Commitment

4.2. 3.1 Rehabilitation programme support by management

The issue of commitment elicited two contrasting views from management and pro- gramme officials. From a management perspective, the programme received rea- sonable support, as evidenced by visible leadership and public recognition of in- mates who had done well on the programme. By contrast, some programme officials felt that management did not provide moral support by visiting the centre and talking to social workers, facilitators and inmates and giving praise and recognition for good performance.

The general feeling was that material support was inadequate give the high targets set by the DCS for prisoner rehabilitation projects. Examples of material support needed included quick approval and allocation of budgetary resources and procure- ment of more computers to speed up collection, processing, distribution and storage of the information required to support decision-making on the rehabilitation pro- gramme.

4.2. 3.2 Programme officials’ motivation to implement the programme

Apart from determining management support, the study also gauged respondents’ views on staff motivation. Respondents differed significantly on the issue of staff mo- tivation. For example, on the positive side, it was reported that most employees were committed to helping the organisation (DCS) achieve its goal of rehabilitating and integrating offenders back to society. To justify this, some managers alluded to the fact that some workers had spent most of their lives (i.e.5-10 years) serving the or- ganisation. One of the participants argued passionately that everyone in the Centre including social workers, psychologists, unit managers and case managers had done well to drive rehabilitation projects to fruition despite the challenging conditions that they faced in their respective units; although this was later challenged by some in- mates, saying that “some of them do not care.”

On the negative side, some respondents, particularly programme staff, felt strongly that working conditions had not been sufficiently addressed. These included work load, financial incentives, career planning, as well as training and development op- portunities. The general feeling was that these issues were at the core of service de-

livery and therefore needed a pragmatic response from the organisation. Some par- ticipants even suggested that financial incentives had to be “reviewed and adjusted so that they are equitable with the efforts and contributions of staff to the rehabilita- tion programme” (Interview, September 2013).

Similarly, some social workers and facilitators who felt strongly that working condi- tions needed greater improvement in almost all correctional centres. In addition, it was also indicated while restrictions on the use of state vehicles helped to reduce operational costs; however, this also made it difficult for some social workers and of- ficials to do site visits, which are central to effective implementation of rehabilitation programmes in all correctional centres.

4.2.3.3 External stakeholders’commitment to programme implementation

Most participants agreed that registered/accredited NPOs and CBOs showed great commitment to the rehabilitation programme. To back their claims, some participants alluded to the fact that some of the NGOs had lengthy service agreements with the DCS to provide rehabilitation services to offenders not just at the Boksburg Correc- tional Centre but throughout the country. This ensured continuity and enabled the Department to improve organisational memory by recording and using success sto- ries and vital lessons to improve delivery of rehabilitation services. The only concern in this regard was that while some NPOs and CBOs cooperated with social workers and facilitators, others preferred to work in silos. According to one of the respond- ents, this led to duplication and waste of scarce resources as activities that could be clustered were done separately.

4.2.3.4 Participation of local communities and NGOs in programme implemen- tation activities

Nearly all the participants, including managers and programme officials confirmed need for active community participation in the implementation of the rehabilitation programme. Some indicated that stakeholder participation was a policy issue and thus mandatory for all the key stakeholders. However, other respondents argued that achieving greater community participation was hampered by the fact that very little had been done to capacitate local communities and NGOs on offender rehabilitation.

As one management representative put, “there is a need for us to make our commu- nities understand the rationale behind offender rehabilitation programmes. If they know the benefits, they will definitely work with us to provide better services (Inter- view, September, 2013). This feeling was also echoed by some facilitators and social workers, saying that some communities were not contributing effectively to rehabilita- tion of inmates, as evidenced by stigmatisation and discrimination against offenders following their release from prison.

Lack of capacity building opportunities at community level apparently hampered in- tegration of prisoners back to society. There was a strong feeling that unless local communities and NGOs are sufficiently prepared for this task, it would be difficult for Correctional Centres “to deliver follow-up services to former inmates who still suffer from stigmatisation, discrimination, isolation and retaliation in some areas (Interview, September, 2013).

4.2. 3.5 Challenges hindering stakeholder commitment to programme imple- mentation

Management representatives, facilitators, social workers and programme officials concurred that certain challenges prevented some stakeholders from contributing to the rehabilitation of inmates in the case study. Some participants indicated that it was difficult for programme officials to work with independent service providers in some projects. And this was seen as a sign of non-cooperation. Other participants raised concerns about limited budgets which they said contributed to postponement of some projects in other centres. One respondent indicated that current staff levels do not meet the growing demand for rehabilitation services in the Boksburg man- agement. This respondent felt strongly that human resource decisions needed greater improvement to ensure that there enough people in all rehabilitation projects.

4.2.3.6 Inmates’ commitment to Rehabilitation programme

This question drew mixed reactions from managers, programme staff and facilitators. From a management perspective, many inmates were willing and able to commit and receive rehabilitation services. Examples were given about the high success rate in areas like furniture manufacturing, artworks, community-based agricultural projects

and welding sections, where many prisoners reportedly excelled in their work due to self-motivation, strong will to succeed, hard work and the desire to seek help.

It was added that recent television broadcasts of the stunning artworks produced by offenders proved that the rehabilitation programme was working and adding real val- ue to offenders’ lives. Reference was also made to offenders who had obtained dis- tinctions in their matric examinations. By contrast, some facilitators and social work- ers reported that attendance and completion rates were low in some sections due to a number of reasons, including lack of motivation to learn, fear factor, laziness, low self-esteem, poor performance, death in the family, and the psychological shock re- sulting from the realisation that “you are serving a long sentence” (Interview, Sep- tember, 2013).

4.2.3.7 Government’s long term commitment in terms of medium term planning and budget provision for rehabilitation programme

It needs to be said that many of the respondents (i.e. managers and programme offi- cials) were somewhat hesitant to talk about this issue apparently because it involved budgetary issues, which were deemed sensitive and political in nature. Nevertheless, some participants did confirm that there were long-term plans for the rehabilitation programme. One respondent qualified this point by referring the researcher to the strategic goals of the DCS, which include creating an enabling environment where offenders can be reformed and integrated back to society. Based on this information, the respondent argued passionately that the rehabilitation programme was therefore a reflection of the Department of Correctional Services’ commitment to ensure effec- tive implementation of the rehabilitation programme not just in the Boksburg man- agement area but throughout the country.

With regard to budget allocation, it was reported that the DCS intends spending ap- proximately R19 000 000 on rehabilitation services over the next five years. These projections were based on the Departments’ Strategic Plan for 2010-2014. Other re- spondents indicated that although there was a clear long-term commitment to im- proving the scale and quality of rehabilitation services in all DCS units, however, the problem was that some projects did not receive adequate financial support, which impacted negatively on their overall performance. Others disagreed with this view,

saying that disparities in budgetary allocations were justified by the need to prioritise rehabilitation services given multiplicity of projects that Department of Correctional Services is currently working on, including the recently launched Victim Offender Dialogue (VOD) programme.