Alliance for Crime Prevention Position Paper on Corrections

August 2003

by

Amanda Dissel & Lukas Muntingh

Amanda Dissel is Manager of the Criminal Justice Programme at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Lukas Muntingh is based at the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) National Office.

Because it is the disciplinary form at its most extreme, the model in which are concentrated all the coercive technologies of behaviour. In it were to be found a cloister, prison, school, regiment. Foucault on the opening of the Mettray Prison in 1840¹

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and what is known as "social crime prevention". In other words, does the DCS have an obligation or task towards those social, economic and environmental factors that are conducive to crime, and if they do, what should its approach be? Most crimes are committed outside of prisons where it affects the free population and the question needs to be asked if DCS has any responsibilities outside the walls of the prison. Logically the answer is yes, but in practical terms, the answer is more complicated. The realities of community life, poverty, development and politics make it starkly different from the prison set-up where the DCS is in control of the situation.

This paper will explore this relationship between the DCS and social crime prevention looking at a number of themes:

• the contextual background of the DCS
• legislative, policy and practice gaps
• the Draft Green Paper on Corrections (DGP)
• social exclusion and inclusion
• opportunities for the future.

The DCS has undoubtedly a role to play in social crime prevention. The reality is that the department works with a sector of society with a proven track record of committing crime and all indications are that they are at a particularly high risk of committing further offences upon release. Various arguments can be forwarded regarding the rate of imprisonment in South Africa, the length of prison sentences, the conditions in South African prisons, and the management of prisons to illustrate the inappropriateness of large-scale imprisonment as a response to crime. Nonetheless the DCS has to deal with a prison population in excess of 180 000 prisoners of whom an estimated two-thirds are sentenced, and presumably in need of some form of service or assistance to prepare them for release and, more importantly, reduce the risk of them re-offending.

This role has to date not received much more than lip-service and it will indeed take more than a paradigm shift for the DCS to transform its thinking and actions from ensuring incapacitation to an agent of social crime prevention through rehabilitation and reintegration services.

In 1974 Robert Martinson published his well known article "What Works?" based on a survey of 231 studies on offender rehabilitation published in the English language between 1945 and 1967. Although many positive findings were made, the negative aspects were emphasised and when the debate spread, "what works" soon changed to the dictum "nothing works".² In the ensuing debate Martinson's methodology and selective reporting received severe criticism. One critic, Palmer, accused Martinson of trying to find a methodology that will work with all offenders in all situations - of "panaceaphilia".

Martinson's own survey found that in 39 of the 82 studies there were positive to relatively positives results in terms of offender rehabilitation. However, when the findings were published in Public Interest, the conclusion came across as "with a few and isolated exceptions nothing works". Martinson's report was nonetheless influential and very damaging to the cause of rehabilitation advocates. However, the debate had positive spin-offs in terms of strengthening methodology and being more careful in evaluating rehabilitation programmes. A crucial realisation resulting from the debate was that there is no single method or programme that will work in all instances. Different programmes do work for different people in different settings - people are not the same, why should the programmes be the same?

We know that imprisonment per se does not rehabilitate people nor does it facilitate the ultimate goal of reintegration. The deprivation of liberty and time, through the imposition of an alien time punishes the offender because the value of individual freedom has risen significantly in the market of social values.³ It is because we value freedom and control over time that we believe that if we take it away that those who have lost it, they will not run the risk of losing it again. This is however an erroneous line of reasoning. Firstly, one has to ask if this individual ever had control over time and enjoyed freedom to exercise his or her rights and to develop to full potential. Did they have the power to make decisions or were decisions made for them, often to the extent of victimisation? Recent research found that approximately 30% of US prisoners were abused as children (physically, mentally and/or emotionally). Secondly, if a prisoner is released after this period of liberty deprivation, does he or she have the skills to make the right decisions and can he or she take responsibility for these decisions? Imprisonment in itself does not address these questions, it only aggravates the problem of being powerless, of having no say, of not knowing how to make the right decisions. Imprisonment also removes people from the possible support and constructive networks that they may have and place them in an environment where (social) relations are based on survival, violence and hierarchy. Can we truly say that after a period of imprisonment that this individual is now better equipped to deal with life?

For imprisonment to deliver on crime prevention, a radical re-think and redesign is required. First and foremost, it is required that we define very clearly what the function of imprisonment is and where and how it fits into the overall criminal justice system and broader development approaches. Secondly, we need to look very closely at what happens inside prisons, and specifically when prisoners and prison staff interact on a daily basis but also around particular intervention programmes. Research has shown that there are successful interventions aimed at prisoners and ex-prisoners, and we need to build on these and discard those that are ineffective, inefficient or have not proven their impact.

Context

Since 1994 to 2002 the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) has been at the periphery of government thinking and action. It is only in recent months that the DCS has started on an active and visible process of reinventing itself. Sloth-Nielsen (2003) provides an accurate and insightful analysis of policy developments for the period 1994 to 2002.⁴ She summarises the position of DCS within the overall crime reduction debate and policies as follows:

The correctional system should be (and is) integral to the criminal justice system as a whole, and it is unfortunate that for so long, correctional policy-making has been conducted in isolation from government's overall crime prevention strategies. Seen the other way round, it is also unfortunate that the subject of corrections appears to have been excluded from mainstream debates about the functioning of the courts and sentencing policy in particular. It is recommended that the integration of correctional policy with other aspects of criminal justice be furthered wherever possible, and that this form a focus of civil society advocacy.

To understand the position of DCS in an overall strategy that promotes social crime prevention, it is important to note some of the major historical facts regarding this department, and specifically what challenges lie ahead against the backdrop of "wrong roads" taken. The context description will therefore describe in broad terms the reasons why the Department of Correctional Services has not found for itself a significant role in social crime prevention. It should also be noted that a draft Green Paper has been released recently and that some very bold proposals are made in that, but these will be dealt with further on.⁵

• The DCS has been beset by continuous leadership problems since 1994 and it was only with the appointment of the new Commissioner (Mti) that it appears that stronger strategic leadership is emerging in DCS HQ. There is also a process of restructuring taking place and the draft Green Paper does provide some guidance on this.

• In terms of overall government policy on crime reduction, the DCS has played a peripheral role, and at best a reactive one based on crisis management.

• In the absence of a clear long-term vision and in the absence of strong leadership, the DCS found itself grabbing at 'policy straws' and reactive solution that were soon abandoned. Between 1994 and the present, the DCS has been characterised by continuous policy changes but essentially without results and follow through. Sloth- Nielsen describes it as follows:⁶

  Over the period reviewed in this report [1994 – 2002], there was little transparency in the policy-making process. External stakeholders were either not involved, or appeared to be consciously left in the dark. NGOs lost their foothold with the Portfolio Committee and became marginal to correctional issues and policy. Nor did the Portfolio Committee apparently have very much effect in holding the Department to account. The "voluntary resignation" of Commissioner Sithole was not pursued by this Committee, and it cannot be concluded that the Portfolio Committee dealt with the privatisation issue with the diligence that this sort of undertaking required, although it may well be that the Committee was not put in a position to make an informed contribution. However, even when confronted with indications of impropriety in October 2002, the Committee appears to have failed to grasp the nettle. The fact that privatisation and public-private partnerships may still be considered for future prison-building initiatives and for the contracts that may be awarded to implement electronic monitoring, suggests that the Committee should equip itself to play a far more proactive role in overseeing these crucial outsourcing endeavours.

• The image and credibility of the DCS is under severe pressure and the recent findings of the Jali Commission did not contribute to building its image and credibility. This position is in fact confirmed by the DCS in the draft Green Paper and is acknowledged as a serious threat to the credibility of the DCS in the public's view.⁷

• Staff morale in the department can in general be described as low.⁸

• The staff to prisoner ratio is high, and there are shortages of professional and therapeutic staff. For the total number of 160 000 prisoners in 2001/2 there were 44 psychologists, 320 educationalists and trainers, 449 social workers and 29 chaplains.

• There is very limited South African research available on corrections in general, and specifically on rehabilitation and reintegration as a means of prevention.

• The DCS is faced by a range of daunting challenges at prison management level, the most severe of this being overcrowding and prison population figures are expected to increase from 180 000 in May 2003 to 250 000 by December 2006 if current trends prevail. In contrast, the prison accommodation is only expected to increase from 110 924 to approximately 140 000 in 2005. From a rehabilitation and reintegration perspective, over-crowding has a severely negative impact as it continues to undermine in almost every conceivable manner, the positive impact that a reintegration programme could have. Muntingh summarises the situation as follows:⁹

  Firstly, it can be assumed that under these conditions security becomes the overriding concern and the other two functions (education and social services) are moved down the order of priorities. Secondly, the emphasis is placed on meeting the absolute basic needs. Thirdly, in much the same way that the prisoners would like to get out of the situation, we see excessive sick and stress leave amongst warders in overcrowded prisons. Again, the available resources to prisoners are further diminished. One can further assume that under these conditions frustration and tension levels are relatively high between staff and prisoners and when hearing from prisoners in these prisons, one gets the impression that "humane requests are regarded as privileges".

  Prisoners also react in a particular manner to this situation. On the outside we have a range of responses available to obtain scarce resources, on the inside that range is severely limited and increasingly relies on physical and devious competition that has an underlying threat of violence. Scare resources and marginalization fosters the development of gangs and organized crime in the prison set-up. Different items assume values that are strange to us, such as shoe polish or oven paint, that are sold at exorbitant prices. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that there is a flourishing contraband market.

  Space and time for educational activities are reduced and there is very little practical opportunity. Staff of NGOs working in prisons will tell that there programmes are frequently interrupted or that there are no warders available to escort prisoners. In these circumstances education and programme attendance may not be a priority for the prisoner who has to survive on a day-to-day basis.

• Although accurate figures are not available, it is known that a substantial amount of crime takes places in prison, and is often planned in prison to be committed outside of prison. It should also be noted that the lines of delineation between prison gangs and street gangs have increasingly become vague, and the impact of prison gangs are increasingly felt on the outside.

• Offender rehabilitation and reintegration are as yet not widely accepted in government as effective and legitimate crime reduction strategies. Within the safety and security grouping it appears that law enforcement and incapacitation remains the emphasis. The NCPS makes very brief mention of this and at a political level the sentiment is still incapacitation as the solution as opposed to reintegration. The NCPS response to crime prevention was to talk of improvement of prison conditions, and reduction of prison numbers. It also mentioned Unit Management as a strategy to facilitate rehabilitation. Evidence of this is the minimum sentencing legislation (that has resulted in prisoners being given longer sentences than previously) and the under utilisation of non-custodial sentencing options. Amendments to parole legislation since 1994 have also resulted in prisoners spending longer effective terms in prison than before.

• Research on HIV/Aids and figures from the office of the Inspecting Judge indicate that a humanitarian disaster is looming in prisons. The Office of the inspecting Judge also reports, in its 2002/3 Annual Report, that its Independent prison Visitors (IPVs) dealt with more than 190 000 complaints from prisoners, of which 6 284 involved assaults. A further 2731 related to solitary confinement and 17 764 to health care.¹⁰

• The awaiting trial population has grown the fastest over this period, as a result of restrictive bail laws, and delays in the finalisation of criminal cases.

Legislative, policy and service delivery gaps

• The DCS has embarked on a new Green Paper process and this will provide an opportunity for in-put once the Portfolio Committee holds public hearings.

• It should also be noted that five years after the 1998 Correctional Service Act was approved by parliament, very limited sections of it have been promulgated.

• The current legislation is scant on rehabilitation and reintegration and the DCS has expressed its dissatisfaction in this regard with the 1998 Act to the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services. However, the 1998 Act refers to a three pronged approach to corrections: safe custody; creation of a humane environment to promote rehabilitation; and promotion of social responsibility and human development for all prisoners and people subject to community corrections. It sets out ambitious provisions relating to education and training, and social and psychological services. The problem is that there seems to be no strategy to bring these into effect, it appears that the 1998 Act will be overhauled before it is fully enacted.

• The department's three-year strategic plan (Mvelaphanda) does present some ideas on an approach to rehabilitation and reintegration but this needs to be unpacked. The picture that emerges is again one that formulates some vision but that the strategy for achieving this is lacking. Closer scrutiny of Mvelaphanda in relation to the new DGP is, however, required.

• There does not appear to be an overall strategy in place to deal with two important challenges, namely overcrowding and gangs. The significant impact of gangs on prison management is acknowledged in the Draft Green Paper but also states that a management strategy is required in this regard.¹¹

• The Draft Green Paper is, however, bold in its proposal by stating that the Department of Justice must take responsibility for awaiting trial prisoners. Although the developmental needs of these prisoners have never properly been met by the DCS, they do get some basic services, and their situation is likely to worsen should the responsibility for their care be removed from the DCS altogether. It remains to be seen whether the Department of Justice will respond positively to this proposal.

• It is unlikely that the "re-militarisation' of the department will contribute to a DCS that is focused on rehabilitation and reintegration. The DCS refutes the notion of re-militarization, and calls it "corporate identity". This change in policy and appearance needs to be unpacked further. The Draft Green Paper does however admit that the demilitarisation process was poorly managed with widespread negative consequences. This view is supported by Sloth-Nielsen:

  Most commentators agree that demilitarisation has been responsible for a host of other ills that have befallen the Department. Staff discipline, it has been alleged, was dramatically affected by the removal of the rigid strictures of the military regimen. Dissel comments that "it took time for staff members to become familiar with the changes. Many exploited the gap, which resulted in lax discipline". Absenteeism, a poor labour relations environment and the evident growth of corruption at prison floor level have all, it has been suggested, been (at least in some part) influenced by the especially rapid transition from one system to another, without the underpinnings of the climate necessary for this radical type of transformation having been put in place. It has also been alleged that demilitarisation has not significantly changed the culture of the Department.

• The DCS still, with the exception of a few prisons, maintains the division of labour between security staff, educational staff and social service staff. This division is regarded as a severe impediment to providing prisoners with a holistic service. However, there is now new terminology being used in the sense that each correctional official having a role to play in 'rehabilitation'. This is seen to be facilitated in the Unit Management approach. The DGP develops this notion further.

• The DCS has up to now defined in essence their work restricted to those individuals that are placed in their care and there is not a sense that they also have a responsibility towards the families of prisoners and parolees. Even if this is accepted, there is not an agreement with the Department of Social Development to develop a continuum of services. The DGP does however refer to rehabilitation as a societal responsible in which the Correctional system has a particular role to play.

• On a national level the DCS has formulated a policy framework for cooperating with civil society organisations rendering services in prisons. The objectives of this policy are:¹²

  • To create an environment that would allow for the effective involvement of the community in the rehabilitation of the offenders.
  • To create opportunities for establishment and maintenance of partnerships between DCS and the community.
  • To regulate the influx of community-based service providers into the Department wanting to render programmes and services to offenders to assist with rehabilitation efforts
  • To formalise collaborative partnerships and networking relationships with the community
  • To integrate and coordinate services rendered by community-based service providers to offenders
  • To ensure effective re-integration of offenders into the community
  • To involve ex-offenders in rehabilitation efforts.
  • To market the Department, its needs and services to the community.
 


• It has also emerged that workshops with NGO service providers have recently been conducted in the Western Cape and Gauteng. As far as could be established it does not appear as if there is national register nor accreditation system for service providers but the department is adamant that this will be done.

• The DCS provides no funding for external service provision in prisons, resulting in service delivery only by well-funded organisations, or else by small organisations on an ad hoc and short-term basis. The Draft Green Paper does however open the door for formalised partnership agreements and the funding of work and services rendered by NGOs.

The Draft Green Paper

The Draft Green Paper, the sixth version and dated April 2003, is a lengthy and in places verbose document but does present probably the most ambitious and optimistic product from DCS in recent years. The document deals with the history of prisons in South Africa from the 1900s, the Landsdowne Commission, the role of prisons under apartheid and the transformation commencing in the early 1990s. It proceeds to define corrections as a "societal responsibility" and articulates the department's objectives towards this societal responsibility. It also outlines the new (unit management) approach to prison management and what are the requirements for the "ideal correctional official". The document further outlines the department's approach to rehabilitation in terms of service delivery and also deals with special category prisoners. In total, the draft document consists of 16 chapters that do address some key issues facing corrections in South Africa.

The following is an attempt to provide a basic outline of the draft Green Paper as it pertains to rehabilitation and reintegration, and consequently the role of corrections in social crime prevention.

The most significant change in thinking, and it is described as a "paradigm shift", in the Draft Green Paper is the conceptualisation of the purpose of correctional services in South Africa. Testimony to this are the following extracts from the DGP:¹³

At the beginning of 2003, all of these processes have [been] consolidated into an understanding of corrections as not merely as the prevention of crime, but as a holistic phenomenon incorporating and encouraging social responsibility, social justice, active participation in democratic activities and contribution in making South Africa a better place to live in.

As such, DCS operates in the environment of integrated governance, requiring that policy processes in the Department be aligned with overall Government Strategy, and specifically with the policy of the departments in the Justice, Peace and Security Cluster, the Social Sector and the Governance and Administration Cluster. Moreover, the Department has developed an understanding that correction within the DCS environment is achieved through delivery of key services to correctional clients, and through interventions to change attitudes, behaviour and social circumstances in order to achieve a desired outcome of rehabilitation and social responsibility.

Based on a consultative conference held in August 2000 and subsequent internal discussions, the DCS identified the enhancement of rehabilitation services as "a key starting point in contributing towards a crime free society":¹⁴

• The development of individualized need-based rehabilitation programmes.
• Marketing rehabilitation services to increase offender participation.
• Establishment of formal partnerships with the community to strengthen the rehabilitation programmes and to create a common understanding.
• Promotion of a restorative approach to justice to create a platform for dialogue for the victim offender and community facilitating the healing process.
• Combat illiteracy in prison by providing ABET to offenders.
• Increase production to enhance self-sufficiency and to contribute to the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Strategy.
• Increase training facilities for the development of skills.

Supporting this approach, is the notion that corrections is a societal responsibility and although the department does not define itself strictly as an agent of social crime prevention, the definition given, is supportive of this view:¹⁵

Correction should be seen not merely as a mandate of a particular organ of state, but as a societal responsibility of all social institutions and individuals, starting within the family, the educational and religious institutions, the sporting and cultural institutions, a range of government departments, and finally where society has failed an individual, the criminal justice system and the Department of Correctional Services. At the tertiary level, rehabilitation and the prevention of recidivism are best achieved through correction and development as opposed to punishment and treatment.

Supporting this definition and view of corrections, the DGP places emphasis on the family as basic societal unit, inter-sectoral cooperation (government and NGO), moral regeneration, the creation of a facilitative environment, affecting attitudinal change, and promoting the spirit of Ubuntu.

Whilst correction is seen as a societal responsibility, rehabilitation is seen as a means to the end of reintegration and the following definition is given:¹⁶

Rehabilitation should be viewed not merely as strategy to preventing crime, rather as a holistic phenomenon incorporating and encouraging social responsibility, social justice, active participation in democratic activities, empowerment with life and other skills, and contribution to making South Africa a better place to live in. It is achieved through delivery of key services to correctional clients, through interventions to change attitudes, behaviour and social circumstances. These key delivery areas include both correction of the offending behaviour and the development of the human being involved, two separate but linked responsibilities. The desired outcome is rehabilitation and promotion of social values and responsibility.

Within the Departmental environment, rehabilitation is best facilitated through a holistic sentence planning process that engages the correctional client on all levels – social, moral, spiritual, physical, work, educational/intellectual, mental, and is premised on the approach that every human being is capable of change and transformation if offered the opportunity and resources. Systematic efforts must be made to ensure rehabilitation of correctional clients. The correctional service is a necessary proactive, real time and reactive intervention in encouragement and enforcement of constitutionally accepted values. As such the role of a code of ethics for correctional clients that can both inform what the Department expects of them in a correctional environment and what society anticipates them to learn through the rehabilitation process and to put back into society once they have completed their sentence.

By way of summary then, the objectives of the correctional system in South Africa are therefore:

• Breaking the cycle of crime
• Security risk management
• Implementation of sentences of the courts
• Providing an environment for controlled and phased rehabilitation interventions
• Providing guidance and support to correctional clients within the community
• Provision of corrective and development measures to the correctional client
• Reconciliation of correctional client with the community
• Enhancement of the productive capacity of correctional clients
• Promotion of healthy familial relations
• Assertion of discipline within the correctional environment.

The DGP sets an ambitious framework and it is therefore necessary to enquire how the department will deliver on this. Chapter 10 of the DGP deals with "Needs based intervention plans" and asserts that the department "has adopted a needs-based approach in its rehabilitation services that must be driven by scientific research and analysis of offender and offence profiles, for the development of proposed rehabilitation plans". It also acknowledges that rehabilitation has to address the specific histories of the individuals concerned, and further, that many of the causes of crime cannot be addressed by the DCS but that the "provision of basic academic education, vocational training, social education/orientation, psychiatric treatment, diagnosis and treatment of problems such as substance abuse and the building of family links represent a significant move towards rehabilitating correctional clients".¹⁷

In view of this it defines the key service delivery to the correctional client, as it prefers to call prisoners, being:

• Corrections, which refers to all those services aimed at assessment of security risk and criminal profile of individuals under correctional supervision based on their social background and developing correctional sentence plan targeting all elements associated with the offending behaviour/s. The initial focus will be to target the actual offence for which a person will have been convicted and sentence to community correctional supervision and/or remand in a correctional center and/or placed on parole.

• Development, which refers to all those services aimed at development of competency through provision of social development and consciousness, vocational and technical training, recreation, sports and opportunities for education that will enable correctional clients to easily reintegrate in communities and serve as productive citizens.

• Security, which refers to all those services rendered by the Department aimed at ensuring provision of safe and healthy conditions for all persons under its care in conditions consistent with human dignity, while providing protection for its personnel, security for the public against persons under its care, as well as the safety of persons under its care.

• Care, which refers to needs based services aimed at maintenance of the well being of persons under departmental care; providing for physical well-being, nutrition, social ink with families and society, spiritual and moral well-being, psychological well-being and health care.

• Facilities, which refers to all physical infrastructures provided by the Department for those legally entrusted to its care as well as to personnel, aimed at ensuring availability of minimum facilities requirement pursuant to rehabilitation responsibilities and objectives.

• After Care, which refers to all services focused on persons under the care of the DCS in preparation for the completion of sentences, to facilitate social acceptance and effective reintegration into their communities.

Whilst the DGP takes great care to emphasise rights and constitutionality, it does on two occasions in Chapter 10 make reference to the notion that prisoners may be compelled to attend particular programmes, if in the opinion of the Commissioner, their participation is necessary based on their criminal histories or in the case of children, if they are illiterate. Mandatory programme has for long been a contested issue and for most organisations working in the offender reintegration field, voluntary participation is a non-negotiable.

Chapters one to nine go to great lengths to define the overall framework defining corrections, rehabilitation, the key service delivery areas and so forth against the backdrop of the 1998 Correctional Services Act, the Constitution and the relevant international instruments (such as the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners). Unfortunately the content becomes rather thin when discussing social reintegration, which is purportedly the overall purpose. It should also be noted that the terminology of rehabilitation, reintegration integration are used interchangeable, which does not contribute to the overall understanding of the DGP. Nonetheless, social reintegration is described as follows:¹⁸

Social reintegration is the most challenging aspect of rehabilitation, and the most acute vulnerability for the correctional client in his or her progression to sustainable correction and rehabilitation. Social reintegration is not the moment at which the correctional client leaves prison, or leaves the care of the Department of Correctional Services. It is an ongoing component of the sentence plan, and must become an integral part of unit management. The relationships between the correctional client, the victims, both individual and the victim community, the community of origin, and society at large need to be nurtured and rebuilt throughout the period that the correctional client has been sentenced to. In this sense, the Department's approach to social reintegration informs the policy on written and telephonic communication and visits with family, friends and loved ones, access to information about the world outside through newspapers, television and radio, as well as contact with social institutions from his or her community of origin.

Comments on the Draft Green Paper in relation to offender reintegration

In many regards the DGP essentially re-packages what the DCS has been saying for some time, and what the Correctional Services Act in fact does say, in particular to its obligations to prisoners. In overview, the DGP fails to deal with a number of key issues, for instance corruption and governance, gangs and prisoner accommodation. It should also be noted that the analysis and understanding of crime, in Chapter 7, is based on the analysis underlying the NCPS and it did not take full account of the substantial volume of research on crime and its causes that has emerged since 1996. Our understanding of crime and the various expressions of crime and delinquency, are key to formulating an approach to it.

The following comments are on the DGP as it pertains to offender reintegration. The terms reintegration is preferred for two reasons. It firstly emphasises the continuity and inter-relatedness of the process of dealing with offenders in an attempt to turn-around a history of social exclusion to one of social inclusion.¹⁹ Secondly, the term "rehabilitation' is somewhat dated and has fallen out of favour with most practitioners. It is also more closely associated with the medical field following physical injury or substance addiction.

The DGP sets out a framework at a fairly high conceptual level and it is not clear how this will facilitate practical implementation. Whilst such a theoretical and even philosophical framework is required, the DGP does not put forward a clear and concise understanding of how reintegration is understood and what needs to be done to achieve this. It does describe certain in-puts, such as training and so forth, but it fails to articulate clear outcomes, save for stating that ex-prisoners must become functional citizens and should participate in "democratic activities".

From a crime prevention perspective the DGP does not adequately address the issues of limiting risk and building resilience and in many regards focus on the crime that led to incarceration and the relationship with the victim, family and the community following this crime.²⁰ Experience and research have shown that offender reintegration programmes that are participant driven hold the most potential from success.²¹ Whilst the DGP does refer to needs-based services, one does not get a sense of how the "needs" are defined and who "defines" the needs. The terminology used, leaves the impression of programmes imposed as instead of opportunities facilitated. The DGP also draws a somewhat forced and not particularly useful distinction between "correction" and "development", stating that:

In the South African reality, the inadequacy of development amongst the majority of the society result in the human development component of rehabilitation being of utmost importance.

Flexibility in design is key to making an intervention work for a diverse range of people, as it is not so much one component that makes a programme work but the interaction and combination of different components that have desired effect in terms of reducing risk and building resilience. However, interventions need to be clear on their outcomes and not, as is often the case, focus on the activities in the absence of clearly articulated outcomes.

The very brief description in the DGP on social reintegration indicates a major shortcoming in the document from a social crime prevention perspective. The success or failure of the correctional system will be measured against the abilities that ex-prisoners possess to deal with the risks they face in the community they return to. Seen from the other side, the proof will be in the community's ability to "manage" the risks associated with returning ex-prisoners and to enable them to become part of the community to assume constructive roles. The 1998 White Paper on Safety and Security identifies seven ways through which social crime prevention can be achieved, of which three have particular significance for ex-prisoners, namely:

• promoting social cohesion
• supporting youth, families and groups at risk, and
• promoting individual responsibility.

On two of these (social cohesion and individual responsibility) the White Paper is rather vague and does not give very clear direction.²² Nonetheless the DGP fails to explore the real issues around community safety and the role of local government raised in the White Paper. A more productive analysis would need to indicate what are the tangible outcomes envisaged for released ex-prisoners, and then work its way backwards to provide the correct in-puts.

Social exclusion and inclusion

What seems to be lacking from the DGP is an overall analytical tool that will provide the conceptual backbone for dealing with offenders and facilitating their reintegration into society. The social exclusion/inclusion research that has recently been done in the UK provides such a tool. It should also be noted that this is not only applicable to offenders but that it has application in other fields where dealing with marginalised people. Social exclusion is a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown.²³

• UK research²⁴ has shown that prisoners have behind them a history of social exclusion and effective marginalization.

• The evidence shows that these factors can have a huge impact on the likelihood of a prisoner re-offending. For example, being in employment reduces the risk of re-offending by between a third and a half; having stable accommodation reduces the risk by a fifth. The challenge of turning a convicted offender away from crime is often considerable. Many prisoners have poor skills and little experience of employment, few positive social networks, severe housing problems, and all of this is often severely complicated by drug, alcohol and mental health problems.

• Many prisoners have experienced a lifetime of social exclusion. Compared with the general population, prisoners are:
  thirteen times as likely to have been in care as a child,
  thirteen times as likely to be unemployed,
  ten times as likely to have been a regular truant,
  two and a half times as likely to have had a family member convicted of a criminal offence,
  six times as likely to have been a young father, and
  fifteen times as likely to be HIV positive.

• Many prisoners' basic skills are very poor.
  80 per cent have the writing skills, 65 per cent the numeracy skills and 50 per cent the reading skills at or below the level of an 11-year-old child.

• Drug and alcohol misuse is above norm amongst prisoners and 60 to 70 per cent of prisoners were using drugs before imprisonment.

• Over 70 per cent suffer from at least two mental disorders. And 20 per cent of male and 37 per cent of female sentenced prisoners have attempted suicide in the past.

• The position is often even worse for 18–20-year-olds, whose basic skills, unemployment rate and school exclusion background are all over a third worse than those of older prisoners. Despite high levels of need, many prisoners have effectively been excluded from access to services in the past. It is estimated that around half of prisoners had no GP before they came into custody; prisoners are over twenty times more likely than the general population to have been excluded from school; and one prison drugs project found that although 70 per cent of those entering the prison had a drug misuse problem, 80 per cent of these had never had any contact with drug treatment services. There is a considerable risk that a prison sentence might actually make the factors associated with reoffending worse. For example, a third lose their house while in prison, two-thirds lose their job, over a fifth face increased financial problems and over two-fifths lose contact with their family. There are also real dangers of mental and physical health deteriorating further, of life and thinking skills being eroded, and of prisoners being introduced to drugs. By aggravating the factors associated with re-offending, prison sentences can prove counter-productive as a contribution to crime education and public safety.

There is now considerable evidence of the factors that influence re-offending. Building on criminological and social research, the SEU has identified nine key factors:

Education	Raising educational levels of offenders have a significant impact on employability
Employment	Employment has in turn a significant impact on the risk for re-offending
Drug and alcohol misuse	Alcohol and drug usage is associated with a very large proportion of crimes, and a large number of offenders are arrested for possession and dealing
Mental and physical health	Mental and physical health problems developed prior to imprisonment are often worsened by imprisonment.
Attitudes and self-control	Many prisoners come from backgrounds characterised by instability, violence, drug and alcohol misuse. Many of them have been excluded from education and stable family backgrounds. Crime is often seen as a survival strategy or getting the things that others have. Committing a crime is an active choice and successful efforts have focused on learning self-control.
Institutionalisation and life-skills	Without the necessary life-skills, life on the outside will be extremely difficult, especially when a released prisoner needs to deal with prejudices. Institutionalisation does not develop individual life skills and ability.
Housing	Stable accommodation can make a 20% difference in terms of reducing re-offending, and homelessness/risky sleeping will only exacerbate a released prisoners problems.
Financial support and debt	The financial situation is usually bad prior to imprisonment and gets worse whilst imprisoned.
Family networks	The existence and maintenance of good family relationships helps to reduce re-offending. Families are also left out of the decision-making process in the criminal justice system. The often feel "guilty by association".

From a service design perspective it is crucial that DCS defines its overall approach to its core business in a strong theoretical base. The terms rehabilitation, development, correction, social reintegration are used in a loose manner and often interchangeably. If crime prevention and reduction is the overall purpose and social crime prevention interventions the vehicle that will be used to achieve this, it is essential that the department must be clear on the "how" and the Green Paper needs to provide much clearer guidance on this.

Opportunities and areas with potential

• The DGP does provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to make a significant impact on how DCS defines its role and what is required to fulfil its mandate.

• There is some promising work being done by NGOs but limited evaluation data is available. Sustained evaluation research needs to be done in respect of all intervention programmes related to those under corrections; covering departmental as well as NGOS programmes.

• In similar fashion there has been a lot of talk from the minister's office about restorative justice and has to some extent been taken up by the Directorate: Religious Services. It is uncertain whether this is fully supported by the Commissioner and Chief Deputy Commissioners, or how this contributes to rehabilitation. It is also constrained by the lack of a strategy for implementation. The DGP devotes quite a large chunk to restorative justice, but really only spells out what restorative justice is. It fails to articulate implications in the correctional context, or how best it should be used.

• A youth policy was formulated in 2002 and this need to be investigated further.

• There have been very clear messages from the department that children must be removed from prisons. It is also in children's facilities that the greatest efforts have been made to improve prison conditions and initiate rehabilitation services.

• Unit management and the private prisons require further investigation in terms of their impact in relation to rehabilitation and reintegration. The strategy of sending high risk and long term prisoners to private prisons should also be reviewed.

• The parole boards that will be implemented in this financial year will provide civil society with direct oversight over the rehabilitative impact of prisons. However, this should be monitored because it should not be assumed that the new parole boards will necessarily make more fair decisions or will be more restorative in their outlook. It should also not be assumed that victim in-puts on parole boards would result in restorative practices.

• The Office of the Inspecting Judge is strongly supportive of a range of progressive measures, emphasising rehabilitation, reduction in over-population and cooperation with civil society. They could play a greater role in the development and oversight of DCS policy on reintegration.

• There is a range of services that prisoners and ex-prisoners can benefit from but that limited effort is being made to make these services accessible. Examples of these are training by the Departments of Labour, Education, services by NGO's and CBOs. The Green paper talks of strengthening links with the community, but again does not grapple with how this should be done and the policy paper on community participation does not proceed to describe an implementation strategy.

Conclusion

The fact that the DCS is reframing itself and stating that its overall purpose is rehabilitation and reintegration is commendable. There are, however, a number of issues that require urgent and drastic attention prior to DCS being able to fulfil its task as rehabilitation agent. Whilst these are substantial challenges they also present important leverage points for the DCS.

The position of the DCS and imprisonment need to be defined clearly in terms of an overall strategy to manage and reduce crime in South Africa. As end user, the DCS needs to ensure that the preceding departments (and the steps they manage in the criminal justice process) support their objectives in terms of managing prisons effectively based on a human rights approach with ultimate goal of facilitating reintegration. As long as the prison system is seen as a dumping ground and warehouse, there is little hope that the DCS will be able to achieve their goals in terms of rehabilitation and reintegration. This compels DCS to take active steps to impact on these steps such as court management, sentencing policy and legislation, bail and the use of non-custodial sentences.

The most immediate issue is overcrowding of prisons and a number of interventions are required in this regard.

• Reducing the detention cycle time of awaiting trial prisoners
• Reducing the number of short term prisoners
• Reducing sentence lengths.

The DCS will not be able to bring the overcrowding situation under control unless it is able to impact on the steps prior to imprisonment and this necessitates effective and efficient integrated government of the criminal justice system.

Further, prisons need to be managed effectively, efficiently and without corruption. To this end, DCS needs to successful and as a matter of priority address the following:

• Corruption in the department
• Managing the impact of organised crime in prisons through an effective anti-gang management strategy
• Promoting and facilitating civilian oversight over the correctional system.

In order to strengthen the capacity in the department to achieve its goals of rehabilitation and reintegration, the DCS need to attend to the following:

• Promote and support research on offender reintegration, including the impact of imprisonment on communities
• Promote and support the testing of innovations in the offender reintegration field.
• Refine the department's approach to offender reintegration and formulate more tangible intervention approaches. To this end the social exclusion/inclusion approach provides an analytical tool.
• Ensure that management staff is knowledgeable on and is able to manage offender rehabilitation and reintegration interventions in an integrated manner
• Actively facilitate the merging of security, education and social service functions at ground level through training, monitoring and evaluation
• At local level, management area structures need to engage pro-actively with existing inter-sectoral crime prevention and reduction initiatives, specifically those facilitated through local government structures.

Notes:

¹ Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish - the birth of the prison, Vintage Books, New York, p. 293

² Rotman, E. (1990) Beyond Punishment - a new view on the rehabilitation of criminal offenders, Greenwood, New York. p. 127-128

³ Rotman, E. (1990) Beyond Punishment - a new view on the rehabilitation of criminal offenders, Greenwood, New York. p. 143

⁴ Sloth-Nielsen, J (2003) Overview of Policy Developments in South African Correctional Services 1994 – 2002, CSPRI, Cape Town. http://www.nicro.org.za/cspri, Accessed 1/8/2003

⁵ Department of Correctional Services (2003) Discussion Document – Towards a Green Paper on Correctional Services in South Africa, Draft 6, Final version for submission to Commissioner and Minister for approval of release to portfolio and select committees and other departments.

⁶ Sloth-Nielsen, J (2003) Overview of Policy Developments in South African Correctional Services 1994 – 2002, CSPRI, Cape Town. http://www.nicro.org.za/cspri, Accessed 1/8/2003, p 54

⁷ Department of Correctional Services (2003) Discussion Document – Towards a Green Paper on Correctional Services in South Africa, Draft 6, Final version for submission to Commissioner and Minister for approval of release to portfolio and select committees and other departments, p 46.

⁸ See Giffard – Attitudes of warders to rehabilitation, forthcoming.

⁹ Presentation to ISS Seminar in Pretoria on 7 July 2003 on Prison Overcrowding.

¹⁰ Office of the Inspecting Judge, Annual Report 2002/3, Cape Town.

¹¹ Department of Correctional Services (2003) Discussion Document – Towards a Green Paper on Correctional Services in South Africa, Draft 6, Final version for submission to Commissioner and Minister for approval of release to portfolio and select committees and other departments. p 72

¹² DCS (2003) Draft Community Participation Policy

¹³ Department of Correctional Services (2003) Discussion Document – Towards a Green Paper on Correctional Services in South Africa, Draft 6, Final version for submission to Commissioner and Minister for approval of release to portfolio and select committees and other departments. p 20

¹⁴ Department of Correctional Services (2003) Discussion Document – Towards a Green Paper on Correctional Services in South Africa, Draft 6, Final version for submission to Commissioner and Minister for approval of release to portfolio and select committees and other departments. p 19

¹⁵ Department of Correctional Services (2003) Discussion Document – Towards a Green Paper on Correctional Services in South Africa, Draft 6, Final version for submission to Commissioner and Minister for approval of release to portfolio and select committees and other departments. p 24

¹⁶ Department of Correctional Services (2003) Discussion Document – Towards a Green Paper on Correctional Services in South Africa, Draft 6, Final version for submission to Commissioner and Minister for approval of release to portfolio and select committees and other departments. p 27

¹⁷ Department of Correctional Services (2003) Discussion Document – Towards a Green Paper on Correctional Services in South Africa, Draft 6, Final version for submission to Commissioner and Minister for approval of release to portfolio and select committees and other departments. p 59

¹⁸ Department of Correctional Services (2003) Discussion Document – Towards a Green Paper on Correctional Services in South Africa, Draft 6, Final version for submission to Commissioner and Minister for approval of release to portfolio and select committees and other departments. p 68

¹⁹ The social exclusion/inclusion analysis will be pursued further on in the paper.

²⁰ See definition of 'Correction" above.

²¹ NICRO (2003 forthcoming) Impact Evaluation of the Tough Enough Programme, Cape Town.

²² Palmary I (2001) Social Crime Prevention in South Africa's major cities, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, http://www.csvr.org.za/papers/papalm2.htm, Accessed 16/8/2003.

²³ Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk, Accessed 12/8/2003

²⁴ Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, Report by the Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy prime Minister, UK, July 2002, http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/published.htm, Accessed 1/7/2003