2.1 Imprisonment dehumanises and diminishes individuals, and should be an absolute last resort. Given the current economic climate, the Department cannot imprison at the rate it has up until now. Current legislative and policy frameworks provide for alternative sentencing, and while adult diversions and non-custodial sentencing are seriously considered, these options should be more rigorously marketed to magistrates. 2.2 Should there be even just a moderate increase to the prison population over the next 16 years, overcrowding will threaten the implementation of the objectives contained in the White Paper. Unless specific measures are put in place to limit imprisonment the improved criminal justice system, and the resulting increased prosecutions, may increase prison numbers, worsening not only conditions of imprisonment but also the work environment for officials. Although the DCS has limited control over overcrowding, it ought to use its position in the JCPS cluster to intensify discussions on how to reduce the awaiting trial population. 2.3 The minimum sentencing legislation has had an adverse effect on the prison population and profile. With its focus on imprisonment as a retributive and deterrent intervention, it contradicted the rehabilitation and restorative justice objectives contained in the White Paper. 2.4 The idleness and boredom of inmates needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Educational and work programmes would not only alleviate idleness, but would also provide inmates with useful skills and work ethic, which in turn should advance social reintegration objectives. 2.5 At present inmates spend up to 23 hours per day locked up in overcrowded cells. Legislation requires that the DCS create industries and use the labour at its disposal to achieve self- sufficiency, resulting in savings to taxpayers. The DCS should therefore make effective use of technical workshops, production farms, and prison labour in infrastructural improvements. 2.6 Too much of the DCS' budget goes towards outsourced services, and consultants and much more should be done to ensure that those services that can be reasonably provided for by the DCS itself are not outsourced. 2.7 Most participants questioned whether the public private partnership prisons were the best option for addressing overcrowding. The fact that the DCS opted for this model without consultation, and despite concerns raised by the JICS, civil society and parliamentary committees was also a matter of grave concern. Public institutions should be run at the same level as private ones to ensure fairness in the standards of care afforded to inmates in different categories of correctional centres. Furthermore, many of the PPP prisons are situated in remote areas and thus inmates will be removed from their families, further frustrating rehabilitation efforts. 2.8 Despite the rehabilitation and reintegration objectives contained in the White Paper, the recidivism rate remains very high. The fact that, the DCS' spending remains skewed in favour of security rather than equally important programmes such as care and reintegration is a cause of serious concern. The high rate of repeat-offending is indicative of the DCS' limited success in the area of social reintegration. The continued budget allocation of approximately 3% towards the social reintegration programme, contradicts the Department's social reintegration objectives. If a significant improvement is to be made, a radical shift in the budget allocation to this programme would have to be made. In order to meet its rehabilitation and reintegration targets, the Department ought to reconsider, and increase its targets for developmental interventions, and then make the requisite reallocations to the Care, Development and Corrections programmes. 2.9 The number of offenders with sentence plans remains very low. The absence of sentence plans impacts directly on rehabilitation efforts and therefore the development of a sentence plan ought to be a mandatory first step on the path to rehabilitation. More funds should be allocated to ensuring that all those inmates who qualify, have sentence plans. Without such sentence plans it would be difficult for them to receive the services they need in order to become crime-free and socially responsible. 2.10 Rehabilitation and social reintegration efforts are a shared responsibility. The offender reintegration sector is fragmented and there is a need for more dialogue between government and non- governmental role players. Successful reintegration efforts can be negatively affected where there is no continuity between in-prison and out-of prison programmes, services and interventions. 2.11 The delay in the implementation of the Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD) and the 7 Day Establishment has far reaching implications for the Department's ability to attract and retains staff (specifically scarce skills), and also impacts on the its service delivery to inmates. 3. OVERVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT'S KEY PRIORITY STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS