VICTIMS CHARTER:ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTATION

(Dept. Correctional Services)

Presentation To Parliament: Portfolio Committee on Correctional

Services

23rd October 2013

OVERVIEW OF THE FINDINGS

CGE MANDATE The Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) is an independent statutory body

established in terms of Section 187 of the Constitution of South Africa. The Mandate of the CGE is contained in Section 187 of the Constitution and in the

CGE Act of 1996.

CGE is mandated to promote respect for, protect, develop and attain gender equality, and to make recommendations on any legislation affecting the status of women.

The CGE has a constitutional obligation to monitor and evaluate policies and

practices of organs of state, statutory bodies, public bodies, private businesses, enterprises and institutions in order to promote gender equality.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND The Victims Charter (VC) sets minimum standards of service

providers when rendering assistance to the victims of crime in SA.

The Charter is part of the government’s integrated response to the Victim Empowerment Policy of 2005 aimed at providing comprehensive and integrated response to the needs of the victims of crime.

Consolidates current legal framework relating to rights and services for victims of crime; Eliminates secondary victimisation in the criminal justice system,

Ensures victims are/remain central to the criminal justice system,

Clarifies service standards to be expected/delivered to victims of crime through the criminal justice system.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND (cont.)

Makes provision for victims to seek recourse when standards are not met by the criminal justice system

The Charter confers the following rights on victims of crime (& prescribes a set of minimum standards of service for service providers):

The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for dignity and privacy

The right to offer information The right to receive information The right to protection The right to assistance The right to compensation The right to restitution

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND (Cont.)

Prior to the enactment of the VC in 2004, system ineffective in coordination of specialist services for victims of sexual assault.

Victims were expected to obtain services from different state institutions which were situated in different locations, and were attended to by general practitioners instead of specialists.

The result was that vital forensic evidence was lost, and statements obtained from victims lacked substance which weakened chances of conviction of perpetrators.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND (Cont.)

Statements were taken without counselling and in a manner that lacked sensitivity towards victims and undermined their privacy and confidentiality.

This often led to secondary victimisation of victims of crime.

To address this problem, government introduced ‘one stop centres’ – all vital specialist services for victims were provided under one roof, in an integrated and coordinated manner.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND (Cont.)

Prior to the enactment of the VC in 2004, system characterised by the following;

• An ineffective coordination of specialist services for victims of sexual assault,

• A lack of Integration of vital services to victims of crime coming into the criminal justice system,

• Victims were expected to obtain services from different state institutions in different locations,

• Victims were attended to by general practitioners instead of specialists.

When opening cases for victims of crime, actors relied on local police stations, which often lacked relevant skills specialist expertise to handle victims of sexual crime.

Effective provision of medical assistance & processing of victims (i.e. Forensic examinations) depended on the availability of specialist services at local hospitals/healthcare facilities.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND (Cont.)

Vital forensic evidence would often be lost because local police stations and healthcare facilities lacked specialist skills and services.

This often undermined successful convictions/prosecutions of perpetrators.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The study was conducted in 2012 to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the VC by the department Correctional Services.

It also sought to determine the extent to which the rights of the victims of sexual assault were protected and promoted in line with the provisions of the VC

Key themes:

• Knowledge and understanding of provisions of the VC.• Institutional Capacity & Internal skills development for staff.• Nature of services provided to victims of crime.• Availability of Resources.• Monitoring and evaluation of services.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY (cont.) Institutions involved in the study:

Parole Boards.

Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

National Institute of Crime and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) Foundation for Victims of Crime (FOVOC) Provincial Victims Empowerment Forums

DCS Officials (including Provincial Coordinators and Parole Board Chairpersons) and other state officials were interviewed.

Site visits were undertaken to selected Parole Boards.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY (cont.)

Province Hospitals

Thuthuzela Care Centres

Parole Boards

Gauteng 3 2 3

Free State 4 4 4

Northern Cape 2 0 1

KwaZulu-Natal 1 4 5

Northern West 3 2 2

Eastern Cape 5 5 5

Mpumalanga 0 1 1

Limpopo 5 3 2

KEY STUDY FINDINGS Knowledge and understanding of VC:

DCS officials & other informants had adequate knowledgeable & understanding of the provisions of the VC.

Informants had knowledge and understanding of the department’s commitments and policy objectives.

Understood the objective that victims are central to the criminal justice system.

Understood the rights of victims as outlined in the VC.

Understood the need/importance of victim participation in Parole Board hearings.

KEY STUDY FINDINGS (Cont.) Institutional Capacity & Internal Skills Development:

Several crucial VC-relevant skills are necessary for DCS personnel:

Victim-Offender Mediation/facilitation skills,

Recognition of trauma,

Forensic medical skills (i.e. Forensic medical examinations),

Gender sensitivity/Knowledge of gender based violence issues,

Social & Psychological counselling and support,

Communication and information dissemination skills,

Victim debriefing skills.

KEY STUDY FINDINGS (Cont.) Institutional Capacity & Internal Skills Development:

Informants reported limited skills development/ capacity building opportunities for staff (inadequate resources as key factor).

Lack of staff dedicated to the implementation of the VC related functions.

No indication of a dedicated skills development & institutional capacity building aimed specifically at effective implementation of VC.

Lack of adequately trained personnel for effective implementation of provisions of the VC/render quality services to victims of crime.

Inadequate institutional capacity (staff and resources) and systems to keep regular contact with victims of crime (& regular information dissemination on case developments).

KEY STUDY FINDINGS (Cont.) Institutional Capacity & Internal Skills Development:

Limited resources undermines capacity to track & locate all victims of crime (especially for Parole Hearings).

The lengthy period between sentencing of offenders & Parole Board hearings created problems:

Victims often moved on/changed addresses/relocated or lost contact with the department,

Victims became disillusioned/died or unwilling to re-live the trauma of their crime experiences.

To resolve this, the department contracted an NGO (Foundation for Human Rights) to assist.

At the time of the study, some DCS facilities lacked adequate funds to assist victims with transport to attend Parole Board hearings.

KEY STUDY FINDINGS (Cont.) Services Provided to Victims of Crime:

Parole Board responsible for placement of offenders & ensuring participation of Victims of Crime during Parole Board Hearings.

All DCS facilities provided basic information (posters and pamphlets) on the services for victims of crime.

Advice, assistance & inform victims about their rights & relevant procedures in preparation for Parole hearings.

Provide protection & ensure safety of victims during Parole Board Hearings.

Emphasis on promoting restorative justice.

Provision of specialist (i.e. victim-offender mediation) & medical (i.e. Forensic examinations, counselling, etc.) services to victims of crime.

KEY STUDY FINDINGS (cont.) Services Provided to Victims of Crime:

Not all DCS Centres could provide all the necessary vital services to victims of crime (esp. Victim-offender mediation services).

To resolve this, some DCS Centres in Provinces contracted NICRO & FOVOC to run workshops on victim-offender mediation services.

All provinces reported a lack of adequate resources (i.e. dedicated budget allocations) for rendering critical services to the victims.

Some of the DCS Centres were unable to help victims who could not afford to travel to attend Parole Hearings, thus undermining the need for victim participation.

A number of the centres lacked audio-visual equipment (CCTV cameras) to provide an opportunity to those victims who cannot present themselves in person at Parole Board hearings.

KEY STUDY FINDINGS (cont.) Availability of Relevant Resources:

Informants reported no dedicated budget for the implementation of VC.

All DCS facilities in the provinces reported lack of adequate resources for rendering critical services to the victims.

A number of the centres lacked audio-recording and audio-visual equipment (i.e. CCTV cameras) to enable victims who were fearful to make presentations to Parole Board hearings.

Widespread lack of funds to assist victims with transportation problems to attend and appear before Parole Hearings.

All DCS Centres visited had basic amenities and facilities.

However some regional facilities reported limited office space (i.e. Lack of separate waiting rooms for victims and offenders during Parole Hearings).

KEY STUDY FINDINGS (cont.) Monitoring and Evaluation of services:

The study was unable to find evidence of systematic & regular monitoring & evaluation of quality & quantity of service rendered to victims of crime.

It is not clear if the department had a policy framework or nation-wide system to ensure/determine effectiveness & efficacy of services rendered to meet the needs of victims of crime.

The department has put in place a complaints capturing mechanism for offenders within regional DCS facilities.

At provincial level, no uniform monitoring & evaluation system/framework is in place.

Various provinces use various ad hoc systems/methods such as:

Collecting statistics of victims who attended Parole hearings or were assisted by the centres. Some centres provide voluntary feedback forms to victims. Submissions of monthly/quarterly and annual reports to regional offices or DCS Head Office. Meetings with stakeholders and local community members to discuss implementation plans and progress.

RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations derive from the findings of the study as contained in the

research report:

It is recommended that the Department should undertake a thorough review of internal programmes & processes for implementing the VC to improve strategic planning & allocation of resources to such programmes.

DCS should review & focus attention on internal policies and systems for resource allocation and management for the benefit of VC related costs (e.g. the transport and related costs for ensuring the participation of victims in Parole hearings).

DCS should review current policy and practices relating to the capturing, storing & regular updating of information/ contact details of victims of crime. This exercise will be crucial for ensuring that DCS correctional facilities maintain regular contact with victims of crime to improve communication and the dissemination of vital case information. This review should involve other critical stakeholders, such as the SAPS, DSD, NPA and NGOs which are currently assisting in the tracing of victims of crime.

Together with other key departments involved in the implementation of the VC, the DCS should develop a common operational strategy and system to ensure that the different and sometimes incongruous administrative boundary demarcations are managed effectively to avoid fragmented and disintegrated approaches in delivering VC-related services to victims of crime.

RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.)

Design an effective and reliable system of regular reviews, monitoring and evaluation of the performance of correctional facilities. Such a system should have a wide scope, focusing on the effectiveness and relevance of internal and external operations, systems, policies and practices of DCS facilities throughout the country. It should be utilised to augment the current widely-used system of monthly reports and reliance on officials collecting statistics on the numbers of victims assisted.

Finally, it is recommended that the DCS institutes a system of regular and on-the-job training and skills development of officials tasked with implementing the VC and rendering services to victims of crime.

COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY(CGE)

THE ENDwww.cge.org.za