in a period of mismanagement during which policy was disregarded, security was compromised, and officials not enjoying the protection of managers, were intimidated and victimised. Although promotions within the public service had been abolished, officials who enjoyed such managers’ favour had for instance been promoted. The officials reported that the situation had improved since the appointment of the area manager four months before the visit. Three officials who had voiced concern about the manner in which the area and region had been managed, and the lack of intervention from the National Commissioner were still on precautionary suspension, at the time of the visit.

5.1.9 Disgruntled officials claimed that security at the centre had been breached on several occasions including when a firearm was unlawfully removed from the arsenal, and not returned. Similarly no action was taken, when during a search a number of cellphones was discovered.

5.1.10 Members acknowledged that should they be substantiated, the allegations were very serious. Officials were reminded however that all labour related matters had to be pursued through the relevant DCS and labour processes. Labour unions had to play their part, and ensure that they represented their members adequately in negotiations with managers, as well as when representing them in disciplinary proceedings. The officials present where reminded that the Minister of Correctional Services had established a Ministerial Task Team (MTT), charged with addressing a number of human resource-related matters, which included some of the concerns raised that day.

5.2. Incarceration

Security Operations

5.2.1 The access control system which was installed in 2001 was operational, but control panels and access gates required urgent upgrading. The centre reported challenges with regard to the electronic security system through which access to the centre was managed: persons no longer employed by the DCS, and deleted from the system, were still able to gain access via the visitors’ entrance, while visitors and new appointees could not be registered on it.

5.2.2 The Centre’s electric fence had had to be deactivated on instruction of the DCS’ head office; no reason was provided for the deactivation.

5.2.3 The centre’s security system was old and some cameras were not working, but as the contract with the service provider had expired, the system could not be repaired. At the time of the visit the DPW was in the process of recommending that a new contract be awarded.

5.2.4 Although it was not reported, the delegation visiting the maximum security juvenile facility observed that a large section of a fence separating two sections, had collapsed. The managers accompanying the delegation explained that the fence which was rusted, had collapsed during recent strong winds. They indicated that the matter was being handled internally, but that it would be reported to the DPW too.

5.2.5 The centre reported no deaths and no escapes in the 12 months preceding the visit. Seven gang-related incidents were reported for the same period, but the centre’s management was confident that the centre’s design made it difficult for gangs to organise and communicate.

5.2.6 The centre reported 27 offender-on-offender, one official-on-offender, and three offender-on-official assaults. Two rape allegations were also being investigated.

5.2.7 The Centre reported excellent cooperation from the South African Police Service (SAPS) who assisted during labour unrest, provided intelligence used to improve and maintain security, and assisted the centre’s emergency supported teams when high profile inmates had to be transported.

5.2.8 Despite the centre management’s indications that assaults were reported and investigated, inmates claimed that official-on-offender assaults were common and that when they were reported investigations were slow. It was also alleged that those who reported such assaults were threatened with transfers.

Offender Management

5.2.9 The centre is the largest in the management area, and the only one suitably secure for the incarceration of maximum and high risk offenders, as well as for those exhibiting extreme behavioural challenges. Approximately 90% of the inmates in the adult maximum centre were serving life sentences, and were accommodated in single cells, that owing to the overcrowding at the centre, held two to three inmates.

5.2.10 The centre is divided into six units accommodating different categories of offenders: maximum offenders aged 30 years and above, medium adults aged 30 years and above, medium juveniles, maximum adults aged below 30 years, maximum juveniles, and medium adults aged below 30.

5.2.11 At the time of the visit the centre, which had a capacity of 1 392, accommodated 2 532 offenders i.e. 111 juvenile offenders (18 - 21 years of age), 564 youth offenders (21-25 years of age), and 1 857 adults (aged above 25 years).

5.2.12 The centre reported that all new offenders were assessed and profiled according to their security risk, within 21 days of admission. The centre had profiling, treatment and admission committees. The profiling committee sat on a monthly basis, and saw approximately 20 inmates per month. The treatment committee sat regularly, and saw inmates every three months. The Admission committee saw new admissions on a weekly basis.

5.2.13 The centre reported that at the time of the visit, 2 306 of the 2 489 offenders serving sentences longer than 24 months had CSPs. The CMC chairpersons ensured that all CSPs were approved.

5.2.14 The centre reported that the area was serviced by one CMC only. It did not have an approved establishment and that therefore those serving on it were seconded from various other units within the centre. It had three chairpersons, three secretaries and clerks.

5.2.15 Although the centre accommodated no remand detainees, offenders still had to attend court for appeals and other matters. The Qalakabusha centre served seventeen courts, and the long distances between the courts, the number of those who had to attend court, and the centre’s security staff shortage, made the efficient management of court attendance almost impossible. The centre tried to manage the situation through maintaining good relationships with courts which made it possible to reschedule hearings in instances where the DCS was unable to transport inmates to courts on time.

5.2.16 Although the centre management reported a good relationship with Legal Aid SA, inmates indicated that they had lost faith in its services, especially because practitioners failed to provide feedback to legal questions, or to act on instructions.

5.2.17 Many inmates alleged that judges were racist in their rulings, that SAPS investigators, prosecutors, and witnesses/victims often colluded to ensure convictions, and that appeals were also often rejected, without adequate reasons being provided.

5.2.18 The centre reported no challenges as far as the recording, and attending to, of complaints and requests. Incident reports were properly managed, and controlled.

5.2.19 Members raised serious concern about the number of offenders who were serving sentences for petty offences, and questioned the wisdom of exposing such offenders to the traumatic and damaging effects of incarceration.

5.2.20 Of equal concern were reports that inmates spent long periods in remand either because of delays in court proceedings and investigations, or because bail set was unaffordable. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) representative explained that every effort was made to fast-track matters. Interventions included regular case-flow management meetings, and the use of plea- and sentence agreements. The NPA aimed to resolve matters before regional courts within nine months, and those before district courts within three months. The delegation was assured that prosecutors did not oppose bail without reason. The area’s economy had been very negatively affected by theft and shoplifting, and therefore what may appear to be a petty crime, was treated quite seriously, especially in the case repeat-offenders. Eighty percent of the cases heard in Empangeni related to shoplifting, and in the vast majorty of those the accused were repeat-offenders.

Facilities

5.2.21 The area’s shortage of artisans impacted on plumbing maintenance in particular: the centre had more than 300 flush masters, which required regular cleaning owing to silt present in the water system. This cost the centre about R35 000 per week. Although the matter was among those being discussed with the DPW, no progress could be reported at the time of the visit.

5.2.22 The centre’s sewerage plant was also not receiving the maintenance it required, and therefore numerous blockages were left unattended for long periods. This resulted in raw sewage spilling over, which posed a serious health risk to both officials and inmates.

5.2.23 The Centre reported that it required urgent renovation of its walkways which were rotten and rusted, and had leaking roofs.

5.2.24 In the Centre’s kitchen numerous tiles were damaged and broken, and required replacement. No indication was provided for why the centre’s minor maintenance budget could not be utilised to attend to the situation.

5.2.25 Although the centre had requested to be included in a Repair and Maintenance Programme (RAMP) project that was underway, and which would address its plumbing, sewerage, general maintenance and flooring needs, the high cost of the project required approval by the National DPW. At the time of the visit the provincial DPW had not yet requested such approval.

5.3 Rehabilitation

Correctional Programmes

5.3.1 The centre management reported that as at other centres, the accute staff shortage had a very negative effect on the implementation of rehabilitation programmes. The situation had been exacerbated by the labour unrest that took place in the twelve months that preceded the visit. The unrest had demanded more focus being placed on security arrangements, which resulted in rehabilation programmes receiving less attention.

5.3.2 The Centre reported that it offered a number of rehabilitation programmes which included anger management, restorative justice and pre-release interventions. According to the presentation provided, 807 ‘participants’ had attended the programmes in the 12 months preceding the visit. It was not clear how many individual offenders had actually participated.

Offender Development

5.3.3 Members were concerned that despite its size, and despite how well it appeared to be operating, the Centre offered very little opportunities for skills development and training.

5.3.4 Of the entire inmate population, only 509 inmates had participated in educational programmes in the 12 months preceding the visit. Three hundred and ninety-two inmates had enrolled in the Adult Education and Training (AET) programme. Ninety-nine of the 117 registered matric learners, sat for examinations in May and June 2013. Fifty-one inmates were registered for Higher Education and Training (HET) courses.

5.3.5 Some juvenile inmates complained that they had no access to education services. Others indicated that they had difficulty registering to complete their basic education, because they could not prove what level of education they had attained before they were incarcerated. Some complained that challenges in relation to acquiring ID documents, impacted on their ability to access education services. The delegation noted with concern, that these challenges notwithstanding, the centre reported that it had no relationship with the Department of Basic Education (DBE).

5.3.6 The Centre reported that it provided plumbing-, bricklaying-, plastering-, tiling-, welding as well as electrical training, and that 149 participants had completed such training in the 12 months preceding the visit. Eighty-eight inmates were registered for NCV level 2-4 programmes. The large number of complaints of lack of constructive activities heard from inmates during the visit, made clear however that such programmes were available to too few inmates.

Psychological, Social and Spiritual services

5.3.7 Although the centre had six social workers, they also had to render services to all other centres within the management area.

5.3.8 The management area only had one psychologist, who was based at the Qalakabusha centre, and one external psychologist who attended to certain specific cases.

5.3.9 The one chaplain in the area was based at the centre, and was supported by two religious clerks. The services they provided were complemented by the services of approximately 27 other religious workers from a broad spectrum of faith-based organisations, and who were not DCS officials.

5.3.10 According to centre management, inmates were involved in a wide range of recreational activities which included soccer and volleyball, traditional dances, choral music, and visual and creative art. Some inmates complained that because they had further charges that were pending, they were not allowed to participare in recreational activities. Unit managers present explained that each case was assessed indivually, and that unit managers may decide that certain privileges had to be denied depending on the risk an offender posed. The centre tried as far as possible to allow students with further charges to continue with their schooling.

5.4. Care

Nutrition services

5.4.1 The kitchen was operated by the DCS itself, and had one supply chain officer, seven officials and offenders who worked as cooks. The centre was visited by a dietician three times a week to attend to inmates dietary needs and to ensure that inmates’ special dietary requirements were met.

5.4.2 As at other facilities visited, inmates complained that they received no accreditation for the training they received.

Health services

5.4.3 The centre had a hospital with 30 beds, and was an accredited ARV site. Although it did not have its own doctor, it received weekly visits from a sessional doctor. One of the nine nurses at the centre, was always on standby should emergencies occur after hours. A physiotherapist visited twice a week. Optometrists, occupational therapists and audiologists visited the centre as required.

5.4.4 The centre had no pharmacy, and medication was obtained from the pharmacy at the Durban Westville Correctional Centre. Although the centre’s establishment made provision for a pharmacist, that post has never been filled.

5.4.5 Although it was not reported during the orientation session, the delegation found that the maximum juvenile centre’s clinic had not been operational for two years. Juvenile inmates who required medical attention, were referred to the centre’s main hospital.

5.4.6 The delegation found that the administration of medical parole applications may be posing a challenge: some inmates who appeared seriously ill claimed that their applications were not being processed, while others appeared to receive no assistance to ensure that applications were made on their behalf.

Hygiene services

5.4.7 The centre reported that it had a good relationship with the DOH who regularly conducted health and hygiene inspections.

5.4.8 The delegation learnt that the maximum juvenile section had not received any uniforms in at least two years, and that the unit, which admitted inmates practically on a daily basis, therefore could not meet inmates’ needs. Many inmates complained that they only had one uniform, and therefore had no change of clothing when that uniform had to be washed.

5.5. Social Reintegration

Parole Administration

5.5.1 The management area had only one CSPB, which comprised a chairperson, secretary and two community members. The vice chairperson position has been vacant since 2007, and the two administrative clerk-positions were also vacant. The Vice Chairperson-post had been advertised, but no interviews were conducted; and the area manager’s office were in the process of short-listing candidates to be interviewed for the administrative clerk posts. Despite the obvious staff shortages, the centre reported no CSPB backlogs.

5.5.2 The non-availability of SAP 69 and 62 documentation, the non-participation of the SAPS, DoJ&CD and the poor participation and availability of victims in parole sittings were identified as challenges.

5.5.3 Inmates complained of lack of knowledge of how the parole system operated, particularly how special remissions, and different sentencing regimes impacted on minimum sentence periods, as well as how parole for those serving life sentences was managed. They felt that CMCs and CSPBs should do more to inform inmates of the processes that affected them.

Community reintegration

5.5.4 Although Qalakabusha did not report any VODs, it did participate in crime awareness programmes that took place at four schools in the area.

5.5.5 In addition, the centre also reported that offenders had raised funds to buy school uniforms for learners at a local school, planted a vegetable garden at another, and maintained the grounds at two local clinics and a park.

5.5.6 Of major concern was that a large number of the juvenile inmates visited claimed that they had not received visits from family members for very long periods. Officials claimed that inmates had not complained about this before. Inmates were allowed two visits per month, and social workers tried to trace families where necessary.

5.6 Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

5.6.1 The centre management reported that it complied with all mandatory reporting requirements: all incidents involving the use of force, the use constraints, the segregation of inmates, as well as deaths were reported to the Inspecting Judge.

5.6.2 The centre was serviced by two ICCVs who, according to the presentation, visited the centre daily. The centre management further reported that it responded promptly to all ICCV enquiries. Inmates however indicated that the ICCVs were not visible, and that therefore it was not possible to approach them for assistance.

PART C: VISITS TO CENTRES IN THE FREE STATE/NORTHERN CAPE REGION

6. OVERVIEW OF THE KROONSTAD MANAGEMENT AREA

6.1 Corporate Services

6.1.1 The Harrismith Correctional Centre is situated in the Kroonstad management area, in the DCS’s Free State/Northern Cape management region. The management area comprises 14 correctional centres and 11 social reintegration offices. At the time of the visit 1 237 of the area’s staff establishment were filled.

6.2 Offender management

6.2.1 At the time of the visit the management area accommodated 4 430 offenders.

6.3 Parole Administration and Social Reintegration

6.3.1 At the time of the visit the management area had 189 probationers, and 225 parolees.

7 VISIT TO THE HARRISMITH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

7.1 Administration

Corporate Services & Financial Management

7.1.1 The centre had a funded staff establishment of 62 posts and at the time of the visit only three posts were vacant. Following the abolition of posts nationally, the centre’s funded posts were reduced, and at the time if the visit it was in the process of having its establishment re-evaluated to accommodate the staffing that would be required when its new kitchen, and security systems came into operation. The MTT referred to above would also review the DCS’s post establishment, and regional demarcations so as to ensure better allocation of resources.

7.1.2 In response to officials’ complaints about the centre’s shortage of uniforms, the area management explained that following the resignation of the official who had been responsible for supply chain management in 2012, a lack of experienced officials to manage the supply chain, has resulted in inadequate management of the inmate and official uniform stock. The officials had operated without any supervision, but the area and regional management would provide training, and stock would be replenished. It was explained that warehouses were managed nationally, and therefore the regions and areas could do little, other than submitting requests for uniforms.

7.1.3 Responding to officials’ concerns about the DCS’s failure to implement resolutions related to occupational specific dispensation (OSD), the regional management pointed out that unresolved challenges related to the OSD, as well as the shift system imposed, have been brought to the attention of the MTT.

7.1.4 The Centre reported that its corrections, and staff and operational support posts were not on the same level, and that this created challenges in terms of reporting and discipline. Centre coordinators should have a specific rank, higher than those they were supervising. Ideally they should all be at the rank of chief security officer. The Deputy Regional Commissioner confirmed that the MTT would address this challenge, which affected a number of centres, too.

7.1.5 In the 2013/14 financial year the centre received a budget of R17 ,3 million, of which 27,54%, 1,96% more than projected, had already been spent at the time of the visit.

7.1.6 The centre operated on a three-shift system. Day-duty started at 06h45 and ended at 16h00; first watch was from 15h45 to 23h30; and second watch from 23h15 to 07h00. Although some challenges were experienced owing to the staff shortage, the Regional Commissioner’s office indicated that a legal matter still pending at the time of the visit prevented the DCS’s head office from finalising matters related to the shift system.

7.1.7 The delegation observed that the relationship between the centre management and the officials working at the centre, was strained and raised concerns about the implications this held for security at the centre.

7.2. Incarceration

Security Operations

7.2.1 Seven offenders with further charges escaped from the centre in April 2013. At the time of the visit four of the escapees had already been recaptured. The SAPS was responsible for recapturing those who were still at large, and the investigating officer provided the centre’s management with weekly progress reports. The DCS’s internal investigation into the escape has been concluded, and resulted in the suspension of five officials on suspicion of collusion; disciplinary proceedings were underway at the time of the visit.

7.2.2 The centre reported that some officials had been implicated in breaches such as smuggling. Such officials took advantage of the weak security arrangements that had resulted form inadequate staffing.

7.2.3 The investigation into the above-mentioned escape had also revealed breaches in security systems and processes. These would be improved. Several measures were being put in place to prevent further escapes i.e. the fast-tracking of the security project that was underway at the time of the visit; emphasising the importance of complying with standard operating procedures among officials; and the transfer of high profile offenders to centres with better security.

7.2.4 The centre reported that 16 offender-on-offender assaults took place in 2012/13. In the first quarter of 2013/14 one such incident had been reported. One member-on-offender assault was reported internally, as well as to the SAPS. According to the centre management the matter was resolved when the inmate withdrew the allegation.

Offender Management

7.2.5 The centre accommodates medium-security adult and juvenile male sentenced offenders, and remand detainees. It had an approved accommodation of 255, and at the time the visit accommodated 301 offenders, 127 of whom were sentenced.

7.2.6 The centre accommodated 111 adult, and 16 juvenile male offenders whose offences ranged from economic crimes to aggressive and organised crimes.

7.2.7 That juvenile remand detainees accused of petty offences were accommodated with those accused of more serious offences, was of major concern. Similarly, repeat offenders were being incarcerated with first-time offenders. The fact that adult and juvenile remand detainees were incarcerated in the same unit was equally problematic. The centre confirmed that owing to shortage of space, it was not possible to adhere to legislative provisions governing the separation of inmates at all times.

7.2.8 The centre served a number of courts, and escorted an average of 15 remand detainees, and one sentenced offender to court on a daily basis. It was emphasised that escort duties, whether to court or to hospitals, placed further strain on the centre’s already over-stretched personnel.

Remand Detention

7.2.9 At the time of the visit the centre accommodated 174 remand detainees, 40 of whom were juveniles.

7.2.10 The centre reported that it accommodated two inmates who had been in remand for longer than two years. The centre management assured the delegation that all those who have been in detention for longer than two years, were awaiting sentencing, and that their trials had been concluded. The DCS regularly brought its report on inmates who have been in remand for longer than two years to the attention of the the DoJ&CD and the NPA, and the statistics were raised regularly at case flow management meetings. The DCS agreed that the absence of an integrated IT system was a disadvantage. Without such integration, the resolution of the challenges that contributed to unnecessarily long periods spent in remand, such as the fact that the SAPS and DoJ&CD categorised crime differently, was unlikely.

7.2.11 Thirty-four of the 174 inmates in remand at the time of the visit had bail that was set at R1 000 or less, but which they could not afford. The centre management pointed out that the centre’s social reintegration unit was not adequately capacitated to establish monitorable addresses for this category of remand detainee, and that therefore they could not be released, and monitored. Although the DCS was working with the NPA and DoJ&CD to manage this category of detainee, there were many challenges. The HCC agreed with the delegation’s observation that those most disadvantaged by bail criteria were accused persons who were poor and black.

7.2.12 Remand detainees complained that they did not receive adequate assistance from Legal Aid SA practitioners. As was the case at other remand detention centres visited, many indicated that practitioners did not visit centres, but that consultations often took place hurriedly just before they had to appear in court. Legal Aid SA representatives present acknowledged that each practitioner only had one consultation with their client per week, but whether this time was utilised efficiently, differed from practitioner to practitioner. The Legal Aid SA liaised with local schools to create awareness of its services in communities.

Facilities

7.2.13 The centre has been used for the incarceration of offenders since 1936. When it was first built in 1906 it was a fort, and during the Anglo-Boer War a concentration camp. It was a National Memorial Building, which placed limitations on the renovations that were possible at the centre.

7.2.14 At the time of the visit two major capital works projects were underway at the centre: a security fence and access gate were being installed along the perimeter; and the centre’s kitchen was being renovated. The projects cost approximately R30 million, and R15 million respectively.

7.2.15 The IDT who was responsible for the installation of the security fence confirmed that that the bowed, electrified fence, and sally port would vastly improve the centre’s perimeter security. They confirmed that the technology utilised in the project was South African. The officials who would operate the system would have to receive adequate training.

7.2.16 Members raised several concerns about the cost if the IDT-implemented project. These concerns were addressed in a meeting in September, during which the IDT, DPW, and DCS confirmed that the project would be completed on time, and within budget.

7.2.17 At the time of the visit the DCS was still awaiting the variation order which would allow them to construct a road that would ensure access to the newly constructed kitchen.

7.3 Rehabilitation

Correctional Programmes & Offender Development

7.3.1 Three officials had been trained to provide correctional and therapeutic interventions which included pre-release and anger management programmes.

7.3.2 Juvenile offenders visited indicated that many of them had not participated in any type of constructive activity since their incarceration.

7.3.3 The centre’s educationist post was abolished, and therefore the centre did not provide “full” education services. Offenders interested in attending school, were transferred to the Kroonstad Correctional Centre. Once the new kitchen has been completed the old kitchen would be converted to classrooms. The Regional Commissioner expected that given the centre’s new management, more would be done to increase the number of education programmes already available.

7.3.4 The Centre was also considering building a corrugated iron structure on the soccer field to be used for group sessions. A small storage room has been converted to a small library for inmates’ use.

Psychological, Social and Spiritual services

7.3.5 The centre did not have a social worker at the time of the visit. Although the post had been advertised, no indication could be provided as to when it would be filled. Although the Bethlehem Correctional Centre’s social worker visited the centre in the meantime, s/he could not visit as regularly as required. In serious cases inmates were transferred to centres that could meet their social work-services needs.

7.3.6 The centre did not have a psychologist, and inmates requiring psychological services were transferred to the Kroonstand Correctional Centre. Spiritual care services were provided by local spiritual leaders. According to the centre management, recreational activities such as board games, and choir practice were available to inmates.

7.4. Care

Nutrition services

7.4.1 The centre would soon have a new, modernised kitchen but at the time of the visit was still using its old one. Nine offenders worked in the kitchen, and as was the practice, those who had to work the first shift were accommodated in cells adjacent to the kitchens.

7.4.2 The centre reported that four of its six industrial cooking pots were out of order, and that the DPW had appointed a contractor to repair them.

7.4.3 The kitchen was cockroach-infested, and the DPW denied the kitchen manager’s claim that it was responsible for fumigation. The Area Commissioner’s office confirmed that the service fell within the DCS’s responsibility and delegation, and that the office was in the process of attending to the matter.

7.4.4 The centre had 1 ,5 hectares of land which was used for growing a variety of crops. More than 8 ,8 tons of vegetables were produced in 2012/13, and 740 kgs of vegetables in the first quarter of 2013/14. It was noted with concern that some of the land currently used for agricultural activity had been earmarked for use as a soccer field, and that new land would be prepared for agricultural activity.

Health services

7.4.5 The centre had two professional nurses, but did not have its own doctor. A sessional doctor visited it twice a month. An external dentist provided dental services.

7.4.6 The centre only had a sickbay, and no hospital or clinic. Inmates were referred to the Thebe and Manapo hospitals when necessary, and those suffering from infectious diseases were accommodated in single cells.

7.4.7 In the year preceding the visit, 25 inmates were screened for tuberculosis. Thirty-eight inmates were receiving anti-retroviral treatment. The centre was in the process of being accredited as a comprehensive treatment site, which would reduce the movement of inmates to external treatment sites. At the time of the visit, ARVs were provided by the DOH; upon its accreditation, they would be able to issue ARVs themselves. The centre management was confident that it was able to meet the needs of HIV-positive inmates. Many inmates had already defaulted on their treatment regimes by the time they reached the centre, especially if they had spent some time in police custody.

7.4.8 The allegation by an inmate who was on ARVs and was required to receive a special diet, that he had applied for such a diet, but had been informed that his family had to provide him with the appropriate meals, was refuted. The Centre’s medical head explained that when an inmate’s body mass index continued to decline despite him or her otherwise responding well to treatment, his diet had to be changed. Special diets were then arranged, and the affected inmates may also be provided with supplements. The inmate referred to above, had been advised that his family may provide him with foods not necessarily readily available at the centre (cheese, fuit, fruit juice etc) when they visited him at weekends.

7.4.9 The centre encouraged inmates over the age of 18 to consent to medical circumcisions, especially because it has proven to curb HIV infection. Only inmates older than 18 may be circumcised and the inmates were encouraged to inform their families that they would be undergoing the procedure. Fourteen offenders had voluntarily undergone such circumcisions in the 12 months preceding the visit. The DCS was cognisant of cultural practices around circumcision, and emphasised that no inmate was forced to undergo the procedure. Those who wished to observe cultural practices, could do so after their release.

Hygiene services

7.4.10 Inmates in the juvenile units visited indicated that they only had one set of clothing. The centre management confirmed that the situation which had lead to the shortage of official-uniforms mentioned under paragraph 7.1.2, also affected the availability of inmate-uniforms. The delegation was assured that remedial action was underway, and that in the meantime, uniforms would be sourced from the stores at the Bethlehem Correctional Centre. The area management confirmed that old offender uniforms were washed and re-used.

7.5. Social Reintegration

Parole Administration

7.5.1 The centre was served by the Kroonstad CSPB, which met once a month, and served 14 correctional centres. The CPSB had a chairperson, but its vice chairperson’s contract had expired in 2012, and since then he had been serving on a contract which was renewed quarterly. The CSPB had no secretary, and only one permanent community member. The second community member, like the vice chairperson was on a contract that was renewed quarterly. The many vacancies, and the fact that it had to serve all the centres in the area, placed considerable strain on the CSPB which had to travel long distances, which obviously impacted on the hours available for sittings. Community members were paid for 8 hours of work, which included any time spent travelling.

7.5.2 The CSPB confirmed that the absence of a dedicated social worker, presented a challenge, which if not managed, could impact on offenders’ parole consideration.

7.5.3 The non-participation of victims in parole hearings presented a challenge, but the SAPS, CMC and NGOs were collaborating in efforts to trace victims and/or their families.

Supervision

7.5.4 Two officials were responsible for monitoring the centre’s 53 parolees, and 13 probationers. No challenges were reported in this regard.

Community reintegration

7.5.5 Several inmates claimed that they had not received any visits from the families for long periods of time. This was of particular concern in the case of juvenile offenders, and those serving shorter sentences.

7.6 Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

7.6.1 The JICS refuted inmates’ claims that ICCVs did not visit the centre, arguing that they had proof that complaints were being recorded and attended to.

7.6.2 The JICS’s visitors’ committee sat in Bethlehem, and several stakeholders including Legal Aid SA attended its meetings. The JICS emphasised that at centres where stakeholders cooperated with each other, it was easier to resolve matters that were brought to the JICS’s attention. Despite the fact that a large number of complaints appeared to be related to the administration of parole, the CSPB reported that it was not represented at the JICS’s meetings. The JICS’s regional manager undertook to provide the CSPB with the dates of sittings so that they would be able to attend.

PART D: VISITS TO CENTRES IN THE WESTERN CAPE REGION

8. OVERVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN CAPE MANAGEMENT AREA

8.1 Corporate Services & Finance

8.1.1 The Oudtshoorn Female Correctional Centre is situated in the Southern Cape management area, of the DCS’ Western Cape region. The management area comprises four correctional centres.

8.1.2 The management area has a financed establishment of 976 posts, 958 of which were filled at the time of the visit. The area employed five educationists, nineteen social workers, two psychologists, and eighteen nurses.

8.1.3 The area management reported no labour-related challenges, and that the relationship between it and labour was sound. Regular labour forum meetings were held, and strike management committees have been established at both centre and area management level.

8.1.4 The area management reported that it had insufficient resources to attend to its various needs. The management of the area was further complicated by the fact that its centres were situated far from each other.

8.1.5 The shift system which dated back to 2003, was identified as a major challenge. The area commissioner expressed frustration that the DCS’s policies have not been reviewed to accommodate developments since 2003.

8.2 Inmate population

8.2.1 The management area could accommodate 1 700 and at the time of the visit accommodated 2 806 comprising 978 remand detainees, and 1 828 sentenced offenders. With the exception of the Uniondale, Prince Albert and Oudtshoorn Female centres, all correctional centres in the area were overcrowded.

8.2.2 The area commissioner expressed frustration that instead of preparing inmates for reintegration, correctional officials were constantly occupied with how to manage the high levels of overcrowding experienced in most of the regions.

8.3 Rehabilitation and Development

8.3.1 The DSD assisted with the provision of life skills programmes for remand detainees, but the area reported very little work opportunities for inmates.

8.3.2 The area reported ‘informal arrangements’ with the DBE aimed at improving the delivery of education services. The DBE had assisted as far as developing a standard paper for ABET level 4, visited the correctional centre schools in the area to monitor compliance; moderated schoolwork; trained invigilators and hosted training workshops for educators.

8.4 Health Care

8.4.1 The area reported that it accommodated 197 inmates who were HIV positive. Of this number, 102 inmates were receiving ARVs.

8.4.2 The area accommodated nine inmates suffering from mental illnesses.

8.4.3 The area management reported that it had a good working relationship with the DOH who provided tuberculosis and HIV/Aids-management training to the DCS’s nurses, performed medical circumcisions and provided dental service. The DCS-DOH relationship has been formalised in a service level agreement. The area’s health care professionals regularly attended workshops on new medical developments in their area of work.

8.5 Security operations

8.5.1 The area’s officials have received accredited training on how to perform evaluation drills, and on how to deliver emergency medical, fire and rescue services.

8.6 Parole Administration and Social Reintegration

8.6.1 The area had four community corrections offices, and was serviced by one CSPB.

8.6.2 The DSD provided assistance as far as victim participation in parole hearings, the preparation of probation reports, and the provision of support services to ex-offenders and parolees.

9 VISIT TO THE OUDTSHOORN FEMALE CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

9.1 Administration

Corporate Services, Finance & Management

9.1.1 The Centre has a financed post establishment of 32, comprising two management, fourteen security , fourteen support, one social worker, and one nursing position. All posts were filled at the time of the visit. The centre did not have an educator or psychologist, nor did the post establishment provide for such positions.

9.1.2 In the 2013/14 financial year the Centre received a budget of about R9 million, of which just over 50% had been spent by the time of the visit.

9.1.3 The area reported major challenges with regard to uniforms for officials. At the time of the visit it had been approximately three years since the last uniforms were issued to officials at the centre, and in some extreme cases officials at times had to report for duty in civilian clothes. In addition, uniforms were unisex and required tailoring.

9.1.4 The centre reported that while there were no challenges as far as the implementation of Phase 1 of the OSD, the implementation of Phase 2 presented challenges. Although a court had decided in favour of a labour union who had taken the DCS to court on the matter, the DCS had not yet implemented the decision.

9.2. Incarceration

Offender Management

9.2.1 The Centre could accommodate 78 inmates, and at the time of the visit accommodated 18 remand detainees, and 59 sentenced offenders. The centre had one case officer, who admitted inmates, and did assessments for the development of CSPs. All sentenced offenders had such plans.

9.2.2 At the time of the visit the centre’s mother and baby unit accommodated four inmates and their babies who were all approximately five months old. Their mothers were serving sentences ranging from 24 months for possession of narcotics, to eight years for culpable homicide. Although the centre had been advised that all mothers with babies should be transferred to the Pollsmoor centre, which had a fully equipped mother-and-baby unit, this had not been possible, as their families who were all very poor would not be able to travel to Cape Town to visit them. At the time of the visit the centre was in the process of converting a house on its premises to a mother-and-baby unit.

9.2.3 Although the centre tried to employ the unit management envisaged in the White Paper, the post establishment and shift system presented a challenge. The post establishment was too small to meet the requirements set out in the policy. In addition, the head office-imposed shift system made the delivery of structured day programmes practically impossible.

9.2.4 The shortage of security officers have resulted in case officers and case management supervisors having to perform security duties when necessary. The shortage of case officers in turn have resulted in security officers at times having to assess offenders, develop CSPs and present correctional programmes.

9.2.5 The area commissioner reported that the management of the offender population was sometimes complicated by language barriers. Most of the inmate spoke Afrikaans, and it was difficult to recruit Afrikaans-speaking officials.

Security Operations

9.2.6 The centre reported no security breaches, and very good cooperation between it and the SAPS who regularly assisted with certain operational matters, searching of officials and the speedy attendance to criminal matters. The SAPS also attended practice drills during which the total evacuation of the centre was required.

9.2.7 Although none were reported during the briefing session, the Centre confirmed that the SAPS’ Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences unit, assisted with the management and investigation of all sexual offences that were reported.

9.2.8 The delegation noted the high incidence of assault. The centre confirmed that homosexual inmates have been separated from the rest of the population, as their sexual orientation appeared to have contributed to the increase in assaults.

9.2.9 That the centre had no perimeter fence, which increased the risk of escape and other breaches, and also posed a risk to the surrounding communities, was of major concern.

Remand Detention

9.2.10 At the time of the visit the centre accommodated eighteen remand detainees. Of them, only one had bail, but as her family could not afford R300.00 the DCS could not release her. Another had a fine, but her address could not be verified, and therefore she could not be released.

9.2.11 The centre participated in the DoJ&CD’s quarterly case flow meetings, during which an integrated approach towards planning and service delivery was promoted and facilitated, and alternatives to incarceration advanced. The forum was especially useful in the management of overcrowding.

9.2.12 According to the presentation provided the relationship between the centre and Legal Aid SA was good, with legal services available to all remand detainees and sentenced offenders.

Facilities

9.2.13 The centre’s civil works facilities were outdated, and being a sandstone structure situated in a heritage building, infrastructural changes could not be made to it. The centre’s management had proposed two interim solutions i.e. the temporary transfer of inmates to the Oudtshoorn Medium Centre to attend programmes only, or their transfer to the special category unit at the Mossel Bay Correctional Centre, which would have to be accompanied by the transfer of officials so as to ensure that the inmate: official ratio at the centre remained within acceptable levels.

9.2.14 The DCS had indicated its intention to build a new 500-bed facility to accommodate 100 female offenders, which would have workshops and a bakery which would offer training opportunities to inmates. Although the construction of such a centre had been announced during one of the budget speeches by the previous Minister, no further developments have taken place since.

9.2.15 The infrastructure was not conducive to the unit management envisaged in the White Paper, nor did it allow for adequate work opportunities, or adequate recreation and education facilities.

9.2.16 During the tour of the facilities the delegation observed that the centre, which was on the town’s main road, had no dining hall; meals were served in the open in a taupe-covered area.

9.2.17 In the juvenile section visited, it was observed that only one of the three cells had ablution facilities. The cell was for use by disabled inmates, and all other inmates accommodated in the unit, had to use the single shower which was situated in a stall outside. At the time if the visit the unit accommodated two sentenced, and two unsentenced inmates. The DPW confirmed that a shower could be installed, but that it would have to be DCS-funded. The DPW indicated that the plumbing at the centre provided a challenge, and that the structure was inadequately ventilated. In its view, it would be better for the inmates to be accommodated in a more suitable facility.

9.3 Rehabilitation

Correctional Programmes & Offender Development

9.3.1 The centre offered the following programmes: pre-release, restorative justice, ‘New Beginnings’ and ‘Crossroads’. The centre offered ABET levels 1, 2 and 3 and indicated that 20 inmates were registered, and participating in classes. Fifteen offenders had participated in an agricultural course.

9.3.2 Work opportunities were limited, with preference given to inmates who were from far away, as their families were less likely to be able to provide them with the basic necessities.

9.3.3 The area’s post establishment provided for ten artisans and nine of those posts were filled at the time of the visit. Even had all ten posts been filled, the area would have insufficient artisans. The impact of the shortage was amplified by the fact that all artisans were stationed at the area office, and therefore had to cover long distances to attend to the needs of the centres in the area which were situated far apart. At the time of the visit the tenth post was in the process of being filled, but the appointment had to be halted owing to a equity court case that was underway.

Psychological, Social and Spiritual Services

9.3.4 The centre had one social worker who did not report any challenges as far as the provision of social work services. Despite this, the ICCV indicated that most of the complaints she received related to social work services.

9.3.5 The centre did not have its own psychologist, but was visited by one once a week. Inmates received needs-based individual and group-therapy sessions.

9.3.6 The centre had a small library, stocked with donated books which were issued out to inmates for seven-day periods at a time.

9.4 Care

Nutrition services

9.4.1 The centre had its own kitchen and therefore provided its own meals. Five inmates were working in the kitchen as cooks. Unfortunately, the centre had no dining area, and meals were served outside in a taupe-covered area.

Health services

9.4.2 The centre reported that it accommodated 27 HIV positive inmates, 12 of whom were receiving ARVs. The centre had a HIV-coordinator who provided services as required, as well as an HIV/AIDS support group. None of the inmates at the centre suffered from tuberculosis.

9.4.3 The centre reported that nine offenders suffered form mental health conditions, but that only one required treatment. The centre confirmed that most of the inmates with mental illnesses, were stable and could be accommodated with other inmates. Those who were not, could not simply be discharged, and the DCS had no choice but to accommodate them until a court ruled that they were ‘state patients’ who could be referred to mental health institutions if and when they could be accommodated.

9.4.4 The centre had one nurse who attended to the needs of 77 inmates. The centre did not have its own doctor, but was visited by one, once a week. A dentist visited once a month, or as required.

9.4.5 The centre did not have a hospital or a clinic that could accommodate patients; those who needed observation were referred to the local public hospital.

9.4.6 The centre management confirmed that the inmate to health practitioner ratio had not been adjusted to accommodate the addition of primary health care to the DCS’ services. At private hospitals and clinics, the patient to nurse ratio was 1:50. At DCS centres however, the ratio was still 1: 300.

Hygiene services

9.4.7 The centre had a laundry with one industrial washing machine and a tumble dryer. At the time of the visit four inmates worked in the laundry.

9.5. Social Reintegration

Parole Administration & Supervision

9.5.1 The centre was served by a roving CSPB whose chairperson confirmed that although it had to service the whole area, proper planning assisted them to do so.

9.5.2 At the time of the visit the CSPB had been without a vice chairperson for more or less two years. The position for the second member of the community had been advertised, but was still vacant.

9.5.3 The CSPB confirmed that it worked with the communities to track victims, and to raise awareness of parole. Monitoring however, was the responsibility of the DCS’ community corrections offices.

9.5.4 Commenting on the high number of violations, the chairperson of the CSPB indicated that because of the high unemployment rate, and because of the stigma associated with imprisonment, it was difficult for parolees to access jobs, and this meant that it was difficult for them to establish a structure to their days, which made it more likely for them to re-offend. In addition to the above the CSPB chairperson identified the alcohol abuse prevalent in the area, as the major contributor to parole violations.

9.5.5 The centre’s Community Corrections unit participated in the SAPS’ Rural Crime Prevention meetings. The DCS regularly met with the SAPS to be updated on crimes affecting their combined service areas, and to discuss any challenges that may have arisen in relation to offenders on the community corrections system. The SAPS also assisted as far as the tracing of parole violators, and absconders, and by providing extra monitoring of high risk cases in Oudtshoorn and the surrounding farming areas. The DHA also played a supporting role in tracing absconders.

9.5.6 The ICCV reported that most of those who had to be reincarcerated, were absconders, and suggested that monitoring and supervision was negatively affected by the community corrections’ inadequate facilities: a parolee without a monitorable address could be held at the community corrections offices for up to 48 hours to establish a new address, but because the offices did not have enough space, the inmates were simply sent back to the centre.

9.6 Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

9.6.1 Although the ICCV reported a good relationship with the centre, the delegation observed with concern that the JICS was not listed among the centre’s close partners.

10. OVERVIEW OF THE GOODWOOD MANAGEMENT AREA

The management area comprises the area commissioner’s office, one correctional centre and one community corrections office.

10.1 Corporate Services & Finance

10.1.1 The management area had a financed establishment of 508 posts, 10 of which were vacant at the time of the visit. At the time of the visit the area employed five educationists, nineteen social workers, two psychologists, and eighteen nurses.

10.1.2 The are reported 17 grievances, 57 disciplinary transgressions, one suspension and one dismissal in the twelve months preceding the visit. An information and training session on absenteeism, fraud, corruption and grievance management was held in June 2013. The area management reported no labour-related challenges. Regular labour forum meetings were held, and strike management committees had been established at both centre and area management level.

10.2 Offender management

10.2.1 It was pointed out that between 2005 and 2013 the SAPS’s capacity had greatly increased, which resulted in an increase in arrests and convictions, which in turn meant more incarcerations. In contrast the DCS’s establishment had decreased quite dramatically in the same period. Although the matter was being attended to nationally, and with National Treasury’s assistance, progress was slow, and consequently working conditions remained extremely trying. A concern was raised that given the austerity measures recommended and imposed by National Treasury, the DCS would not have the budget to employ more officials. The management area could accommodate 1 700 inmates but at the time of the visit accommodated 2 806 comprising 978 remand detainees, and 1 828 sentenced offenders.

11 VISIT TO THE GOODWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE

11.1 Administration

Corporate Services, Finance & Management

11.1.1 The centre reported challenges similar to those faced by other centres i.e. insufficient staff, the inappropriate shift system, and overcrowding.

11.2 Incarceration

Offender Management

11.2.1 The centre accommodated male adult inmates only, and was an admissions centre that served the Goodwood, Bishop Lavis, Parow, Bellville feeder courts, as well as the Cape Town High Court.

11.2.2 The centre was a medium security institution, that could accommodate 2 115 inmates, but at the time of the visit accommodated 1 414 remand detainees, and 1 238 sentenced offenders. All sentenced offenders had CSPs.

11.2.3 The centre’s staff shortage, and the fact that its intake-rate exceeded its release/discharge rate, made adequate management of the population, and 100% compliance with service delivery-requirements and legislation, very difficult.

11.2.4 As the centre had been designed to accommodate remand detainees, it did not have the facilities to accommodate high profile inmates. At the time of the visit this category of inmate was accommodate in the single cells in the hospital unit.

11.2.5 Inmates complained that the admission process was poor, and that they received little information with regard to the centre, their rights and privileges, and what would be required of them while incarcerated.

Security Operations

11.2.6 The centre reported 127 offender-on-offender, three offender-on-official and three official-on-offender assaults in the 12 months preceding the visit. Two rape cases, and one suicide were reported in the same period.

11.2.7 Smuggling too presented a major challenge, and the 12 months before the visit one firearm and ammunition, 208 cellphones and 15,732kg of dagga (in 98 separate incidents) were found during searches. An official who had been found guilty of drug smuggling, was dismissed a week before the visits. The centre confirmed that any sim cards and cellphones found in the centre, were sent to the National Intelligence Agency for analysis. Smuggling was most common at night time when the centre’s staff is at its lowest.

11.2.8 The gang activity at the centre was amongst one of its biggest challenges. The gangs prevalent at the centre were not the usual number gangs, but were influenced by the gangs operating outside of the centre, and this made it even harder to devise strategies for managing their activity. The high gang activity, contributed to the high incidence of assault. The centre was one of four centres (Brandvlei, Pollsmoor, Drakenstein ) in the region that had dedicated gang management teams, and its officials received regular training on gang culture.

11.2.9 The delegation visited one of the centre’s two control rooms, which were part of what was provided when the centre was built. When the control room operators had to attend training it was left unattended. The centre’s access gates have not been working since 2012.

11.2.10 The centre did not have an adequate boundary fence, and was accessible via the N1. In addition, the areas around officials’ accommodation, was surrounded by informal housing. This meant that it experienced challenges as far as the control of movement in and out of the centre. This security weakness contributed to the smuggling prevalent at the centre. The Ministry was aware of the challenges, and risks with regard to access control and fencing.

Remand Detention

11.2.11 Remand detainees raised several complaints about Legal Aid SA’s services in particular the fact that they did not consult with their clients, and that despite having admitted guilt, their sentencing being unnecessarily delayed.

11.2.12 Legal Aid SA reiterated that it had one practitioner per courtroom, who had to attend court for four days, and had to consult on the fifth day. The NPA had two prosecutors per court, and although all the Legal Aid SA’s posts were filled, they too were under-resourced. They had a consultation strategy whereby practitioners had to meet with their clients before they went to court, i.e. when the cases were court ready. The Legal Aid SA held a clinic once per month where general queries were responded too. The JICS’ ICCV played a very supportive role in this regard, in that he usually provided the practitioners with a list of areas that should be targeted during the sessions.

11.2.13 Remand detainees raised several concerns about the manner in which the Belville, Parrow, Bishop Lavis and especially Goodwood magistrate courts dealt with cases: bail was often set too high, there were too many postponements even in petty crime cases, and racism.

11.2.14 The DCS explained that the Correctional Services Amendment legislation required that remand detainees could spend a certain number of days in the SAPS’ care before being transferred to DCS facilities. That this did not happen placed additional strain on the centre’s already overstretched resources. The possibility of shifting funds when new functions were assigned, has been discussed at cluster level.

11.2.15 The DCS assessed those inmates who have been on remand for long periods on a monthly basis. The DCS hastened to add that compared to other regions it fared better in terms of the management of the remand detainee population, in part owing to cooperation between justice cluster role-players.

11.2.16 At Goodwood there were two officials who worked with all new bail cases attempting to locate their families, or facilitate their release. All of the inmates, who had bail, have been to court to sensitise the courts to their circumstances.

Facilities

11.2.17 The centre management reported that its infrastructure made it impossible for the facility to humanely accommodate beyond its capacity. The centre could not accommodate double bunks, and therefore those inmates who did not have beds, were forced to sleep on makeshift beds, on the floor. This was confirmed during the site visits to overcrowded cells.

11.2.18 The delegation was impressed by the manner in which the centre managed visits. Since establishing it two years earlier, the centre has been managing visits to inmates through a call centre. Visitors booked their visits in advance. The system assisted with the management of gang activity in that officials knew who would visit in advance. In addition it ensured that as the centre did not have a waiting area, visits could be managed to ensure the minimum waiting period. The centre marketed the call centre on community radio stations.

11.2.19 Despite the overcrowding experienced, the delegation was impressed by the cleanliness, and the fact that few if any maintenance challenges had been identified.

11.2.20 The DPW explained that the centre fell within what was referred to as the ‘green belt’ and that the land adjacent belonged to the local municipality. Negotiations to acquire the adjacent land, so as to improve security, had been on going for fifteen years, and therefore it has not possible to erect a perimeter fence.

11.3 Rehabilitation

Correctional Programmes & Offender Development

11.3.1 At the time of the visit 801 sentenced offenders had CSPs. A number of correctional programmes, including substance abuse management, restorative justice, behaviour modification and pre-release programmes were offered.

11.3.2 The centre faced a serious challenge in terms of infrastructure, and human resources for schooling. The centre was not built with a school. At the time of the visit, the centre had five educators, and a number of student facilitators. The lack of resources meant that the centre was unable to run the types of programmes it was meant to run in order to meet inmates’ needs. To successfully run a correctional centre school one needed educators as well as security personnel. The centre had too few of both.

11.3.3 The above-mentioned educators and tutors attended to the needs of the 154 ABET level 1-4 learners, 44 correspondence students, and 17 learners sponsored by Oxbridge Academy. The centre had identified 386 learners who were eligible for ABET enrolment, but could unfortunately only accommodate the 154 referred to above. Those pursuing their senior certificates complained that they struggled to access study materials.

11.3.4 The centre had a small but well-equipped library that doubled as an art and recreation room. Inmates were trained to work in the library as facilitators. The centre borrowed some books from the provincial and city libraries; others were donated. Inmates visited the library once per week, and could borrow books for up to seven days. The delegation was impressed by a project whereby inmates used old newspapers and plastic to make ‘sleeping bags’ that were distributed to the homeless.

11.3.5 The centre did not have workshops, and therefore the centre used the space near the laundry as a small sewing class. The offenders working in the mess received training in cooking. In 2012 the National Skills Fund funded welding courses.

11.3.6 The centre management confirmed that inmates preferred practical courses, but that very few such courses, and job opportunities were available to them at the centre. Inmates mainly worked in the kitchen, mess and maintenance workshop, and as cleaners. Only those who worked in the kitchen received accredited training.

11.3.7 Serious concern was raised about the difficulties inmates were experiencing as far as applying for the identity documents needed to participate in educational programmes.

Psychological, Social and Spiritual services

11.3.8 Inmates were provided with psychological and social work services, but the centre only had two psychologists and two social workers. A private psychiatrist visited the centre every month. Inmates were also provided with spiritual care services, and sport, recreation, art and culture activities.

11.4 Care

Nutrition services

11.4.1 The centre had its own state of the art kitchen which it managed and operated itself. The kitchen was upgraded in October 2012, as part of the region’s kitchen 2012/13 renovation project (25 kitchens benefitted from it, and at the time of the visit two more centres had to be completed), and was staffed by 49 offenders, and 8 officials. All meals were prepared, and distributed from there. The kitchen manager confirmed that inmates working in the kitchen received accredited training. Fifteen inmates received accreditation in 2012.

11.4.2 The centre provided 8 000 meals per day, approximately 380 of which were therapeutic meals for inmates with special dietary requirements. At R12 ,50 per ordinary meal, and R17,50 per therapeutic meal, the centre spent approximately R409 per inmate per month. Meat, milk, fruit and vegetables were procured from other centres in the region.

11.4.3 The centre did not have its own bakery, and inmates consumed approximately 1 000 loaves of bread per day. The kitchen manager indicated that the staff working in the kitchen would be able to manage a bakery should one be built at the centre.

11.4.4 The centre management reported that providing meals as required by section 8(5) of the CSA i.e. providing well-prepare meals at intervals of not less than four and a half hours and not more than six and a half hours (but allowing for 14 hours between dinner and breakfast), presented a challenge.

11.4.5 The centre was one of the few centres that did not have agricultural activity. The Western Cape had five correctional centre farms in Overberg, Drakenstein, Pollsmoor, Voorberg and Brandvlei. These centres supplied food to most centres, and the only time the Goodwood centre bought food was when they did not produce something, or when the stock was short. It was pointed out that although centres were provided with food, the productivity of correctional centre farms was affected by the availability of staff, and inmates that were classified to participate in work teams.

Health services

11.4.6 The centre had 10 nursing posts, of which 8 were filled at the time of the visit. The two remaining posts had been vacant since February and April 2013 respectively. At this centre too, the delegation was informed that even if all the posts were filled, the post establishment did not make sufficient provision to meet the centre’s health care needs. A doctor visited the centre three times a week, and although the demand for dental care was great, the dentist could only visit the centre once a week. The DOH was unable to assist, as it too was short-staffed.

11.4.7 Health risk assessments were done on admission, and the centre screened all new admissions, as well as those released, for tuberculosis. The centre’s hospital and reception unit were fitted with Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI) units that emitted bacteria-killing rays, and served as a further barrier against the spread of tuberculosis.

11.4.8 The centre had a 62-bed sickbay, but no pharmacy. Pharmaceutical services were provided by the Pollsmoor Management Area, and in the event of emergencies for which the centre’s emergency medication and equipment could not be used, services were procured from a private pharmacy.

11.4.9 At the time of the visit, the centre accommodated six seriously ill inmates in the sickbay which was being used to care for those needing palliative care. The patients received care from a care-giver, and a volunteer care-giver. An inmate had passed away a day before the visit; the centre had applied for medical parole for him, but he passed away before the outcome had been made known.

11.4.10 One of the challenges reported by nursing staff was that some of the schedule 5 drugs received from Pollsmoor had no expiry date, which made it impossible to use it.

Hygiene services

11.4.11 The centre was among the most well maintained, and run facilities visited by the committee during its tenure.

11.5. Social Reintegration

Parole Administration & Supervision

11.5.1 All positions on the CSPB except that of the clerk were filled. The CSPB chairperson pointed out that if more could be done to start interventions very shortly after inmates were admitted, more inmates could be considered for parole.

Supervision

11.5.2 The Bellville Community corrections had a caseload of 1 442, that were monitored by only 42 officials. They were also responsible for were 846 parolees, 493 probationers, and 103 persons who were awaiting trial.

11.6 Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

11.6.1 The inmates that attended school raised several complaints ranging from unattended transfer requests to request for information related to their parole consideration. Many confirmed that the ICCVs visited the centre daily, but that those attending school often did not meet with them. It was suggested that they also visited the school so as to ensure that those inmates could raise their concerns too.

PART E: RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee requests that the Minister of Correctional Services (the Minister) ensures that the following recommendations are considered, and where possible, implemented.

1. Administration

1.1 Corporate Services

1.1.1 Paragraph 8.4 of the White Paper on Corrections identified the “poor recognition of the strategic role played by frontline employees or those employees at the point of delivery” as one of the indicators of “an ineffective departmental organisational culture”. Despite the policy having been in existence for almost 10 years, practically all interactions with centre-level staff revealed deep-seated dissatisfaction with the DCS as an employer. As illustrated above complaints range from the DCS’s failure to provide uniforms, to extremely serious allegations of abuse of power by centre-level, area, regional and national management. Of similar concern is the DCS’s apparent disregard for the impact the staff shortages, and often impractical shift systems, have had on officials’ safety and security.

1.1.2 The Committee welcomes the Ministerial Task Team (MTT) that was established early in 2013 to find mutually agreed upon solutions to the human resource-related challenges that have plagued the DCS, and are well-documented in the Committee’s previous reports. However it is concerned about the lack of detail available with regard to progress made to date, and the absence of implementation plans for those matters that have reportedly been resolved. Given its history of non-implementation, or long delays in the implementation of for example court decisions in favour of employees, the Committee is concerned about the DCS’s commitment to resolving the challenges identified. The Committee fears that in the absence of agreements formalising them, the decisions taken by the MTT might not be implemented.

1.1.3 The above-mentioned concerns are intensified by the DCS’s high staff turnover at its senior management level, and the impact this has had on leadership stability. At the time of reporting, and despite commitments to fill critical vacancies by January 2014, a key deputy director general-, the chief financial officer-, and the national commissioner-posts were vacant. The CFO and Chief Deputy Commissioner: Strategic Management posts had at the time of reporting been vacant for longer than 12 months. Between 2009 and 2013 the DCS pursued several initiatives which were aimed at, for example, establishing appropriate conditions of incarceration for women offenders, the establishment of a DCS trading entity, the implementation of a more efficient organisational structure, and better asset management and internal controls. The Committee has however noted with concern that many of these initiatives appeared to have been abandoned when the individuals who had driven them left office. The DCS should ensure that all activities undertaken are aligned to what is contained in its strategic and annual performance plans.

1.1.4 The DCS should provide the Committee with a report confirming the scope and terms of reference of the MTT’s activities, the detail of those matters that had been agreed to, as well as implementation plans clearly defining targets, deadlines and those responsible for delivery. In addition, the Committee should be provided with timeframes indicating when the remaining matters are expected to be resolved, as well as a list of those matters that required interventions by stakeholders other than the DCS and labour organisations.

2. Incarceration

2.1 Facilities

2.1.1 Paragraph 5.1.1 of the White Paper on Corrections states that offender management is based on “the principles of restoration or corrections, unit management, and secure, safe and humane custody and supervision”. The vast majority of the centres visited dated back to the Apartheid-era, and therefore infrastructure made adherence to the above-mentioned principles impossible. Where the infrastructure was built after 1994, the escalating inmate population, and staff shortages have frustrated efforts to manage the inmate population.

2.1.2 The Committee’s concerns about the DCS and DPW’s working relationship remain, and although a service level agreement has been signed, there appeared to be little improvement in the DPW’s ability to respond to the DCS’s needs. While the Committee acknowledges that slow progress in addressing major maintenance work was beyond the DCS’s control, it does feel that more should be done to ensure that centre managers responded better to minor maintenance needs. Centre managers should ensure that all officials understood which needs could be registered with the DPW, and which fell within centres’ own responsibilities, and should ensure that minor maintenance needs are addressed with the necessary urgency.

2.1.3 The Committee has consistently highlighted and remains concerned about the impact continued weaknesses in the DPW tender processes, and project management has had on projects. The DPW’s failure to appoint qualified contractors, and to manage projects in such a manner that potential risks were identified early, have resulted in already p oor conditions of incarceration, becoming worse. The Committee advises that, as inmate-labour was being utilised in large construction and maintenance projects forming part of the DCS’s community outreach efforts, alternatives to the DPW being solely responsible for major repair and maintenance projects could be explored.

2.2 Offender management

2.2.1 It should be emphasised that adequately explaining how a correctional centre, and the correctional system works, is not merely a courtesy to inmates, but an essential component of managing the inmate population, through managing inmates’ expectations. Practically all inmates interacted with complained that they received little orientation upon admission, and that they struggled to access information. This was confirmed by the number of enquiries the Committee receives almost daily, and which appeared to be the result of poor access to information. The DCS should utilise all its available human and other resources to ensure that information related to inmates’ rights and responsibilities while in incarceration was made available in easily accessible formats, not only at admission but at all times. Information should also be disseminated to those visiting inmates.

2.2.2 The Committee once again notes the negative impact inadequate infrastructure, and overcrowding have on efforts to separate different categories of offenders. While the Committee acknowledges that inmates should ideally be accommodated at centres that would allow regular visits from those in their support structure, it was of greater importance that inmates should be accommodated at centres and in environments that maximise the chances for rehabilitation. This was particularly relevant in the case of juvenile and youth offenders, and those incarcerated for the first time. More should be done to explore the possibility of all youth and juvenile offenders being accommodated at dedicated youth centres specialising in the rehabilitation of juvenile offending behaviour, and that alternative ways of ensuring communication with their families be explored for those who would be accommodated too far to allow regular visits.

2.3 Remand Detention

2.3.1 All inmates complained about the services provided by Legal Aid SA. Although Legal Aid SA had during previous interactions vehemently denied allegations of poor service delivery, the Committee does feel that the volume of complaints received at every visit, suggests that there were some challenges in the manner in which services were being delivered. The DCS and Legal Aid SA should collaborate to ensure that consultation times were maximised. General information about legal processes should be made accessible in the form of pamphlets, posters etc.

2.3.2 As indicated in previous reports, the Committee remains concerned about the large number of detainees who could not be released because they could not afford the bail set by courts, did not have formal addresses that would allow monitoring, or who have committed petty offences and have not been granted bail. While the Committee does not believe that poverty necessarily leads to crime, the link between unemployment, poverty and crime could not be denied. The Committee accepts that repeat-offending impacted on decision to grant bail, but believes that more should be done to, especially in the case of those who have repeatedly committed petty offences, collaborate with the DSD and non-governmental and community-based organisations to address the circumstances that resulted in socio-economic offences.

2.4 Security operations

2.4.1 The correctional environment should be safe for both inmates, and the officials working in correctional centres. In Paragraph 5.4.5 of the White Paper on Corrections the DCS acknowledges that because correctional centres operated within a “closed” system, they were more vulnerable to abuses of authority. Although the nature of the environment necessitated its occasional use, the use of force should be governed by clear and transparent procedures, and should only be resorted to “when order has completely broken down”. The security breaches reported, specifically those in which officials have been implicated, were of serious concern. They point not only to centre-level officials’ failure to understand their roles and the limitations to their powers, but also to the culture of ignoring, or inappropriately responding to blatant abuses of power. The DCS’s staff shortages and inappropriate shift systems led to increased opportunities to abuse authority, and increased security breaches. These placed both officials and inmates at risk.

2.4.2 The numerous allegations of violence, assault, failure to act when inmates’ safety was in danger, and other abuses of power by officials illustrate just how vulnerable the entire inmate population, and those working within correctional centres became when officials were not vetted, and adequately assessed and/or trained to ensure their suitability to work in the correctional environment. The DCS and National Intelligence Agency (NIA) should urgently pursue solutions to the challenges impeding efforts to vet officials.

2.4.3 Ensuring that centres were adequately staffed, that shift-patterns were appropriate, and that abuses of power were decisively acted on, would go along way towards preventing breaches of security, and ensuring the safety and security of both inmates and officials. The DCS should prioritise processes underway to review its post establishment. The DCS should also establish what interventions were needed to address centre-level staff-shortages. This process should be accompanied by improved and more efficient recruitment practices, and overall better management of its profile/image as an employer.

3. Rehabilitation

3.1 Correctional Programmes

3.1.1 Officials at several centres reported that most, if not all inmates, had correctional sentence plans. The Committee is concerned however that while each offender may be in possession of a plan addressing his or her offending behaviour, the shortage of educators, security personnel, social workers, psychologists and artisans made it impossible to implement the interventions . The quality of the interventions was drawn into question, as some centres reported that security personnel have had to compile the plans where no professionals were available to do so. The above-mentioned illustrated the DCS’s inefficient utilisation of already over-stretched centre-based resources .

3.1.2 It should also be noted that developing correctional sentence plans , created legitimate expectations among inmates that the interventions would be implemented, and that they would therefore be meeting some of the requirements for , firstly reclassification, and secondly parole.

3.1.3 The DCS should perform an audit of the impact correctional sentence plans have had on its rehabilitation efforts. Should their impact be negligible, alternative means of facilitating rehabilitation should be explored, with only specific categories of offenders being targeted for expert interventions.

3.2 Offender Development

3.2.1 Maximum security offenders across centres registered their frustration at not being allowed to participate in work activities. Given the poor delivery of rehabilitation programmes and psychological services, and given the trauma associated with imprisonment, it is essential that those facing long periods of incarceration are kept meaningfully occupied, so as to focus their attention on something other than their immediate circumstances. The Committee is not ignorant of, or insensitive to the security risk some maximum offenders may pose, but believes that experienced and well-trained correctional officials should be able to devise means by which all offenders could participate in some sort of constructive daily activity .

3.2.2 Very few formal education services were available to women offenders who generally, the delegation was informed, chose not to participate in educational programmes. Given that the female offender population is much smaller than the male population, it should be possible to ensure that all women offenders completed their schooling, or enrolled for further education and training, and higher education programmes.

3.2.3 Although many women participated in some skills development programmes, there was a need to ensure that the projects available to them were expanded to include skills training usually available to male offenders only i.e. wood- and metal workshops, plumbing, etc.

3.3 Psychological, Social and Spiritual services

3.3.1 Given the DCS’s inability to attract psychologists and nurses, it is again recommended that psychological services be prioritised for those inmates particularly traumatised by their incarceration, and for those who have committed serious crimes, and that alternative means of ensuring the psychological well-being of other categories of offenders be explored.

4 Care

4.1 Nutrition, Health and Hygiene services

4.4.1 Although the Committee had in recent months questioned the appropriateness of the DCS being responsible for the provision of health care services to those in its care, it does not dispute the DCS’s responsibility to provide conditions that promote the well-being of inmates (Paragraph 159, White Paper on Corrections).

4.4.2 As per our 2012 recommendation, the DCS should provide the Committee with an update on efforts to allow auxiliary nurses to serve at correctional centres. Of interest also, is how existing and/or planned service level agreements between the DCS and DOH will address inmates’ health care needs.

4.4.3 The DCS should perform an audit to establish how many inmates in its care may qualify for medical parole, and/or diversion to mental health care institutions.

5. Social Reintegration

5.1 Parole Administration and Supervision

5.1.1 As was observed during previous visits, most queries related to case management and parole administration. Despite previous recommendations in this regard, most inmates still appear ignorant about the parole process. Upon admission, all sentenced offenders are provided with a booklet providing general information about parole. To the Committee’s knowledge the information is available only in English. The Committee recommends that the booklet be simplified, and that in addition to it, each inmate should be provided with the information relevant to his or her specific sentence. The information should be provided in accessible language, and those charged with admission should ensure that the process is explained to illiterate offenders.

5.1.2 As requested in May 2012, the DCS should perform an audit of all those in their facilities sentenced before 1 October 2004, and eligible for parole consideration after having served a third of their sentence, as well as of all those who have been affected by the Van Vuuren, and Van Wyk judgments.

5.1.3 The parole applications of those serving life sentences were considered by the Minister, in consultation with the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS). The Committee should be provided with a report on the number of cases considered between 2009 and 2013, and on the challenges identified during their consideration.

6. Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services

6.1 ICCV system

6.1.1 Although the JICS officials interacted with maintained that they visited centres regularly and as required, the Committee remains concerned about the effectiveness of the ICCV-system. The system should be reviewed, and focus should be on utilsing ICCVs to create awareness of conditions of incarceration, and inmate-rights and -responsibilities.

6.1.2 In the Committee’s experience, and judging from feedback received from inmates and their families, the JICS faced serious challenges as far as its response to, and ability to resolve complaints referred to it. The JICS’s complaints processes required a radical overhaul that would allow for far greater monitoring and control.

6.2 Inspections

6.2.1 While it does not question the need for, and potential value of independent inspections, the Committee does not believe that the JICS was sufficiently focussed on ensuring that the recommendations emanating from their inspections were publicised, and were given the required attention by the offices the JICS was obliged to report to.

6.3 Strengthening of the JICS

6.3.1 The power imbalance between the JICS and DCS, and by extension between the ICCVs and correctional centre officials, remain a cause for serious concern as it impedes the JICS’s effectiveness as an oversight body. The Committee will shortly table its report on how the JICS may be strengthened, and therfore recommendations to that effect, are not included in this report.

PART F: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Committee expresses its appreciation to the regional management, and especially the management and staff at the correctional centres visited, for their co-operation during our visits.