CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
In the second chapter of this dissertation, distinctive first to fourth generations of assessment were discussed in detail. The first-generation assessment entails intuition and the collection of information about the offender and his situation, to determine the offender’s risk of reoffending. In the first-generation assessment, correctional officials apply their experience and training to assess the risks and needs of the offenders and base their decisions on their professional judgements (Davidson, 2009:25; Huss, 2014:103).
The offender assessment tools used at South African correctional institutions are based on first-generation assessments (Hesselink as cited in Holtzhausen,
2012:208). The Admission Security Classification Tool is based on a score sheet in which the absence or presence of certain dynamic (educational level), or static factors (criminal record), is assigned to the score. The total score is then calculated to achieve a grand total, which is then used to determine the offender’s risks and needs (DCS, 2012:78). This method of classifying offenders is also employed in various third-generation assessment tools such as the LSI-R, OASys and SAQ (discussed in chapter 2) (James, 2015:2). However, the chairperson of the Case Management Committee (CMC) can override the score in order to change an offender’s classification (minimum, medium and maximum) and can provide reasons for his decision (DCS, 2007:89; DCS, 2012:21). The Admission Security Classification Tool, namely the assessment/classification tool used upon immediate admission to a correctional centre, displays elements of the first-generation assessment tools as it affords opportunity for professional judgement, or decision, based on the administrator’s experience in working with offenders (Bonta & Andrews, 2017:342). With the first-generation assessment, correctional staff, and clinical professionals (psychologists) are guided by their professional training and experience, to make a judgement as to who requires enhanced security and programmes, to alter their criminal behaviour (Bonta & Andrews, 2007:3; Huss, 2014:103). However, a third-generation assessment tool, such as the LSI-R, also affords the assessor an opportunity to override the score based on professional judgement, and reasons for deviating from the original score must be stated on the tool (Bonta & Andrews, 2017:342; Multi-Health System, 2016:1).
The DCS could not and cannot adopt a ready-made third- or fourth-generation assessment tool within the South African correctional context, because of the difference in the offender population (diverse cultures), constraints on correctional resources (inadequate accommodation in housing units), shortage of rehabilitation staff and the dire socio-economic circumstances (high rates of unemployment and poverty) faced by the offender population, society and the DCS (Hesselink as cited in Holtzhausen, 2012:207; Hesselink & Booyens, 2014:4). In this regard, Assink, Van der Put, Oort and Stams (2015:12) cite that risk assessment devices developed and used in one state, are often not applicable to offenders in other states due to the diversity of socio-economic circumstances and cultural differences. Applying a readily made international offender assessment structure/scale on the South African
offender population, is questionable because the socio-economic conditions (poverty and unemployment) and some of the reasons offered for committing crimes (farm killings, muti [witchcraft] related murders, committing crime to belong to gangs, foreigners committing crime to counter resentment and rejection by some South African citizens and some South Africans persecuting foreigners as they feel that they take employment opportunities available to them), in South Africa differ significantly from other countries (; Geldenhuys, 2018:20;Hesselink as cited in Holtzhausen, 2012:207).
Although South African offender assessment tools are based on first-generation assessments, they are not based on professional judgement alone (Monacks, 2017:1; Moodley, 2016). The Admission Risk and Needs Assessment Tool, used immediately upon admission, and the Comprehensive Risks and Needs Assessment Tool, applied within 21-days after admission, have elements of second- and third- generation offender assessment tools because they encompass both static (history of substance abuse) and dynamic (alcohol and drug use and educational background) factors (Bonta & Andrews, 2016:25; James, 2015:2; DCS, 2012:35). These tools are administered by the temporary CAOs who also work security duties (escorting offender to courts and external hospitals). Unlike the original first- generation assessment tools, which were unstructured (informal pattern in which questions are asked), the DCS assessment tools are semi-structured, which means they have a specific structural format and themes such as educational history and criminal history (DCS, 2012:35). However, Loza (2013), who developed the Self- Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ), is a professor at Queens University (Canada), and an international pioneer in offender assessment practices, is of the view that the DCS assessment tools contain information (such as information on the victim) that is not necessarily helpful to design an offender specific treatment plan. Loza (2013) emphasises the importance of completing a ‘quick’ (simple and comprehensive tool that is easily understandable) assessment at admission, which includes mental health issues and history of harm and suicide.
Although Loza (2013) criticises the presence of questions on the victim of crime in the DCS’s Comprehensive Risks and Needs Assessment Tool, equivalent items (questions on the victim of crime) are also exhibited in the British Offender Assessment Tool, the OASys (Howard & Dixon 2012:290; OASys Manual, 2002:3).
The Comprehensive Risks and Needs Assessment Tool includes sections that detail education, employment history and criminal association, and how these factors contributed to the offender’s criminal behaviour (DCS2012:84). Essentially, although tools employed in the DCS are first-generation assessments, they have some elements of third-generation assessments that comprise of the identification of criminogenic needs, such as criminal association, criminal attitude, and employment status (Andrews et al., 2012:116). The DCS’s Comprehensive Risks and Needs Assessment Tool takes the importance of criminal association with friends and family members, and the influence thereof on the offender, into account. This tool is used for all offenders sentenced for 24 months and more, while the Admission Risk and Needs Tool (administered six hours after admission) are utilised for all sentenced offenders irrespective of their gender, crime, and age (DCS, 2012:13). Negating the use of an ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, Howitt (2012:484)proffers that for an assessment tool to be effective and efficient, it must target a specific population (such as foreign, youth and sexual offenders), and criminal behaviour and the tool must not be designed to serve the entire diverse offender population (native, youth and foreign offenders) convicted of distinctive types of crimes (economic, narcotics, aggressive and sexual offences).
Essentially, the DCS’s offender assessment tools can be classified as first- generation although they also contain some elements of second-generation (static risk factors such as age at first conviction, history of substance abuse and family criminality) and third- generation assessments (dynamic/changeable factors such as educational background, anger and personality style) (Bonta & Andrews, 2017:25; James, 2015:3). From the researcher’s observation and experience as a social worker who worked for three years with national and foreign adult male offenders at a correctional centre; the DCS’s offender assessment tools are a mixture of first, second and third-generation assessment content. There are too many tools, and it is very time-consuming to complete all of them. Furthermore, resources (computer and permanent personnel) to implement these tools are limited (Monacks, 2017:1; Moodley, 2016).
Foreign and national offender assessment is implemented in a linear process called unit management, and a brief overview thereof is discussed below. Carlson
(2015:55) avers that unit management provides scope for the development of assessment tools and increased participation in rehabilitation programmes.