Submission by Nicro to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services

Submission by Nicro to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services

SUBMISSION BY NICRO TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BUDGET’-2009/10

1.INTRODUCTION

Honourable Chairperson, Mr Vincent Smith, and members of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, NICRO wishes to thank you for the opportunity to submit public comment on the Department of Correctional Services Budget’ -2009/10. We wish to bring to your attention to the following issues of the budget that affect the work of NICRO as a civil society partner, and that impact directly on the efforts for crime prevention, offender rehabilitation and reintegration in South Africa.

NICRO is a national non-governmental organization, established in 1910, that annually touches the lives of well in excess of 50,000 direct beneficiaries who constitute some of South Africa’s most vulnerable and disempowered individuals: young offenders and youth at risk of committing crime and coming into conflict with the law; incarcerated persons, released prisoners and their families; victims of crime and violence, more especially abused women and survivors of domestic violence; and marginalised, vulnerable communities affected by crime and poverty.

In our last submission to the committee, in 2007, we argued that the unacceptably high rate of recidivism among ex-prisoners is indicative of the fact that we as a nation, that is both civil society and government have failed in our attempts to successfully and effectively reintegrate offenders back into society. We raised concerns that some of the issues regarding prisons and offenders raised twenty years ago is the same issues we are discussing today, and that we needed to be collaborate in finding creative and sustainable solutions for the way forward. We acknowledged that rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders continue to pose a critical challenge to Correctional Services, and civil society and other departments and organizations working in the field. We also acknowledged, at the time, the Department of Correctional Services for its efforts in focussing on the Social Reintegration of prisoners, but based on the budget allocation of 2007/08, believed that far more resources needed to be allocated to Social Reintegration. We highlighted the value of government and civil society partnerships in working successfully together on the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, and that we all needed to take note that in order to break the cycle of crime and violence in this country that all effort needed to be put into Social Reintegration programmes both within the prison and upon release. As a civil society organization working in the field we also emphasised the importance of needing support from government to affect reintegration programmes for released offenders.

We further acknowledged that overcrowding remains a challenge, threatening an offender’s human dignity and sense of social responsibility, and that we needed to find creative solutions in reducing the number of awaiting trial prisoners, of which adult diversion was one of the strategies recommended by NICRO to fast track the process and in turn reduce the awaiting trial population. At the time we acknowledged that issues like case backlogs and other challenges that face the Criminal Justice System will have to be dealt with simultaneously.

Since our last submission, it is pleasing to see that adult diversions are beginning to be seriously considered, and even more pleasing to announce that in addition to this, non-custodial sentencing practice is being considered, of which NICRO is playing a lead role, as well as the DCS in marketing these options to magistrates in the country. Although overcrowding is not the primary reason for promoting these options, both these initiatives have the potential of helping reduce the number of awaiting and sentenced offenders in prison.

NICRO also raised the challenge to ensure that ex-prisoners are gainfully employed upon release from prison, and the fact that with South Africa’s high unemployment rate, ex-prisoners have a minimal chance of securing employment. We had felt that the skills obtained in prison are often wasted upon release, as there is often a limited or no opportunity to continue employment after release. We gave input around NICRO’s endeavours to conceptualise a model which will ensure the continuation of this process of gainful employment coupled with skills development.

We have come quite a long way in our conceptualization of a Social Enterprise model, that would continue to build on the skills of ex-offenders, after release and enabling gainful employment, and have researched some creative options and engaged with the Department and other creative minds. However the challenge in securing funds to resource this initiative continues to remain a challenge. We hope to continue to engage with the Department of Correctional Services as a partner in this endeavour. A submission has already been made to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on the issue of prison labour, as a means of rehabilitation and reintegration, which included NICRO recommending a percentage of the revenue generated to be allocated for family members, victims, toward the costs of imprisonment (which alluded to sustainable models for imprisonment and rehabilitation) and savings upon release.

The importance of issues of family reunification and reconstructive services was also raised as critical aspects of social reintegration. In addition the impact of incarceration on babies kept in prison with their mothers was raised, based on findings of a research study at the time commissioned by NICRO.

2.POSITIVE ASPECTS

For this submission we would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the following:

Trends

  • The projected growth rate in expenditure (an average annual rate of 13.6% over the MTEF period) is above inflation and is acknowledged;
  • The growth rate in the corrections programme itself –at 20.1% is higher that the budgetary growth rate and is also regarded as appropriate in relation to the tasks and functions that are required;

Joint initiatives

  • We would like to commend the DCS, and its partners, the Department of Justice, the South African Police Services on their joint project endeavour around a Video-arraignment remand system. This innovative development aims to alleviate the clogging-up of the CJS and minimizes the risk of escapes.

Stakeholder collaboration

  • We would like to congratulate the Department of Correctional Services on its increased Stakeholder initiatives. NICRO is quite excited with its engagement with the Department particularly around ‘Family Centres on the Prison Campus’, that look to re-establish the value of family relations and a family therapy approach as critical components of an effective Rehabilitation programme and look forward to continued meaningful initiatives, and the stakeholder engagement in general gaining more momentum. We also look forward to the establishment of more formal partnerships with the DCS and Civil Society organizations.

Zero tolerance to collusion and corruption by officials

  • We would also like to use this opportunity to commend the DCS’S zero tolerance approach to collusion and corruption by officials, mentioned in the budget vote 18 paper.

3.CONCERNS

For this submission we would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the following:

Social Reintegration budget allocation (Pg 389)

  • Once again the Social Reintegration allocation appears to pull the short end of the stick. While much is made of by the Department of Correctional Services around social reintegration as an important component of the overall correctional function, according to this budget it remains the step child in the hierarchy of functions, again receiving the least budgetary allocation of 3.21% of the total budget (425.9 of 13238.6), and moreover represents a slight decline from the previous years 3.3% of the total budget. This reflects the lack of adequate understanding of social reintegration as a critical component to the success of incarceration-it is not only what happens within the prison walls, but the inmates ability to adjust to civilian life, meet the myriad of challenges that lie ahead, have resilience to cope with the inevitable obstacles, discrimination and stigmatization and finding remunerative economic activity with which to sustain him or herself, which in turn is aimed at preventing the offender from returning to a life of crime;

Selected performance and operations indicators

  • Based on the table(18.1, pg 391) of selected performance and operations indicators, it was concerning to note that the issue of overcrowding has remained stable at between 39-42%, and for this period projected at 40% (2009/10), which does no reflect efforts to increase the focus on this issue, yet it is the single, most influential factor in affecting a conducive environment for successful rehabilitation and should get more attention, in partnership with other elements;
  • The number of inmates sentenced to two or more years who have Correctional Sentence plans is woefully low, and fails to adequately show the Departments commitment in the White paper to prioritize rehabilitation as its core business. This should be a mandatory first step in setting an inmate on a path to rehabilitation and more time, energy, and budget should be made available. Based on the performance and operations indicators projected it will take decades to have the average of 100 000 inmates covered;
  • It would have been useful to know how many inmates are diagnosed with AIDS so that we could evaluate correctly the number of those who receive anti-retrovirals. This way the figure given in the performance indicators appears to be in a vacuum. and there appears to be not enough factual information.

Programme 3-Corrections (pg 398)

  • The pace at which they reach the standard of having all admissions on sentence provided with BOTH a Correctional Sentence Plan, as well as an Offender Rehabilitation path (ORP), and a Social Reintegration action Plan must be stepped up. These actually go together and no performance indicator measurement has been given for the phased implementation of the ORP or Social Reintegration action plans, which was mentioned in the strategic plans of 2007/08.

Programme 4-Care (pg 390)

  • In addition given that the purpose of Programme 4- which is to provide needs based care programmes and services aimed at maintaining the personal well-being of incarcerated persons in the departments care, we would like to use this opportunity to raise the issue of medical parole, where NICRO’s concern is the exclusion of seriously ill people from Section 79 of the Correctional Services Act, where only those in the ‘final phase of any terminal disease or condition’, are considered for medical parole. More attention will be given to this issue by NICRO through their Advocacy Programme.

Programme 5-Skills Development (pg 391)

  • An important indicator of rehabilitation processes are the specialised programmes inmates receive; although information regarding literacy and skills development programmes are stated-it would have been better if all the rehabilitation programmes are stated so that one gets a more holistic picture of the rehabilitation services in prison and how accessible they are;
  • As much as there has been progress in the departments objective to reach 50 595 offenders through skills programmes by 2011/12, with the increase in the performance and operations indicators around the percentage of the total offender population participating in skills development programmes, from 26.8% (2008/09) to 27.8% (2009/10) by 1%, this percentage continues to be an insignificant number if we are to make any dent in successful reintegration efforts, and prepare offenders for employment opportunities outside of the prison walls.

Private-public partnerships-prisons (pg 393-394)

  • The adoption of the private public partnership approach in establishing more prisons, in fact the new generational prisons at Paarl, East London, Port Shepstone, Klerksdorp and Nigel are earmarked as private public partnership options, is concerning. The dramatic change to this option, which was originally discarded by the Department, appears to have been done without consultation and no reasons have been provided for a change in this policy to enable us to understand the rationale behind this. The main concern is that this option introduces serious discrimination in the standards of care and services afforded the inmates in the different categories of correctional centres, -particularly because the cost per capita per inmate is so much higher in a private prison, they can regulate overcrowding more effectively as they are not obliged to admit beyond their contractual obligations, they poach the best personnel from the public sector as they offer more attractive benefits, and they have the full range of necessary services to promote the rehabilitation function. This kind of discriminatory practices are surely against the spirit of our constitution which requires all citizens, including inmates, to receive equity of treatment from those services funded by the fiscus. Our public correctional centres should be run at the same level as the private ones.

High rate of recidivism

  • Despite the vision of the 2005, White Paper on Corrections to refine all of its activities to ensure that offenders who leave correctional centres have appropriate attitudes and competencies to successfully integrate back into society as productive citizens, and priorities for the creation of a enabling environment for rehabilitation, four years down the line and we continue to have unacceptably high recidivism rates[1], and appear to still be a long way off in implementation of the White Paper. Recidivism rates are linked to prison overcrowding, which impact negatively on service delivery and a conducive environment for successful rehabilitation or reintegration; as well as the limited number of offenders with Correctional Sentencing plans and those in programmes. The building of 5 new prisons, projected for 2009/10(1) and 4(2011/12), as much as it can address some of the overcrowding issues is not the only solution. Beside the Adult diversion option proposed in NICRO’s budget submission in 2007/08, NICRO strongly recommends ‘non-custodial sentencing’, given the link between recidivism and the fact that certain offenders who should be benefiting from community based alternative sentences are being held in prison.

Government and civil society partnerships and funding

  • As effective reintegration is not easily achievable, a range of services are needed to support offenders while they are incarcerated and once they are released from correctional centres. Informal social controls and a continuum of care/through-care are concepts that have evolved in the last decade and that have influenced the conceptualization of reintegration efforts. Successful reintegration efforts can be negatively affected when there is not continuity between in-prison and out-of prison programmes, services and interventions.[2] Non-governmental organizations including community-based organizations have a major role to play in this regard. Former inmates inevitably return to their communities of origin. The question of how we make our communities safer is therefore one that must be addressed collectively by government and civil society[3]. As much as there has been much improvement, particularly from the Department of Correctional Services to improve their relationships with civil society organizations, challenges of joint planning and through care, monitoring, and the resourcing and sustainability of civil society’s efforts continue to pose as critical challenges. Although great strides have been made to improve stakeholder engagement, formal partnerships have not been cemented to date, and there is also no indication in the budget for the Department’s monetary support to civil society organizations working in prisons.

4.CONCLUSION

In concluding we would like to acknowledge the enormous and very complex task that is required of the DCS, in their commitment to refine all their activities to ensure the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of all offenders that pass through their system. Like in previous submissions we would like to commend their continuing efforts in realigning its resources, particularly to give effect to Social Reintegration programmes, and although acknowledge the increase in the allocation, continue to be mindful of the fact that we are still a long way off from attaining the commitments and objectives set out in the 2005 White paper on Correctional Services, and broader goals for the effective reintegration of offenders, and in ultimately reducing crime and improving public safety.

Crime continues to be a grave concern in South Africa, levels of incarceration are high, issues of overcrowding, gang violence, sexual violence, and corruption in prison continue to threaten efforts for effective rehabilitation and reintegration. In addition there has been an increase in the average lengths of custodial sentences, and instances of inappropriate sentencing. High levels of recidivism, a lack of community and public support for offender reintegration, lack of family resources, inadequate support for civil society initiatives, and a deeply concerning issue around the lack of professional skills and practitioners, fragmented service delivery and the lack of effective partnerships, and non-alignment of services, threaten progress made.

NICRO will continue to expand service provision in the area of offender rehabilitation and reintegration. The organization’s work is grounded in principles of restorative justice, with priorities on promoting the use of non-custodial sentencing, and diversion, addressing offender’s opportunities for gainful employment, through the NICRO Social Enterprise initiative, and support to the released inmate and his/her family through efforts of family reunification and public support for reintegration. In addition NICRO offices would be the sites for social reintegration centres dedicated to the needs of released offenders and their families, through general and therapeutic support, and skills development are to be a feature of the NICRO model. One of the NICRO training focuses on the training of social auxiliary correctional workers.

Finally, we cannot escape the fact that prison confinement dehumanizes and diminishes individuals, resulting in former inmates being less capable of effectively reintegrating into society, and more likely therefore to break the law[4], leaving us with the fact that imprisonment should only be considered as the last resort.

It is important to note that offender rehabilitation and reintegration is not only the responsibility of the Department of Correctional Services, but a shared responsibility with all the departments in the Criminal Justice Cluster, as well as other departments, and civil society organizations working in this area. The 2005 White Paper on Corrections promotes the advancement of restorative justice and offender reintegration approaches to crime prevention. It will however only give real impetus to these approaches if the DCS and other governmental departments work together. The offender reintegration sector as mentioned above is fragmented and more dialogue between government and non-governmental role-players is necessary to implement effective offender reintegration strategies and programmes.

Top View