Department of Correctional Services further responses to Committee's questions around accountability, management and non-compliance with policies and procedures

Correctional Services

13 April 2010
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A presentation was given by Just Detention International and Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation on the work done, firstly, in the United States of America to reduce and address rape in detention centres there, and in South Africa, where the organisations had, firstly through research, and secondly through piloting aspects in correctional centres, built up some expertise on how to deal with the challenge of sexual violence in correctional facilities. The two organisations had also worked extensively with the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) as well with the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services. Just Detention International had proposed a framework to the DCS head office, which would put in place a structured intervention, instead of policies alone, to address sexual abuse in correctional centres. Awareness raising workshops and training of officials had also been undertaken.  A task team had been formed about six months previously, to prepare a draft framework, and in the course of the past week it was agreed that this would be further refined and tested at a facility, until it was ready for final presentation to the Commissioner and Minister. Members asked question about gangs and how they became so powerful in prison, the reasons why officials turned a blind eye while some inmates were being assaulted by other inmates, and why rape statistics were not recorded separately, but were incorporated under assault statistics. Members suggested management interventions that could have an immediate impact on rape in correctional centres, including profiling new arrivals in the prison system and identifying vulnerable candidates and keeping them separately. Members also suggested surveillance during lockup as a means of preventing inmate rape, and indicated that the human rights implications of this needed further discussion.

Dr Jenny Schreiner, Acting National Commissioner, then reported back on a number of issues raised during a meeting with the Committee on 17 February 2010.The issues ranged from dress code in the department, to misconduct, its investigation and the decision management would have to take after establishing what had happened, to the 7- day establishment and the changes that was necessary to implement it. It touched on the two by twelve hour shift system and different aspect of implementing the White Paper. It included the process of monitoring Correctional centers for compliance in terms of the Act and the reasons why inmates were transferred. The position of child inmates and the compliance with the Child Justice Act was also mentioned. Members indicated their appreciation of the full and frank input. They cited a number of instances involving different centres, and raised questions around the conditions there. They were concerned about children still being held in correctional centres, particularly where they were unable to afford bail. They questioned the safety of female staff, particularly in maximum security male correctional centres, wanted an explanation from DCS as to why a woman was placed in a male prison six years previously, which had never been addressed by the Department. They also questioned why juveniles were wearing the same uniforms as adult inmates, and the facilities that were available.

Meeting report

Sexual Violence in men’s correctional centres in South Africa: Just Detention International Submission
Ms Cynthia Totten, Programme Director, Just Detention International, noted that Just Detention International was a human rights organisation based in Washington DC in the United States of America (USA). Just Detention had been working in American prisons for many years where sexual violence was prevalent, and had also been working in South African correctional centres, building up some expertise on how to deal with the challenge of sexual violence in correctional facilities. Just Detention had worked with the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) as well with the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services (JICS), and felt it important to inform the Committee how all stakeholders and Just Detention could work collaboratively to tackle the challenge of sexual violence in prisons.

Just Detention had an advocacy campaign for addressing sexual abuse and violence in USA prisons, which was rampant, with about 100 000 cases being reported per year, involving men, women and children. Just Detention International had developed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which was passed in Congress in 2003. This called for development of statistics to prove the incidence and characteristics of sexual abuse in detention, called for hearings and developed national mandatory standards addressing the prevention, detection of, response to, and ongoing monitoring of sexual abuse in detention. It therefore created an environment which allowed officials and society to address the scourge of sexual violence in USA detention facilities. The standards developed under the Act were presently awaiting review and should be Act was before the US Attorney General Eric Holder, awaiting review. It should be finalised and become law within the next year.

Ms Totten, together with Ms Sasha Gear, Senior Researcher at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, in collaboration with DCS, worked in South African correctional centres, consulting with officials and staff on their day to day challenges, and training staff at a number of centres on the prevention of sexual abuse, by instilling greater awareness and use of existing Regulations to the Correctional Services Act, and the White Paper on the Sexual Offences Act, to prevent sexual abuse in prisons. She noted that Just Detention International proposed a framework to DCS, which would put in place a structured initiative, instead of mere policies, to take the fight against sexual abuse in correctional centres to the next level.

Ms Sasha Gear, Senior Researcher for the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, a non-government organisation in existence for more than 20 years, delivered the second part of the presentation. The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) aimed to prevent violence, to heal its effects and to build sustainable peace, through research, interventions and advocacy. Penal reform work had been a consistent feature of the work of CSVR and its work on sexual violence in prisons started in 2001. Initially, this mainly took the form of research, and publications by CSVR were available. However, more recently, the work included awareness-raising workshops and the training of officials and staff, often in collaboration with Just Detention International. (See attached document for more details).

Ms Totten noted that the DCS had worked very hard to put the issue of sexual abuse in prisons on the agenda. In 2008 there was a day long session that was held to highlight sexual offences and sexual abuse in DCS centres. The DCS had prepared a thematic statement on what some of the causes were and its findings on the matter. Since then, the collaboration with DCS resulted in many training sessions for DCS staff and officials at a number of facilities on awareness and prevention of sexual violence in prisons. Staff and officials had approached Just Detention International and CSVR for practical advice on how best to address sexual abuse in their facilities. More recently there had been discussions at DCS head office to see how the DCS could address the issue more comprehensively with the implementation of policies and with the improvement of existing policies and the Regulations under the Correctional Services Act. About six months ago a task team was formed, under the guidance of Dr Laurinda Bergh, who, together with Ms Gear, was to prepare a draft framework. This included the basic principle that there should be implementation of an explicit zero tolerance policy and approach towards sexual abuse in prisons. Training should be provided to staff on sexual abuse awareness, and this should become part of the ongoing training that was already taking place.

During the past week, Ms Totten, Ms Gear, Dr Bergh and Mr Hendrik Steyn, involved in Security, met to discuss the future initiatives. This team, with other experts working in related fields, would reexamine the draft framework already developed, break it down and look at how it could be applied, then test it at a correctional centre in real life. It would be refined before being presented to the Commissioner and Minister of Correctional Services.

Discussion
The Chairperson picked up on a few points in the presentation that he wanted the DCS to respond to. In the first instance he wanted to know whether it was true that there was a policy vacuum regarding sexual violence in prison and what was DCS doing about it.

Dr Jenny Schreiner, Acting National Commissioner of Correctional Services, said that Ms Gear had done research in the DCS in 2001 which was presented to the then-Portfolio Committee in 2002. This showed that the DCS had been a partner in the campaign against sexual violence in prison for a period of time. She said it was not entirely true to say that there was a policy vacuum, as there were procedures in place. The Sexual Offences Act empowered the Department more than it had been at the time when Ms Gear did her research, before this Act was in place. There were incident reporting procedures in place. Heads of centres had to report up their command line, must see that medical procedures were put in place, and that criminal actions were reported to the South African Police Service (SAPS). The Commissioner convened the Anti-Rape Roundtable in 2008, with the intention of identifying the gaps and weaknesses. The task-team refining the policy framework was part of the work being done to lift the bar.

The Chairperson wanted to know why rape was categorised as assault in prison statistics.

Dr Schreiner said that this was an unintended consequence of the attempts to address a different problem. Previously, the DCS reported only on assault, but excluded rape. When this was challenged as illogical, the rape statistics were then included under the assault statistics. DCS realized that while it had to have national statistics on all categories of assault, it should be able to extract rape statistics separately, in order to measure, monitor and to take decisions on rape. She said that she had initiated a process to extract rape statistics for the periods that these had not been available. Once available, these statistics would enable DCS to monitor whether the draft framework that was in the process of being refined was having an impact.

The Chairperson was concerned about the assertion that most officials would not stop a rape when they become aware that it was happening.

Dr Schreiner said that rape was one of the most under-reported crimes in society at large, and even more so in correctional centre contexts, where the victim and perpetrator would be locked up together. Making the framework more sophisticated was thus necessary, and must be done with assistance also from outside roleplayers, such as the Portfolio Committee, NGOs, magistrates and SAPS. It did not surprise her that there was a majority of officials who chose not to become involved in the matters. Although there were attempts to educate people in wider society about the implications of the new Sexual Offences Act, which defined forced sex between males as rape, such awareness did not happen within a short space of time, and it was similarly a slow filtering process to get the DCS officials and staff to understand and accept the changed situation.

It was also a reality that DCS officials and staff became hardened over time due to their experience in the prison setting. This meant that officials would in many cases not display an adequate degree of sensitivity towards such situations. Officials had to balance their degree of sensitivity with their security mandate, the latter being uppermost in their minds when dealing with prisoners. This lack of sensitivity would be addressed in part by the training offered by the two organisations represented at the meeting. Training would not only address procedures, but would also sensitise officials to their duty to protect the human rights of inmates. She acknowledged this as a major challenge that needed to be addressed in all training processes. DCS was in the process of preparing training courses for heads of centres, and these issues would form an integral part of that training. When the heads of centres understood the procedures and the need, they were more likely to ensure that their staff were equipped to adequately address incidents of sexual assault  and follow procedures correctly.

The Chairperson was deeply concerned about the statement that inmates were abused by staff, by contractors and by other inmates, and the abusers were encouraged by corrupt officials.

Dr Schreiner said that she could not say that this did not take place. She said that such incidents had to be reported and dealt with where it happened. There were instances where an official, rather than rehabilitating the inmate, did abuse him or her. She acknowledged major challenges in terms of the organisational culture of the Department, and the consistency of behaviour of officials. This emerged in disciplinary hearings and issues raised by the Portfolio Committee. It was important to work with partners, to refine the framework and pilot it, in order to challenge all these embedded irregularities. A number of other initiatives, if addressed and integrated with these processes, would go far to addressing the challenges, such as heads of centres’ training, the Organisational Culture Project, and meaningful activity for inmates.

Dr Schreiner noted that rape occurred at night, and the longer the inmates were locked up, the worse the problem became. Monitoring at night was an important factor. Profiling of inmates when they entered the prison was important, and new inmates should be assessed for both security and vulnerability risks. Vulnerable inmates were not supposed to be put in communal cells with hardened criminals. In this respect the overcrowding in correctional centres became a challenge, because even when officials realised the risk, they may not have a choice due to a lack of space. She expressed the hope that this framework would reach as far as the design and architecture of prisons, to effectively deal with these challenges mentioned. She reiterated that DCS management had a zero tolerance approach to sexual abuse in prison in principle, but the challenge was to filter it down into the approach and practices of officials at the coalface.

Mr B Fihla (ANC) said that society stigmatised people who had been incarcerated. There was a pattern where a person would go to jail for a minor offence, be brutalised while incarcerated and come out as a bitter, frustrated and dangerous criminal. His isolation and stigmatisation would worsen, leading him to commit more crimes, perhaps even in order to go back to jail where he was accepted. The way society categorised a person who had been incarcerated needed to be looked at. In addition, the situation where he was obliged to ask other inmates for blankets and other necessities made him vulnerable, because he created debts when he accepted favours from other inmates.

In other countries like England and Scandinavia, the philosophy was to normalise the life of the inmate by allowing weekend-long contact visits with sexual partners in order to alleviate some of the sexual tensions that built up inside prison. He pointed out that wherever men were isolated from women – including the single sex hostels at the mines - sodomy became common. This was exacerbated when inmates in correctional centres where there was little supervision, where inmates were locked in for the night and where first time offenders were left to fend for themselves against hardened criminals

In some correctional centres, for example St. Albans in Port Elizabeth, there were systems where non-gangsters were held separately. However this was not done in all centres, and because of space constraints, were often impractical.

Mr Fihla concluded by saying that first time offenders should not be exposed to prison culture by being locked up with hardened criminals in order to “graduate in crime”.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that many of these problems could be solved with simple management techniques. By profiling and separating inmates at the point where they entered the correctional system, vulnerable candidates could be identified and separated from those likely to commit these offences. He hoped that simple management interventions would form part of the framework that was being developed to address the problem. That underscored the importance of the role of the staff, because ultimately they were the people who had to implement these management techniques. Johnny Steinberg`s book had referred to a daily ritual where the prison management transferred the authority to the gangs at the time of lock-up. The balance of authority between the legitimate authority of the prison and the gangs was a pivotal point to address in this process. If not, other interventions would be fruitless.

Mr Selfe asked to what extent the design and architecture of prisons allowed for dealing with that problem on a systemic level, and how direct supervision of overcrowded cells could be managed in the older correctional centres. Surveillance became something to consider in this situation. He realized that there were human rights issues at stake, but at the same time it must be recognised that the human rights of the inmates  being sexually abused were being violated. If there were surveillance facilities and effective panic buttons that were acted upon, it would contribute towards alleviating the problem.

Mr A Fritz (DA) expressed his empathy with officials in correctional services after two oversight visits he paid to Goodwood and Voorberg prisons. The architecture of the old centres created the ideal circumstances for rape to occur after lockup. After speaking to the managements at both centres, he realised that they were trying to address the problems as best they could, but the environment that they were working in hindered them.

He was encouraged by what the National Commissioner said about the process that was under way. He visited the correctional centre hospitals and asked the staff for the statistics. He looked at the injury register and he suggested that the way in which the statistics were recorded should contain a breakdown which indicated whether the assaults were sexual in nature. However this would not mean anything if inmates were not given access to medical services when they claimed to have been injured or raped. New arrivals were reluctant to report rapes because they feared the repercussions. At Goodwood Correctional Centre, there were cells for inmates who were not involved in gangsterism, but even in these cells hierarchies emerged, and the possibility of sexual assault could not be excluded. He was encouraged by the latest attempts to develop the protocols and to roll them out on a systemic, national level. The sooner this happened, the better.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked what made leaders of gangs so powerful in prisons, and whether this was linked to them acquiring, for instance, better blankets and food, or better information. She asked what caused gangsterism to grow in centres, and where they acquired their money, since Members had been told in an oversight visit that there was no money in the centres.

Ms Phaliso noted Dr Schreiner’s comment that sexual abuse happened at night, but wondered if there was no noise during the assault, whether none of the other inmates reported the rapes, whether nothing was entered in the complaints register and what was done by DCS if there were complaints and when it became aware of the issues. She felt this was a scandalous situation.

It was clear that society was starting to take charge of monitoring and trying to influence policy, but nothing was happening from inside DCS to take action against these perpetrators. She felt that the actions that the National Commissioner set out were not enough.

Mr S Abram (ANC) asked what could be done immediately to limit the problem. He asked what could be done to bring integrity back into the service. He said that one rape was one too many.

The Chairperson summarised the response of Members by saying that they were shocked by the issues. Dr Schreiner would be reporting to the Committee on security issues, on 12 May, and asked her to respond also to the issues raised by Mr Selfe and Mr Abram, as also to comment whether she expected human rights issues to be raised if surveillance were to be instituted. He expected that the collective would have to prepare for a fight for surveillance. There needed to be a message sent to both the offender and the official. DCS could not afford to have officials who were prepared to turn a blind eye while someone was being abused.

The Chairperson also asked Dr Schreiner to explain, next week, how a woman ended up in a male prison in Durban Westville, six years ago. This might shed some light on other issues related to this topic. Although it was reported in the press, DCS had never given its side of the situation and the Committee was very serious about the issues.

Ms Totten said that both she and Ms Gear were heartened by the responses of the National Commissioner, the Chairperson and the Members of the Committee. She said that the words of the National Commissioner made her realise that this issue had risen to the level of a top priority for the DCS and the Committee. She declared the support and availability of Just Detention International and CSVR to assist and support what the DCS and the Committee were planning to do. She was especially pleased to hear about the programmes initiated by the Department itself. Many salient remarks were made by Dr Schreiner, which indicated that a particular dynamic needed attention. In USA, the detention centres analysed each incident of rape and tried to draw lessons from it, and worked to try to correct where the failures had occurred and prevent their recurrence. Existing policies should also be reviewed if they were found to be counterproductive. This would help the Department to align with its human rights obligations, because the Convention Against Torture and other human rights instruments required countries to examine and review what had happened with a view to preventing their recurrence. She was pleased with the collaborative approach and believed that all related institutions could together achieve much in the fight against sexual abuse in prisons.


The Commissioner acknowledged that several questions would need to be answered on 12 May and undertook to do so. She also noted that the questions related to gangsterism would receive attention in the meeting dedicated to security.

Dr Schreiner said that she would immediately start a process of tracking rape information. She took cognisance of the fact that Parliament had declared a zero tolerance approach towards rape in prison and stated that the message would be conveyed to the DCS officials and centres. She also said that DCS would use the different stages of this campaign to highlight the issue and to keep it in the departmental and public consciousness, so that it did not become superseded by other issues and forgotten. She asked that a delegate from the Western Cape could expand upon what was happening on the ground in correctional centers.

The Chairperson said that the media also had a role to play in spreading the word that work was being done to stop the culture of rape in correctional centres. The passive acceptance that it was part of correctional centre culture was about to be challenged and uprooted. This was a crime and had to be treated as such.

Ms V Kokong, Representative from Western Cape DCS, agreed with what had been said about the gaps in the system that allowed the abuse to happen. Many rapes also happened in the police vans, when inmates were transported to and from courts. When they arrived at the prison they were asked whether there was anything that they wanted to report. In most cases they would have been threatened and bullied into keeping quiet.

The Correctional centers depended on independent correctional centre visitors, because often inmates did not feel comfortable reporting to a uniformed member, but they would report to an independent person. These reports would then be taken further by officials.

She reported that most often, when an inmate was being raped in the cells, everybody else would keep quiet, because of threats and intimidation. In the morning, the guard would notice injuries and bruises or the victim would report the rape to the official. The Rape Protocol was in place and stipulated that upon reporting of a rape, the victim should be taken to hospital and the hospital would refer the case to a Rape Centre or the District Surgeon. A criminal case would be opened and the law would take its course.

In the Western Cape the DCS was working closely with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on the Anti- Rape Strategy. DCS Western Cape developed a Sexual Offenders Programme to deal with the rapists. A protocol for the Victims of Rape within DCS centres was also developed.

DCS Western Cape had realised that professionals like nurses and doctors knew exactly what to do when confronted with a rape victim, but DCS officials did not know what to do. That was why DCS approached the NPA to educate DCS officials about what they needed to do in such situations.

She added that when the Sexual Offences Act had been promulgated, an awareness programme had been run, particularly around the new definition of rape. The seriousness of rape in prisons could not be down-played any more. The awareness programme also touched on the implications of rape for the victim. A man who was raped was turned into a woman, in the minds of fellow inmates. A person would also fail to report the rape for fear of being stigmatised. It was made clear to the NPA that a rape should be treated and recorded as a rape, and not as an indecent assault.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters for their contributions, stressed that this was the beginning of a process, and hoped that this initiative would bring palpable results. He foresaw challenges, but said the possible benefits warranted the effort. Follow up reports should be given.

Department of Correctional Services (DCS): Responses to questions posed at previous meetings
The Chairperson reminded Members that on 17 February 2010, questions were posed to the DCS, who was to respond to them. This meeting had also displayed a problem in the relationship between the DCS and the Portfolio Committee. The Committee Members did not believe that the DCS was taking the Committee seriously, and was not fully compliant with its duty to report to Parliament. The Department complained that the Committee had an “us and them” stance, instead of a collaborative partnership, and found it difficult to see the Committee as a partner.

The Chairperson tabled the response of the DCS, pointing out that this was a bulky document. He asked whether the Commissioner was going to highlight and talk about specific topics, so that Members could then ask for elaboration on any gaps.

Dr Schreiner said that there were certain topics that she felt needed several hours to work through.

Dr Schreiner said that sometimes information would come to the attention of the Committee, and would then be referred to the DCS. The first question asked would be what had happened in this case. It was not always possible to divulge information on specific cases as disciplinary processes or an investigation may not be completed. The second question might be whether this was a general trend, in which case the Department’s response to that trend was sought. To her mind the second dimension would be the more important one, because the Department would have to examine its strategy and policy pertaining to the trend or tendency. The communication between the Department and the Committee tended to be unclear between the questions, and she asked that in future the Committee must be quite clear as to what it was asking for.

She wanted to be upfront about the fact that the DCS management needed a partnership with the Committee in relation to the change management challenges around implementing the White Paper. She wanted it to be understood in the right context, and this should not in any way interfere with the Committee’s oversight over the DCS.

She explained that in the case of rape, the DCS management had put a lot of effort into addressing the problem over a period of time, but the challenges on the ground were enormous, and involved change management processes. A partnership between the Committee, civil society and the DCS was vital to the issue. Part of the challenge of DCS was that it must ensure continuity of service while changing policies, strategies and manner of implementation. It must also ensure that the level of safety for inmates and officials was not compromised, and that there were no security breaches. These challenges made the implementation of new policies and procedures complex. These change management issues impacted negatively on discipline, on morale and it was a major challenge to have 41 500 people understanding a policy change. The Committee would need to refer back to DCS the instances in which the mindset change was not happening. The heads of centres were pivotal in implementing and managing the changes.

Dr Schreiner noted that the document was listing, either by budget programme or branch, the issues raised on 17 February.

In relation to the staff complement, she noted that the DCS had an approved staff complement of 41 500, with 41 108 posts filled. The remaining posts would be filled as a matter of urgency.

She said that the 2003 restructuring was arrived at after a process of downsizing of government departments, which was led by Department of Public Service and Administration, and the White Paper was developed at the same time. The DCS had since established that there was a conflict between structure and function in the Department. There were instances where functions had been subdivided to a point where a coherent response, in practice, was impossible. Development Care, Social Reintegration and the Correction Programme would be put into one structure, so that the management lines could be more coherent. Currently Development and Corrections were separate branches. Security and Facilities would become one branch, and Remand Detention would become a separate branch

The principle, in terms of remuneration of the 2003 restructuring, was that the area commissioners needed to be paid at least at the level of a Director, because that was the level of management required there. This triggered the idea that there would be six regions instead of nine provinces. It posed challenges in terms of the interface between the regions and provincial governments.

On the issues around dress code, discrimination and organisational culture, she said that a person deciding to join a department that wore a uniform, but then refusing to wear the uniform amounted to being in defiance of the dress code of that department, which could warrant disciplinary action. The dress code for DCS included a clause that an official may not arrive at work with his or her hair dyed a colour other than a natural hair colour – for instance an official would not be able to dye her hair bright pink without being in violation of that clause, because this was not considered appropriate for the public image of a security service and a government department. The debate in this case would be to what extent the dress code, and the need to show discipline through conformity and uniformity, curtailed the freedom of the individual to express her or his identity through her or his hairstyle. The DCS was in the process of reviewing the dress code and its application, from issues arising at disciplinary hearings. Another instance involved women  who wished to wear headscarves as an expression of their religious faith, and the Department must balance the recognition of a cultural right with the security risk that the scarf could possibly become a weapon in the hands of an inmate.

The position of the Department was that where there was a policy, it had to be complied with. Where the policy was outdated it had to be reviewed.

The policies for the Corporate Services Environment had not been finalised. Parts still needed to be negotiated, because they related to conditions of service. In other branches, it was a consultation process rather than a negotiation process. This caused the administrative delay.

The Department was working towards finalising the policies around dress code, discrimination and organisational culture. The policy audit was included. Most of the policies identified as needing development had been developed. Some policies were in the process of approval. That process would repeal then the A-order and the B-order. In the interim, there would still be elements of the A-order and the B-order, which left room for confusion, but once all new policies had been finalised, which was being handled as  matter of urgency, all remnants of the A-order and the B-order would be repealed and the Department would go forward with the new policies.

DCS management did a major review of the Disciplinary Code in 2005. It was taken to the Departmental Bargaining Chamber in 2006, where it was endorsed as Resolution 1 of 2006.The previous code had set out a schedule of offences divided into two columns, being dismissible and non-dismissible offences. The DCS had been concerned that offences were dealt with very mechanically in term of the two columns, and some offences were incorrectly placed in these columns, leading to unnecessary dismissals or inappropriate disciplinary steps. The current code had a list of what was regarded as misconduct, with Annexure A which stated that it was the line function manager’s duty to determine how the misconduct would be addressed. The first step would be to determine whether there was indeed ground to determine misconduct, which could occur through human error, fraud or theft, or whether the accusations were false. The manager must then decide whether this warranted a formal or an informal investigation. Then the line manager had to determine whether the misconduct took place. If it had taken place, the manager had to determine how serious that element was.

Dr Schreiner cited the example of the medical aid fraud, which demonstrated some of the challenges that the Department faced regarding discipline. She said that there was a period in the Department when misconduct was not addressed in the way that it should have been. This resulted in the Jali Commission of Inquiry, and the later development of the Anti–Corruption Strategy, and the Disciplinary Code being developed. The disciplinary code for the DCS dealt specifically with issues that were work related .Medical aid was not specifically work related. She said that for DCS it had a special dimension, because the medical scheme was fully subsidised, so it was DCS money that was being manipulated in the process. The fraud that was committed happened in 1999, but only surfaced during the Jali Commission investigations in 2002. There was a further investigation process that unearthed the magnitude of the fraud. The people involved were categorised as, firstly, those that were involved in the organised element of the fraud as the runners, who recruited other people to become part of it, and secondly those who were responsible for the administration of the fraud. The disciplinary processes happened seven years after the fraud. By then the medical aid system had changed and since the fraud those people had attained clean records in terms of their work performance.

Dr Schreiner noted that DCS had some options and one was to say that those officials who admitted their guilt, and repaid the amounts defrauded, would get a final written warning but be permitted to stay on in their posts. If they failed to admit their wrongdoing, they would face the full disciplinary enquiry. This demonstrated some of the complexities of individual cases. The challenge was whether the managers in the DCS had the maturity to look at all the information and make an informed, balanced decision. There were also time frames that were laid down in the disciplinary code that one needed to comply with. In some cases it was easy to comply with these, but in other cases it was more difficult. The DCS must strive to manage cases within the time frames.

Disciplinary procedures were line function manager duties, except in cases of fraud, corruption and serious maladministration, in which case they would be referred to the Disciplinary Investigations Unit (DIU), a centralised component at head office. The fact of centralisation had implications for time frames and the use of resources, and the centralisation was deliberate because if someone was involved in corruption, there was a likelihood that he would have involved his immediate team in the corruption, and they would therefore not be objective or honest. DIU had to function very closely with line management, so that there was no information gap. If an official working at a correctional centre was suspended through a DIU code enforcement investigation, the manager of that official needed to co-own that process. In this way the fact that discipline was a line managerial function, was not undermined.

The DCS had a zero tolerance policy towards the issues of discrimination and nepotism. These offences were part of the disciplinary code. They had to be addressed by the line function manager. If the line function manager was involved, the case had to be escalated to the DIU. There was a whistle-blowing mechanism in place. Cases like this had to be reported to the Public Service Commission Hotline or the DIU Hotline.

A department as big and as decentralised as DCS was vulnerable to the abuse of managerial powers. It was critical to monitor for abuse, and to pick it up where it occurred.

Dr Schreiner said that another issue fed directly into the decision-making at the end of the disciplinary process. If the investigation report was not of a sufficiently high quality, the disciplinary process was compromised. This was identified as a risk. It was decided that there was a need for improved training for officials who did investigations. Some processes had begun, and in particular those that related to security investigations were linked to the security management strategy, on which she would shortly be briefing the Committee.

This was a major concern to the Department. In part it was the ability of someone to do the investigation and write a report that was defensible in a disciplinary process. In part it was a question of who was appointed to investigate. Appointed investigators may have had loyalties towards the person being investigated and could be creative with the truth in order to let the investigated person get off lightly. These were key managerial decisions, and managers did not always make the right decisions. Some investigations ideally should be done by people outside the region or the management area, and here the investigation team would include someone who knew the territory, but would be headed by a person outside the region or management area.

Dr Schreiner then reported on the 7-day Establishment. This was fully implemented. The old system of paying overtime for nightshifts and weekends was abolished. There was a question on whether the two-by-twelve shift system could work effectively in all centres, and whether it could function in all centres with the current staffing level. It was a complex issue and DCS would need the input of the Committee on this issue. There were 241 unique centres. They differed in size, nature, function and setting. The staffing requirements in non-identical centres differed. Some centres were small and they ended up with a staff complement that matched the number of inmates. Other centres were farms, where more people were needed at particular times. Others were remand detention facilities. In a dedicated remand detention facility, the shifts had to fit in with the routine of getting offenders to court in time in the mornings, otherwise the magistrates complained that the late arrival of accused disrupted the court proceedings. In a remand detention centre, there were few inmates present during the day, because most were at the courts, which meant that if numerous staff were on duty inside the centres, they would not be optimally used. The question then was whether there had to be one single shift system to fit all centres, or whether each centre should be assessed to see which system would suit its function best. The two-by-twelve system did not allow for more or less staff at certain periods. In the past, different centres had been staffed unequally. This was leveled out to the extent that all centres were now staffed at 60%-70%.

DCS had decided that managers of centres should assess whether it was feasible for their centre to adopt the two by twelve shift system. If not, they needed to indicate what was feasible to achieve the effective functioning of the centre. The DCS was aware that there were elements of resistance to the two-by-twelve shift system amongst managers and officials. The officials who resisted the new shift system had concerns about security, staffing, and operations, and in some cases were simply non-cooperative. DCS had to ensure that the objections to the two-by-twelve shift system were valid, and that it monitored the situation. Eventually this system would be reviewed.

The shift to the 7-day Establishment, along with the professionalising of corrections officials, the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) and the career pathing into rehabilitation officers and security officers, were all done to deliver on the requirements of the White Paper. DCS was aware that when it asked officials to change from a 5-day week, with every second weekend on duty, to a seven day week, it was asking its staff to change their lifestyle and the way in which they related to their families. Where both partners in the family were DCS members and they were on opposite shifts, they never saw each other. The key question was whether staff was used effectively. Some staff were unsettled by the 7-day shift, and while this persisted, the system would not show benefits.

35 Centres of Excellence were identified to test the implementation elements of the White Paper. This did not mean that other centres did not have to implement any of the elements of the White Paper. Although there were still issues to clarify, the DCS was committed to the 7-day Establishment. Correctional Centres could not be run, and the White Paper could not be implemented, without this system. During the Ministerial Labour Consultative Forum in May, DCS would be interacting with the unions about the White Paper.

Dr Schreiner then turned to questions raised about the non-compliance with the Correctional Services Act (the CSA) and the White Paper. DCS had indicated that the implementation of the White Paper was a long term process, which would be put into practice through consecutive strategic plans. The challenge was to see that it was consistently implemented in 241 correctional centres and 198 Community Corrections Offices. The DCS had a systematic approach to implementing new legislation, procedures and processes, which was explained about three years ago to the then-Portfolio Committee. A new system would, for example, be implemented in 35 centres in year one, in 10 centres in year two, and so forth, until implementation was complete. All new arrivals in the system would be processed according to any new legislative requirements. All inmates that had to go for parole hearings would be next in line and the rest of the backlog would be addressed until all inmates had been processed.

The DCS was involved in a three-year-project with the Open Society Foundation and a team of researchers from the Community Law Centre at UWC, to develop a monitoring tool to measure the level of compliance in DCS centres with the Correctional Services Act. This addressed the six themes of the conditions of incarceration, protection of human rights, health, parole, rehabilitation and good governance /management. The research had been done, piloting had taken place in the centres of excellence and the electronic tool was almost at the completion stage. This would enable DCS management to pull 80% of performance data from the centres through existing technology. 20% of the data would be collected by researchers visiting the centre. This project would make it possible to monitor centres for compliance and to identify the reasons for non-compliance. It would become an integral part of the monitoring system. The handover of the tool, as well as skills transfer was under way to the DCS, to ensure that personnel could use it in future.

Dr Schreiner then addressed the recommendations of the Auditor-General (AG) about the financial statements. The DCS had already given a presentation to the Committee giving an update on each qualified item and matter of emphasis raised by the AG in the previous audit report. All aspects that DCS had identified as requiring action had been disseminated to all Deputy Commissioners and all Regional Commissioners. There was a process of tracking the work. The Committee had been advised of the status as at January 2010.

DCS was in the process of being audited at present, and DCS’s success in the action plans would be demonstrated by whatever came out of the AG’s next audit. This issue was taken very seriously by DCS’s top management. It had been on the agenda of the DCS National Management Committee, which had embarked on a process relating to the way in which the 2009/10 performance assessment was conducted. Previously, the performance assessment of senior managers had been done in April, prior to the annual report inputs and management letters from the AG were received, which meant that an official could report that he or she had done everything required, without information to disprove this. DCS was therefore now adjusting the timelines for performance assessments, to take place in July, which would still meet the timeframe of 31 August set by the Department of Public Service and Administration. It also required input by the region or the branches, with an executive summary of any internal audit report, the executive summary of the National Inspection Report, and a Management Letter report from the official’s branch or region. DCS hoped that this would lead to auditing processes being taken more seriously, and it had already issued circulars to try to address this issue. DCS had received feedback from the AG after last year’s audit that there were instances where managers did not co-operate with auditing teams, and had, in addition to making interventions in November, more recently required that regional commissioners and branch heads must monitor the co-operation of managers very closely during the April and May process, and escalate problems immediately to the acting CFO, who was the nodal point for interaction with the AG. This was all aimed at improving the auditing process, improving managerial accountability around auditing and linking it closely to performance results. The AG’s report would indicate to what extent DCS officials and managers had acted effectively on the instructions.

Dr Schreiner indicated that DCS had provided the Committee with a report on offender involvement in community projects, per region. This varied across regions and management areas. DCS had a commitment to working on a sophisticated strategy to address the issue of offender labour, which would be discussed in depth with the Committee at a later stage. The existing offender work would be improved and the Department would work on a longer term process.

Dr Schreiner turned to questions of parole. The parole board members used to be appointed as individuals, in terms of the Act. A parole board would be appointed for a period of 5 years, which more or less coincided with the term of office of Ministers. Individual board members may retire or resign, leaving vacancies that would be filled, but the board would remain in position for 5 years. The DCS would ensure that a parole board was put in place for July 2010 to July 2015. As far as possible there should be continuity through those processes. The whole board would be trained at the same time. The DCS was extending the contracts of those who were due to expire in this period, and was filling vacancies where the boards were currently unable to function because of the vacancies. A full board would be in place from July.

DCS had also provided the Committee with the figures in relation to the backlog. That was an issue that had been on DCS’s agenda consistently, had been taken up by the ministerial Auditing Task Team, and formed the subject of ongoing interaction. The parole summit of September 2009 had been translated into a plan of action. The work on that plan of action, with the medical parole process, was yielding results. Significant progress on that was expected in May.

The DCS had also provided the Committee with the legislative framework for the transfer of offenders. The reasons for transfers were also provided. At one stage the Committee had expressed its concern that inmates might be transferred as a form of punishment or victimisation. Dr Schreiner could not say categorically that this did not take place. The situation was complex. Some inmates had to be transferred because of their behaviour. The fundamental principle was that people should be serving their sentences as close as possible to where their families were living. However, there were circumstances and behaviour that mitigated against that. It was affected by overcrowding. If the centre closest to the inmate’s home was too full, he could not be accommodated there, and the fact that a centre in a particular community was overcrowded raised questions about the level of crime in that community. DCS should also put this point back to the Social Protection and Community Development Cluster. Another factor would be the nature of the crime that the person committed. If there was a medium security level prison in a region, but the crime committed made the inmate suitable only for a maximum security prison, he could not be accommodated locally and would have to be referred elsewhere.

Dr Schreiner said that DCS had a unique situation in terms of the two Public Private Partnership (PPP) centres, which were maximum security facilities geared to maximum security inmates. They were filled with people from other regions, which meant that they were far from home. In these cases the management had to make sure that inmates could communicate with their families by telephone.

Transfers also happened because an inmate was reclassified using the reclassification tool, from one security level to another, and had to be transferred in accordance with the principles.

Transfers also happened because of discipline problems. In Mangaung Correctional Centre, a group of inmates held private workers hostage with garden implements. They also embarked on a hunger strike. That group of inmates had a disruptive influence on the whole prison. Where there were disruptive elements like gang leaders outside sustaining gangs in centres, transfer could be a way of solving the problem.

Kokstad Correctional Centre was designed for a specific purpose. It was built for those inmates who were resistant to cooperating within the setting of a correctional centre and rehabilitation. It consisted of single cells. It was highly monitorable. It was designed with the aim of rehabilitative behaviour-modification intervention. There were three phases and inmates did not get out unless they had gone through all three phases. Inmates in that centre would have been referred if they were, for instance, organising gang attacks, rape or violence in other centres.

Transfers were also sometimes done for reasons of witness protection, to avoid a witness being harmed.

There was a concern that escapes happened because of the handover of control rooms to DCS. Ms Schreiner emphatically denied that any escapes happened because of this handover process. As part of the handover process, there was a deliberate decision to deactivate part of the system. It was done to comply with warranty liabilities, so that the system did not get damaged. DCS had to recruit officers to staff the control rooms, and they had to be trained. The turnstiles were deliberately deactivated. It was a managed process. The turnstiles were in the process of being reactivated.

The DCS had instituted a systematic way to address the state of kitchens and ablution facilities. Money had been put aside for this purpose in this financial year’s budget. The state and maintenance of the cooking pots was of particular concern. 3 148 ablution facilities had been renovated, and 923 would still be done. One of the processes that undermined the renovation process was a government decision in 1994, when it was decided that the Department of Public Works (DPW) would drive the process of the renovation of correctional centres, which had led to delays in the effective renovation processes. The relationship between DCS and DPW had changed since.

Dr Schreiner turned to the issue of children being held in correctional centres, which was directly linked to the implementation of the Child Justice Act, which came into effect on 1 April 2010. The DCS, whilst holding itself accountable to comply with this Act, asked that the Committee also hold every other stakeholder in the Criminal Justice sector equally accountable. DCS had given presentations to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development as part of a team, and she suggested that this Committee may like to receive a similar presentation. That report had given the statistics on the steady decrease of children being held in correctional centres. They should not be held in correctional centres, except where the Criminal Justice Act made provision for certain categories of offenders to be so held. When a child was a remand detainee, there had to be a considered view that the child would be found guilty and receive a detention sentence.

The DCS was in the process of auditing children currently held in DCS facilities to see who qualified to be transferred in terms of the Child Justice Act. The numbers of children should decrease even more as a result. The DCS believed that no children should be in correctional centres, except for that small category that had to be kept there by law. DCS believed that even that group of children should be kept in a dedicated child centre, but this may mean that the children could be held further from their homes.

Dr Schreiner reported that there were 15 Youth Development Centres. There were very specific resources that were in place to deal with the requirements of youth, but there was insufficient capacity to service all youth in need. These needed to expand. The DCS would come back with more information for a more in-depth discussion.

The DCS would also come back to the Committee for in depth discussions on the offender labour system, the shift system, and the offender rehabilitation path.

Dr Schreiner concluded that it was important for DCS to be forthcoming with information. The observations of the Committee would be followed up with the different levels of management and would help to build the level of accountability.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the presentation gave the Members a sense of whether the DCS and the PC were moving in the same direction and making progress. He thought that it was a useful exercise. He and the Committee Secretary would set up meetings to discuss the issues that Dr Schreiner had indicated needed more in-depth discussions.

Ms Phaliso thanked Dr Schreiner for her presentation, which gave insight into, and created clarity around the thinking of the DCS, and indicated the direction in which it was moving.

Mr Fritz withdrew his earlier assertion that the DCS was not taking the Committee seriously. However he had a few specific questions which arose from the oversight visits he had paid to certain DCS centres. There was a DCS official at Helderstroom Prison who had been dismissed because he grew a beard for religious purposes, and he asked for comment. He asked whether the contracts of the current parole boards would be extended or whether new members would be recruited. He said that in the light of what he knew about inmates at Pollsmoor, in future he would fully support the decisions of the DCS to transfer prisoners who played a disruptive role. On his oversight visit to Voorberg Medium A he reported that he could not believe that centres like that still existed. The conditions were atrocious, but he did not blame the staff, since the infrastructure was not of a good standard. The structures called “Blikkiesdorp” were made of corrugated iron sheets. This was a huge warehouse-like structure which housed 45-60 inmates per cell, was very hot, and provided only one or two showers for all those people. He knew that Brandvlei was renovated, so he recommended that Voorberg should be closed.

Mr Fihla thanked Dr Schreiner for her input. He said that gangsterism in prisons was a cancer that existed all over the world, which was responsible for much brutality. He commented that the system at Mangaung should be adopted by other centres. It sent gangsters to a special section where there were more privileges available provided that they desisted from gang activity. If they did not comply, they were sent back. This had yielded results.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) said she had visited Barberton Juvenile Centre where she found that the juveniles wore the same uniform as the inmates in the adult prison, and they perceived themselves as hardened criminals as a result.

Ms Nyanda had also visited Nelspruit Correctional Centre, which was being renovated. She was shocked to find that the renovations were happening all over, and the inmates had access to all these areas. There was no monitoring system. There was a second contractor working on the renovations, and there were suspicions of corruption and delaying of work, with the work to fix a simple leak now entering its third month. The staff were concerned about security, and felt that the work should have happened more systematically, with the areas affected being sealed off.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) complimented Dr Schreiner on the presentation. She reported that she had visited Queenstown Correctional Centre, where she found that many young offenders, who were awarded bail of R100 to R700, were still held as they could not put up the bail money.

The Chairperson reported on his visit to C Max Prison. There was an open space where the gallows used to be. When the Chairperson spoke to the head of C Max prison, he said that they would like to use the space to create offices. However, the Liberation Movements and the Heritage Center wanted to re-establish the centre and to make the gallows area into a museum. He said that it was necessary to have a discussion at ministerial level about the future of that area.

In C Max, management was wary of raising an issue for fear of being labeled sexist and accused of discrimination, but there was a problem of too many females on the staff. This was a male maximum security prison housing very dangerous criminals, and female warders were not used because of fears about their safety, and the Chairperson agreed that it was unlikely that female staff could do an effective job in that facility.

Mr Fihla agreed with the Chairperson that C-Max was an extremely dangerous environment for any staff to work in. There were inmates serving 1 000 years, 2 000 years or 8 life terms. They had no hope of being released and if they were to attack or kill officials, this would not change any aspect of their existence in the centre.

Dr Schreiner said that she could not comment on cases that might still be part of disciplinary procedures. She said that it would add value to the Department if the oversight function that the Act gave to the Committee was taken seriously, and the reports on the oversight visits were made available to the Department. These should indicate both negative and any positive aspects of the centres, and acknowledge excellence where it existed because this would serve as a morale booster for staff.

Dr Schreiner wanted to comment on the issue of female warders. She found it interesting that the officials at C Max were hesitant to raise the issue, as it was raised at executive management level and needed to be pushed through to its logical conclusions. C Max contained extremely dangerous prisoners with behavioral problems. However, even in an ordinary maximum security prison there were inmates serving several life terms. Even though she was a gender activist, she did not believe that the DCS should aim for gender equity in a male maximum security prison. It was a policy issue that DCS needed to engage with, including engagement with the Committee. The constitutional principle of gender equity needed to be weighed up against the reality of a real threat to the safety of female staff in particular. Some female staff members would insist upon being placed in such an environment, but it had serious staff utilisation implications. DCS policy stated correctly that female staff members always had to work with a male member in a male prison environment. However, it was not always practical to have staff needing to double up, as this wasted staff resources. There were only 4 500 female inmates. It was impractical to limit female staff to female prisons, because the staff outnumbered the inmates. Perhaps DCS should be utilising the female staff in places where they could add value, bringing their particular qualities to a situation. Some women chose to be in the Emergency Support Team, and they performed very well in that capacity. Women should be made well aware of the risks they face, when they chose to work in these high pressure environments. This did involve a different type of training. Female staff members who worked in maximum security environments were given self defense skills. The input of the Committee would be helpful in this regard.

Ms Schreiner thanked the Committee Members for the positive feedback. She said that she was pleased that DCS had a clear understanding of the Committee’s expectations With the appointment of a new National Commissioner in the near future, DCS would make sure that the lessons learnt would be shared and that positive communication continued.

The meeting was adjourned.

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: