The Department of Correctional Services (Johannesburg Management Area) is established in the South of Johannesburg in Gauteng Province. It was founded in 1982. According to the Annual Report of the Department of Correctional Services 2009, the institution was initially developed to house 2630 offenders. Presently it accommodates 10130 offenders. These offenders are dependent on the number of facilities and officials for rehabilitation purpose. The discrepancy in the number of officials to that of offenders is a challenge within the Department of Correctional Services with regard to skills development. The study was based on the hypothesis that “effective implementation of skills development within Johannesburg Management Area may lead to a successful social reintegration of offenders”. The empirical research was conducted to support the hypothesis. Questionnaire was distributed and interviews were conducted to obtain responses. the findings reveal that offenders who are skilled are easy to be reintegrated and at the same time skilled officials are able to play a vital role in facilitating the social reintegration of offenders Study further reveals that skilled officials are able to network on behalf of offenders with ease and are able to increase job opportunities for offenders who are already on social reintegration programme. The study recommends that the Johannesburg Management area need to restructure its human resource development office, ensure that experienced and qualified facilitators are employed. Each correctional centre should have qualified facilitators who are experienced in adult education to skill offenders in various areas of development. The study leaves a scope for future research stating that Department of Correctional Services do further analysis on skills development and Social reintegration of offenders nationally to find a common and standard approach that will assist in the full reintegration of offenders / M, Development and Management, North-West University, Vaal Triangle Campus, 2011

<p>The history of prison reform after 1994 was shaped by the relationship between governance and human rights standards / the requirements for both are set out in the Constitution and elaborated on in the Correctional Services Act. Good governance and human rights converge in five dimensions of a constitutional democracy: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, the rule&nbsp / of law / and resource utilisation. The new constitutional order established a set of governance and rights requirements for the prison system demanding fundamental reform. It de-legitimised the existing prison system and thus placed it in a crisis. This required its reinvention to establish a system compatible with constitutional demands. The thesis investigates whether&nbsp / constitutionalism provided the necessary transformative basis for prison reform in South Africa after 1994. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) senior management failed to&nbsp / anticipate this in the period 1990 to 1994. In the five years after 1994 senior management equally failed to initiate a fundamental reform process. This lack of vision, as well as a number of external factors relating to the state of the public service in the period 1994 to 2000, gave rise to a second crisis: the collapse of order and discipline in the DCS. By the late 1990s the state had lost control of the DCS and its internal workings can be described as a mess &ndash / a highly interactive set of problems in causal relationships. In many regards the problems beleaguering the prison system were created in the period 1994 &ndash / 1999. The leadership at the time did not recognize that the prison system was in crisis or that the crisis presented an opportunity for&nbsp / fundamental reform. The new democratic order demanded constitutional and political imagination, but this failed to materialise. Consequently, the role and function of imprisonment within the&nbsp / criminal justice system has remained fundamentally unchanged and there has not been a critical re-examination of its purpose, save that the criminal justice system has become more punitive. Several investigations (1998-2006) into the DCS found widespread corruption and rights violations. Organised labour understood transformation primarily as the racial transformation of the staff corps and embarked on an organised campaign to seize control of management and key positions. This introduced a culture of lawlessness, enabling widespread corruption. w leadership by 2001 and facing pressure from the national government, the DCS responded to the situation by focusing on corruption and on regaining control of the Department. A number of&nbsp / gains have been made since then, especially after 2004. Regaining control of the Department focused on addressing systemic weaknesses, enforcing the disciplinary code and defining a&nbsp / new employer-employee relationship. This has been a slow process with notable setbacks, but it continues to form part of the Department&rsquo / s strategic direction. It is concluded that the DCS&nbsp / has engaged with and developed a deeper understanding of its constitutional obligations insofar as they pertain to governance requirements in the Constitution. However, compliance with&nbsp / human rights standards had not received the same attention and areas of substantial non-compliance remain in violation of the Constitution and subordinate legislation. Overcrowding,&nbsp / violations of personal safety, poor services and/or lack of access to services persist. Despite the detailed rights standards set out in the Correctional Services Act, there is little to indicate that&nbsp / legislative compliance is an overt focus for the DCS. While meeting the minimum standards of humane detention, as required by the Constitution, should have been the strategic focus of the&nbsp / DCS in relation to the prison population, the 2004 White&nbsp / Paper defines &ldquo / offender rehabilitation&rdquo / as the core business of the DCS. In many regards the DCS has assigned more prominence&nbsp / and weight to the White Paper than to its obligations under the Correctional Services Act. In an attempt to legitimise the prison system, the DCS defined for itself a goal that is required neither&nbsp / by the Constitution nor the Correctional&nbsp / Services Act. Compliance with the minimum standards of humane detention must be regarded as a prerequisite for successful interventions to reduce&nbsp / future criminality. After&nbsp / seven years, delivery results on the rehabilitation objective have been minimal and not objectively measurable. The noble and over-ambitious focus on rehabilitation at&nbsp / policy level distracted the DCS from its primary constitutional obligation, namely to ensure safe and humane custody under conditions of human dignity Throughout the period (1994 to 2012)&nbsp / the DCS has been suspicious if not dismissive of advice, guidance and at times orders (including court orders) offered or given by external&nbsp / stakeholders. Its relationship with civil society&nbsp / &nbsp / &nbsp / &nbsp / organisations remain strained and there is no formal structure for interaction. Since 2004 Parliament has reasserted its authority over the DCS, not hesitating to criticise poor decisions and&nbsp / sub-standard performance. Civil society organisations have increasingly used Parliament as a platform for raising concerns about prison reform. Litigation by civil society and prisoners has&nbsp / also been used on a growing scale&nbsp / to ensure legislative compliance. It is concluded that prison reform efforts needs to refocus on he rights requirements set out in the Correctional Services&nbsp / Act and approach this task in an inclusive, transparent and accountable manner.&nbsp / &nbsp / </p>

M. Tech. Labour Relations Management / The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) is responsible for the rehabilitation, through skills-training and development, of all offenders incarcerated for different kinds of crimes/offences committed in South Africa. The DCS assumes responsibility for safeguarding society against convicted criminals.. It was reported that DCS experienced a dramatic increase in workplace conflict in the period 2008/2009 - 2012/2013, and the situation has not changed ever since. Workplace conflict, especially dysfunctional conflict, creates unstable labour relations and related risks in the DCS, and should therefore be combated without any further delay. The researcher is under the presumption that many forms of dysfunctional workplace conflict in the Department of Correctional Services, arise because managers, trade union representatives and employees have different perceptions of how employment relations practices and behavioural norms should be applied in the workplace. The primary objective of this study was to investigate employee perceptions on the causes of destructive conflict in the workplace of the Department of Correctional Services, and for that purpose, Zonderwater Management Area was purposefully sampled for the research.

<p>The history of prison reform after 1994 was shaped by the relationship between governance and human rights standards / the requirements for both are set out in the Constitution and elaborated on in the Correctional Services Act. Good governance and human rights converge in five dimensions of a constitutional democracy: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, the rule&nbsp / of law / and resource utilisation. The new constitutional order established a set of governance and rights requirements for the prison system demanding fundamental reform. It de-legitimised the existing prison system and thus placed it in a crisis. This required its reinvention to establish a system compatible with constitutional demands. The thesis investigates whether&nbsp / constitutionalism provided the necessary transformative basis for prison reform in South Africa after 1994. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) senior management failed to&nbsp / anticipate this in the period 1990 to 1994. In the five years after 1994 senior management equally failed to initiate a fundamental reform process. This lack of vision, as well as a number of external factors relating to the state of the public service in the period 1994 to 2000, gave rise to a second crisis: the collapse of order and discipline in the DCS. By the late 1990s the state had lost control of the DCS and its internal workings can be described as a mess &ndash / a highly interactive set of problems in causal relationships. In many regards the problems beleaguering the prison system were created in the period 1994 &ndash / 1999. The leadership at the time did not recognize that the prison system was in crisis or that the crisis presented an opportunity for&nbsp / fundamental reform. The new democratic order demanded constitutional and political imagination, but this failed to materialise. Consequently, the role and function of imprisonment within the&nbsp / criminal justice system has remained fundamentally unchanged and there has not been a critical re-examination of its purpose, save that the criminal justice system has become more punitive. Several investigations (1998-2006) into the DCS found widespread corruption and rights violations. Organised labour understood transformation primarily as the racial transformation of the staff corps and embarked on an organised campaign to seize control of management and key positions. This introduced a culture of lawlessness, enabling widespread corruption. w leadership by 2001 and facing pressure from the national government, the DCS responded to the situation by focusing on corruption and on regaining control of the Department. A number of&nbsp / gains have been made since then, especially after 2004. Regaining control of the Department focused on addressing systemic weaknesses, enforcing the disciplinary code and defining a&nbsp / new employer-employee relationship. This has been a slow process with notable setbacks, but it continues to form part of the Department&rsquo / s strategic direction. It is concluded that the DCS&nbsp / has engaged with and developed a deeper understanding of its constitutional obligations insofar as they pertain to governance requirements in the Constitution. However, compliance with&nbsp / human rights standards had not received the same attention and areas of substantial non-compliance remain in violation of the Constitution and subordinate legislation. Overcrowding,&nbsp / violations of personal safety, poor services and/or lack of access to services persist. Despite the detailed rights standards set out in the Correctional Services Act, there is little to indicate that&nbsp / legislative compliance is an overt focus for the DCS. While meeting the minimum standards of humane detention, as required by the Constitution, should have been the strategic focus of the&nbsp / DCS in relation to the prison population, the 2004 White&nbsp / Paper defines &ldquo / offender rehabilitation&rdquo / as the core business of the DCS. In many regards the DCS has assigned more prominence&nbsp / and weight to the White Paper than to its obligations under the Correctional Services Act. In an attempt to legitimise the prison system, the DCS defined for itself a goal that is required neither&nbsp / by the Constitution nor the Correctional&nbsp / Services Act. Compliance with the minimum standards of humane detention must be regarded as a prerequisite for successful interventions to reduce&nbsp / future criminality. After&nbsp / seven years, delivery results on the rehabilitation objective have been minimal and not objectively measurable. The noble and over-ambitious focus on rehabilitation at&nbsp / policy level distracted the DCS from its primary constitutional obligation, namely to ensure safe and humane custody under conditions of human dignity Throughout the period (1994 to 2012)&nbsp / the DCS has been suspicious if not dismissive of advice, guidance and at times orders (including court orders) offered or given by external&nbsp / stakeholders. Its relationship with civil society&nbsp / &nbsp / &nbsp / &nbsp / organisations remain strained and there is no formal structure for interaction. Since 2004 Parliament has reasserted its authority over the DCS, not hesitating to criticise poor decisions and&nbsp / sub-standard performance. Civil society organisations have increasingly used Parliament as a platform for raising concerns about prison reform. Litigation by civil society and prisoners has&nbsp / also been used on a growing scale&nbsp / to ensure legislative compliance. It is concluded that prison reform efforts needs to refocus on he rights requirements set out in the Correctional Services&nbsp / Act and approach this task in an inclusive, transparent and accountable manner.&nbsp / &nbsp / </p>

The study set out to investigate the infusion of Project Management into public service in order to improve service delivery, and to look at the advantage of using Project Management as a management tool. Enabling legislations were referred to, and brief background was made. The advantage of applying Project Management by the North West Provincial Government was highlighted through a reference of a case study of the province as opposed to the service rendered by DCS in the province. The study used a questionnaire to collect data, 50 employees were surveyed through questionnaires over a period of two weeks. Four areas were covered, that is, the Area commissioner's office, Rooigrond Prison, Mafikeng Prison and Mafikeng Community Corrections. The results revealed that most employees were not competent with Project Management, only few have an idea of what Project Management is. The response from participants exceeded expectations, because all questionnaires were received without any problems. The researcher recommends that Rooigrond Area Commissioner must apply Project Management in its structure to render services, and to offer training to the members in order to empower them. / (MBA) North-West University, Mafikeng Campus, 2006

The Department of Correctional Services (Johannesburg Management Area) is established in the South of Johannesburg in Gauteng Province. It was founded in 1982. According to the Annual Report of the Department of Correctional Services 2009, the institution was initially developed to house 2630 offenders. Presently it accommodates 10130 offenders. These offenders are dependent on the number of facilities and officials for rehabilitation purpose. The discrepancy in the number of officials to that of offenders is a challenge within the Department of Correctional Services with regard to skills development. The study was based on the hypothesis that “effective implementation of skills development within Johannesburg Management Area may lead to a successful social reintegration of offenders”. The empirical research was conducted to support the hypothesis. Questionnaire was distributed and interviews were conducted to obtain responses. the findings reveal that offenders who are skilled are easy to be reintegrated and at the same time skilled officials are able to play a vital role in facilitating the social reintegration of offenders Study further reveals that skilled officials are able to network on behalf of offenders with ease and are able to increase job opportunities for offenders who are already on social reintegration programme. The study recommends that the Johannesburg Management area need to restructure its human resource development office, ensure that experienced and qualified facilitators are employed. Each correctional centre should have qualified facilitators who are experienced in adult education to skill offenders in various areas of development. The study leaves a scope for future research stating that Department of Correctional Services do further analysis on skills development and Social reintegration of offenders nationally to find a common and standard approach that will assist in the full reintegration of offenders / M, Development and Management, North-West University, Vaal Triangle Campus, 2011

Doctor Legum - LLD / The history of prison reform after 1994 was shaped by the relationship between governance and human rights standards; the requirements for both are set out in the Constitution and elaborated on in the Correctional Services Act. Good governance and human rights converge in five dimensions of a constitutional democracy: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, the rule of law; and resource utilisation. The new constitutional order established a set of governance and rights requirements for the prison system demanding fundamental reform. It de-legitimised the existing prison system and thus placed it in a crisis. This required its reinvention to establish a system compatible with constitutional demands. The thesis investigates whether constitutionalism provided the necessary transformative basis for prison reform in South Africa after 1994. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) senior management failed to anticipate this in the period 1990 to 1994. In the five years after 1994 senior management equally failed to initiate a fundamental reform process. This lack of vision, as well as a number of external factors relating to the state of the public service in the period 1994 to 2000, gave rise to a second crisis: the collapse of order and discipline in the DCS. By the late 1990s the state had lost control of the DCS and its internal workings can be described as a mess – a highly interactive set of problems in causal relationships. In many regards the problems beleaguering the prison system were created in the period 1994 – 1999. The leadership at the time did not recognize that the prison system was in crisis or that the crisis presented an opportunity for fundamental reform. The new democratic order demanded constitutional and political imagination, but this failed to materialise. Consequently, the role and function of imprisonment within the criminal justice system has remained fundamentally unchanged and there has not been a critical re-examination of its purpose, save that the criminal justice system has become more punitive. Several investigations (1998-2006) into the DCS found widespread corruption and rights violations. Organised labour understood transformation primarily as the racial transformation of the staff corps and embarked on an organised campaign to seize control of management and key positions. This introduced a culture of lawlessness, enabling widespread corruption. Under new leadership by 2001 and facing pressure from the national government, the DCS responded to the situation by focusing on corruption and on regaining control of the Department. A number of gains have been made since then, especially after 2004. Regaining control of the Department focused on addressing systemic weaknesses, enforcing the disciplinary code and defining a new employer-employee relationship. This has been a slow process with notable setbacks, but it continues to form part of the Department’s strategic direction. It is concluded that the DCS has engaged with and developed a deeper understanding of its constitutional obligations insofar as they pertain to governance requirements in the Constitution. However, compliance with human rights standards had not received the same attention and areas of substantial non-compliance remain in violation of the Constitution and subordinate legislation. Overcrowding, violations of personal safety, poor services and/or lack of access to services persist. Despite the detailed rights standards set out in the Correctional Services Act, there is little to indicate that legislative compliance is an overt focus for the DCS. While meeting the minimum standards of humane detention, as required by the Constitution, should have been the strategic focus of the DCS in relation to the prison population, the 2004 White Paper defines “offender rehabilitation” as the core business of the DCS. In many regards the DCS has assigned more prominence and weight to the White Paper than to its obligations under the Correctional Services Act. In an attempt to legitimise the prison system, the DCS defined for itself a goal that is required neither by the Constitution nor the Correctional Services Act. Compliance with the minimum standards of humane detention must be regarded as a prerequisite for successful interventions to reduce future criminality. After seven years, delivery results on the rehabilitation objective have been minimal and not objectively measurable. The noble and over-ambitious focus on rehabilitation at policy level distracted the DCS from its primary constitutional obligation, namely to ensure safe and humane custody under conditions of human dignity. Throughout the period (1994 to 2012) the DCS has been suspicious if not dismissive of advice, guidance and at times orders (including court orders) offered or given by external stakeholders. Its relationship with civil society organisations remain strained and there is no formal structure for interaction. Since 2004 Parliament has reasserted its authority over the DCS, not hesitating to criticise poor decisions and sub-standard performance. Civil society organisations have increasingly used Parliament as a platform for raising concerns about prison reform. Litigation by civil society and prisoners has also been used on a growing scale to ensure legislative compliance. It is concluded that prison reform efforts needs to refocus on the rights requirements set out in the Correctional Services Act and approach this task in an inclusive, transparent and accountable manner.

M.Phil. / A critical task in the management of human resources is the evaluation of employees. All organizations must face up to the challenge of how to evaluate, utilize and develop the skills and abilities of their employees to ensure that organizational goals are achieved, and also to ensure that individuals gain as much satisfaction as possible from their jobs while making effective contributions. The objective of performance evaluation is the following: • To identify management potential • To recognize performance through: promotion merit awards • To identify shortcomings and to rectify it • To establish training needs • To consider transfer/redeployment In order to succeed with this important management task, it is essential for any organization to have a performance evaluation system which can guarantee an objective, factual and reliable result.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The history of prison reform after 1994 was shaped by the relationship between governance and human rights standards; the requirements for both are set out in the Constitution and elaborated on in the Correctional Services Act. Good governance and human rights converge in five dimensions of a constitutional democracy: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, the rule of law; and resource utilisation. The new constitutional order established a set of governance and rights requirements for the prison system demanding fundamental reform. It de-legitimised the existing prison system and thus placed it in a crisis. This required its reinvention to establish a system compatible with constitutional demands. The thesis investigates whether constitutionalism provided the necessary transformative basis for prison reform in South Africa after 1994. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) senior management failed to anticipate this in the period 1990 to 1994. In the five years after 1994 senior management equally failed to initiate a fundamental reform process. This lack of vision, as well as a number of external factors relating to the state of the public service in the period 1994 to 2000, gave rise to a second crisis: the collapse of order and discipline in the DCS. By the late 1990s the state had lost control of the DCS and its internal workings can be described as a mess – a highly interactive set of problems in causal relationships. In many regards the problems beleaguering the prison system were created in the period 1994 – 1999. The leadership at the time did not recognize that the prison system was in crisis or that the crisis presented an opportunity for fundamental reform. The new democratic order demanded constitutional and political imagination, but this failed to materialise. Consequently, the role and function of imprisonment within the criminal justice system has remained fundamentally unchanged and there has not been a critical re-examination of its purpose, save that the criminal justice system has become more punitive. Several investigations (1998-2006) into the DCS found widespread corruption and rights violations. Organised labour understood transformation primarily as the racial transformation of the staff corps and embarked on an organised campaign to seize control of management and key positions. This introduced a culture of lawlessness, enabling widespread corruption. w leadership by 2001 and facing pressure from the national government, the DCS responded to the situation by focusing on corruption and on regaining control of the Department. A number of gains have been made since then, especially after 2004. Regaining control of the Department focused on addressing systemic weaknesses, enforcing the disciplinary code and defining a new employer-employee relationship. This has been a slow process with notable setbacks, but it continues to form part of the Department’s strategic direction. It is concluded that the DCS has engaged with and developed a deeper understanding of its constitutional obligations insofar as they pertain to governance requirements in the Constitution. However, compliance with human rights standards had not received the same attention and areas of substantial non-compliance remain in violation of the Constitution and subordinate legislation. Overcrowding, violations of personal safety, poor services and/or lack of access to services persist. Despite the detailed rights standards set out in the Correctional Services Act, there is little to indicate that legislative compliance is an overt focus for the DCS. While meeting the minimum standards of humane detention, as required by the Constitution, should have been the strategic focus of the DCS in relation to the prison population, the 2004 White Paper defines “offender rehabilitation” as the core business of the DCS. In many regards the DCS has assigned more prominence and weight to the White Paper than to its obligations under the Correctional Services Act. In an attempt to legitimise the prison system, the DCS defined for itself a goal that is required neither by the Constitution nor the Correctional Services Act. Compliance with the minimum standards of humane detention must be regarded as a prerequisite for successful interventions to reduce future criminality. After seven years, delivery results on the rehabilitation objective have been minimal and not objectively measurable. The noble and over-ambitious focus on rehabilitation at policy level distracted the DCS from its primary constitutional obligation, namely to ensure safe and humane custody under conditions of human dignity Throughout the period (1994 to 2012) the DCS has been suspicious if not dismissive of advice, guidance and at times orders (including court orders) offered or given by external stakeholders. Its relationship with civil society organisations remain strained and there is no formal structure for interaction. Since 2004 Parliament has reasserted its authority over the DCS, not hesitating to criticise poor decisions and sub-standard performance. Civil society organisations have increasingly used Parliament as a platform for raising concerns about prison reform. Litigation by civil society and prisoners has also been used on a growing scale to ensure legislative compliance. It is concluded that prison reform efforts needs to refocus on he rights requirements set out in the Correctional Services Act and approach this task in an inclusive, transparent and accountable manner. / South Africa

Nielsen, E & Olander, S. Children visiting their incarcerated parent. Degree project in Social work 15 högskolepoäng. Malmö University: Faculty of Health and Society, Department of Social Work, 2019.The purpose of the study was to see how a children perspective looks like in the correctional institution and how it is applied when a child visit their incarcerated parent. The study was also aimed to investigate which possibilities and difficulties staff in correctional services experience in connection with visits. The purpose of the study was to get different perspectives by taking part of the staff's experiences. To answer the questions, a qualitative method was used with semi-structured interviews. The selection in the study was nine people working in the correctional institution in Sweden, with different positions of employment. The authors had personal meetings with three of the people and the remaining interviews were made by phone. As an analysis method, coding and thematization were used. The empirical data was analyzed using the Knowledge Situation and Theory. The theoretical starting points were Goffman's concept Front- and Backstage, Antonovsky’s KASAM and risk and protection factors. The results of the study showed that a children perspective exist in the correctional services, both in how the staff meets the children, but also in how the environment is adapted to children. The result also shows that the most central difficulties when children are visiting their incarcerated parent is the resignation between children and parent and that children are affected by the rules and limitations that exist in the correctional service. The opportunities that are mainly highlighted in the study are that children and incarcerated parents can have contact and that there is an opportunity to end a visit when it’s no longer for the best of the children. One conclusion is that children’s involvement is of great importance when visiting their incarcerated parent and that staff are asking for more education about meeting children in different situations. The study also highlights the benefits of sharing experiences with each other and learning from other institutions in order to reduce the difficulties that exist in the work within the correctional institution and to make children more involved.Keywords: children perspective, correctional services, difficulties, incarcerated parent, possibilities