IMPLEMENTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR CORRECTIONS IN AFRICA: A CASE EXAMPLE OF THE NAMIBIAN CORRECTIONAL SERVICE AUTOMATED OFFENDER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

Editorial Board Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Acta Criminologica Southern African Journal of Criminology ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Special Edition Editor: Prof Anthony Minnaar ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EDITORIAL BOARD EDITORS Editor-in-Chief: Sub-editor: Sub-editor: Sub-editor:

Prof AdeV Minnaar Prof L Artz Prof D Govender Prof A Le Roux-Kemp

University of South Africa University of Cape Town University of South Africa City University of Hong Kong

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Prof J Barkhuizen Ms J Berg Prof C Bezuidenhout Dr A Birgden Ms NP Dastile Prof I de Vries Dr J de Wet Dr J Grant Prof O Hagemann Prof J Joseph Prof E Kibuka Prof GF Kirchhoff Prof MM Lanier Prof WFM Luyt Prof M Marks Prof ME Meyer Dr J Mofokeng Prof B Naude Prof J Neser Prof M Ovens Prof S Parmentier Prof RN Phaswana-Mafuya Mr A Phillips Prof JH Prinsloo Prof CJ Roelofse Mr J Schnetler Prof M Shaw Mrs S Thobane Mrs L van Schalkwyk Prof EGM Weitekamp Prof FW Winkel

University of Fort Hare University of Cape Town University of Pretoria Deakin University, Victoria, Australia University of South Africa Tshwane University of Technology University of KwaZulu-Natal University of the Witwatersrand (ret.) Kiel University of Applied Sciences, Germany Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, USA United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFRI) Tokiwa International Victimology Institute, Tokiwa University, Japan University of Alabama, USA University of South Africa Durban University of Technology University of North Dakota, USA Tshwane University of Technology Honorary Member CRIMSA Honorary Member CRIMSA University of South Africa Catholic University Leuven, Belgium Human Sciences Research Council University of Freestate Honorary Member CRIMSA University of Limpopo Strategic Research, SAPS (ret.) University of Cape Town University of South Africa University of South Africa University of Tuebingen, Germany Tilburg Institute for Victimological Studies Intervict, The Netherlands

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The views and opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the editor/subeditors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of CRIMSA. Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

© Copyright reserved ISSN 1012-8093

Editorial Board Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ARTICLES IMPLEMENTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR CORRECTIONS IN AFRICA: A CASE EXAMPLE OF THE NAMIBIAN CORRECTIONAL SERVICE AUTOMATED OFFENDER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

A Kathuria FJ Porporino

1-21

CRIMINOLOGISTS IN CORRECTIONS: AN ASSESSMENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF GANG INVOLVEMENT AND RELATED BEHAVIOUR

L Grobler A Hesselink

22-37

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES: CHANGING PERCEPTIONS TO MAKE CORRECTIONAL CENTRES SITES OF PREFERENCE

C Bezuidenhout G van Niekerk

38-51

RENDERING SERVICES IN A MAXIMUM CORRECTIONAL FACILITY: A SOCIAL WORK PERSPECTIVE

JS Mnguni BJ Mohapi

52-65

CHALLENGES FACED BY EX-INMATES AFTER THEIR RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC SOUTH AFRICA

TD Matshaba

66-78

EXPLORING THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-ESTEEM AND OFFENCE TYPE OF A GROUP OF RECIDIVISTS

M Cronje R Peacock

79-93

POLYGRAPH POTENTIAL IN SOUTH AFRICAN CORRECTIONS: IN PURSUIT OF REFORM, REINTEGRATION AND RECIDIVISM REDUCTION

A Hesselink FJW Herbig

94-105

MANAGING INCARCERATED WOMEN AFTER ESTABLISHING THEIR KNOWLEDGE LEVELS OF HIV AND AIDS: A CASE STUDY OF THE JOHANNESBURG FEMALE CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

WFM Luyt N du Preez

106-124

RISK FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING SUICIDES IN CORRECTIONAL CENTRES IN GAUTENG, SOUTH AFRICA

J du Preez F Steyn K Booyens

125-143

SEX, DRUGS AND TATTOOING IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO STIS, HIV AND AIDS

K Booyens C Bezuidenhout

144-159

EDITORIAL POLICY

160-161

GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS

162-170

Kathuria-Porporino Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology Special Edition No 2/2015: Change in African Corrections: From incarceration to reintegration ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IMPLEMENTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR CORRECTIONS IN AFRICA: A CASE EXAMPLE OF THE NAMIBIAN CORRECTIONAL SERVICE AUTOMATED OFFENDER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM Ankur Kathuria1 and Frank J. Porporino2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT As corrections in the developing world moves away from punishment and towards the challenges of rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, corrections officials are searching for ways to improve both their efficiency and effectiveness. Pursuing humane and professional correctional aims for the rehabilitation of offenders is a complicated task that requires multifaceted approaches and an inevitable embrace of modern management principles and strategies. The task is further exacerbated by the realities of a constant upsurge in offender populations, particularly because of an increase in the use of lengthier sentences. Corrections and prison services around the world, and increasingly in the developing world, are now expected to prove themselves as real contributors to public safety over the long term. In a fast-paced world where applications of technology are affecting every aspect of our lives, many prison services are falling behind and continue relying on traditional methods of organisational and offender population management. Various technologies to manage offenders are gaining popularity in the field of corrections but perhaps none offer as much potential to improve organisational functioning as offender management information systems. The Offender Management Information System that was recently implemented in Namibia is an automated and integrated data management system that records all of the key and relevant information related to management of offenders from intake to discharge. With a special focus on the Offender Management Information System of the Namibian Correctional Service, this article describes how the system functions and the requirements for its implementation. Challenges that can be expected in the development of any similar system, especially in Africa, are also discussed. The implications in terms of human capital, skills and finances required to manage such a system successfully are outlined. Keywords: Offender information management; technology in corrections; correctional information systems ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION In a recent cover story of the respected magazine The Economist (February 28, 2015), the smartphone is referred to as the ‘defining technology of the age’ (The Economist, 2015: p. 18). It is estimated that by the year 2020, 4 billion people worldwide will own a smartphone, giving them instant access on demand to an incredible volume of information. The article goes on to point out that just like the book, the clock and the internal combustion engine before it, the invention of the smartphone has fundamentally altered the way that people can relate to each other and to the world around them. It is undeniable that we live in an information age. Technology is advancing at an incredibly rapid pace to give us access to data, and analysis of data, in steadily unimaginable ways. In the business world, it is now common practice for organizations to make use of technology-driven tools in their management of business processes and streamlining of administrative challenges. Profit in many ways hinges on how information is used to understand and predict consumer preferences and demand. Investment in developing or improving and upgrading information _______________________ 1. Head of Information Technology Maintenance, Development and Support for the Namibian Correctional Service. Email: [email protected]. 2. PhD. Senior Partner, T3 Associates Inc. Ottawa, Canada. Email: [email protected].

___________________________________________________________________________ 1


systems is unquestioned. Indeed, it has been concluded that, “in many industries, survival and even existence without the extensive use of IT is inconceivable" (Laudon & Laudon, 2004: 31). The government sector, on the other hand, faces more difficult challenges. Systems development in the government sector needs to attend to the reality that various branches or divisions of government should be able to usefully ‘network’ with each other in collecting and sharing of information. Government information systems need to be able to ‘talk’ to each other across departments, give a varied level of access to sensitive information internally within departments, and give some level of access to information to the public at large. At the same time, they need to ensure that there is an acceptable level of data security in place to protect confidential data and individual privacy. Finally, relatively complicated and expensive systems development often has to be pursued with limited financial resources. Government agencies in the developed world continue to make progress in implementing both user-friendly data systems to manage their department’s information needs and increasingly sophisticated e-government services to interact with the public. Unfortunately, this is much less the case in the developing world. As highlighted in the recent 2014 edition of the Measuring the Information Society Report by the United Nations International Telecommunication Union (cf. ITU, 2014: 1-41), this is a symptom of a broader disparity in the development of information and communication technology (ICT) across the world. For example, for the six regions of the world that were examined in the report, the ‘information development index’ for Africa was the lowest of all six regions (ITU, 2014: 19). The ICT Development Index (IDI) is a composite index combining 11 indicators into one benchmark measure that serves to monitor  and compare developments in information  and communication technology across countries. As a critical sub-sector of government, corrections and prison systems throughout the world are intended to contribute to public safety and the preservation of the rule of law. These are laudable and challenging goals to meet even under optimal circumstances. However, although all correctional and prison systems share some common challenges, it is obvious that there is considerable divergence in resources available to contend with them. There is wide disparity in the resources available to manage and provide correctional services, the adequacy and modernization of facility infrastructure, the breadth of programmes and services for addressing prisoner needs, training and professionalization of staff, the entrenchment of respect for basic human rights, and a host of other differences we could highlight. Compounding the disparity is the fact that most corrections and prison systems in developing nations have not yet been able to join the information age; they continue to rely on traditional paper-driven, resource intensive, unreliable, unsecure and difficult-to-access record keeping. Increasingly, modern correctional practice is moving towards a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than only punitive warehousing of offenders (Maruna & Immarigeon, 2004; Porporino, 2010). Without technology-based tools to monitor and track the characteristics of offender populations, the assessment of their risk and needs, outcomes of interventions, and other critical offender management issues, this renewed focus on public safety through effective reintegration will not be easily realized (Pattavina, 2005; Wright, 2004). Correctional and prison systems that wish to become up-to-date and adopt modern principles of practice will need to embrace the use of technology to meet their objectives. In the developed world, technology is increasingly being applied to improve prison conditions and service delivery to offenders in a variety of ways (Donnell, 2015). As well, the ability to gather, store and retrieve a range of information about offenders through application of automated information systems has now become commonplace. Some good examples of this are the sophisticated Prison Management System introduced by the Singapore Prison Service ___________________________________________________________________________ 2


(National Computer Systems, [sa]: 1-2), and the Offender Management Information System developed by the National Offender Management Service in the UK (Syscon Justice Systems Inc., [sa]). The typical modus operandi in the developed world is to contract out the design and development of these systems to large, multi-national computer systems firms. A significant level of funding has to be allocated to do this. Unfortunately, this pathway is much less realistic for developing correctional systems where lack of both resources and technological infrastructure are key issues. The Offender Management Information System (OMIS) of the Namibian Correctional Service (NCS) that is described in this paper has potential and realistic applicability for any corrections and prison service in the developing world. In brief, the NCS OMIS is a web based electronic data management system that allows corrections officials to both electronically store and retrieve critical offender details from admission to release. Because it has been designed in modular format to be easily customisable, it represents an affordable solution to address the information needs of correctional and prison systems in any developing nation. This modern and automated approach to offender information management has some obvious advantages: 

It is simple to use, tailor-made and comprehensive.



The modular web based design allows the permitted users to access the system from any network-attached workstation or other smart device provided the user was given access.



It allows for effective, accurate and instant searching and reporting of information on either individual offenders or general offender population characteristics (e.g., at the institutional, regional or national level)



It includes strict access control mechanisms.



The system covers all aspects of offender management, from intake and release to daily management and community re-entry.



It can serve as a communication point with other Criminal Justice partners (e.g. Police, Courts).

As a case example, this paper will describe the Namibian Correctional Service OMIS and the phases of design and development that were followed (and are still being followed) for its full implementation in Namibia. It will also discuss the challenges that can be encountered in implementation of such a system and how to address them. BACKGROUND A management information system is essentially a set of interrelated computer-based components that collect/retrieve, store, process and distribute information to support decision-making and control in an organization (cf. Laudon & Laudon, 2004: 1-10; O' Brien & Marakas, 2011). Before the advent of computer technology in the early 1980s, how information was collected, processed and distributed in organisations was considered relatively unimportant, both in business enterprises and in government. Management was more about face-to-face interaction with employees and clients than it was about tracking information. However, with the advances in computer technology that progressed exponentially over the next several decades, there was a developing realization that information, when properly collected and analysed, provided vital knowledge -- timely, reliable and useful knowledge for monitoring efficiency, improving decision-making, addressing emerging problems and generally maintaining and enhancing effective organizational functioning. ___________________________________________________________________________ 3


As the information age begun to fundamentally alter the business world, corrections and criminal justice were criticized for not taking advantage of the new technology-based capabilities for information storage, retrieval and analysis (Fowler, 1999; Hardyman et al. 2002). The lag in realization of the benefits of management information systems was attributed, at least in part, to the preoccupation in corrections with the priorities of security, control, and transactional processing of individual offenders rather than broader systems management or analytical functions (cf. Hardyman et al., 2002). A nationwide US National Institute of Corrections survey in 1999, for example, found considerable disparity in the sophistication and analytic capabilities of various state prison systems’ management information processes (Brennan, Wells & Alexander, 2004: 3). The disparity was particularly obvious in terms of the ability to provide critical analysis for combinations of data (e.g., for offender risk classification), in the ability to produce useful management reports (e.g., timely, descriptive profiles of the offender population), and in staffs’ ability to use IT procedures. A number of US state prison systems focused only on individual case tracking. Interestingly, in many other cases, it was observed that the simplistic automation of manual procedures only served to perpetuate inefficient and ineffective approaches (e.g., inadequate coding of information, oversimplified classification algorithms). The inadequacies of traditional manual procedures were embedded in new, automated IT software without critical review (Brennan, Wells & Alexander, 2004: 3). Over the last several decades, offender management information systems have made considerable strides. Virtually every modern prison system has implemented some form of offender management information system and, over time, many of these systems have undergone some process to upgrade both hardware and software. Though perhaps still with variation in coverage of key data, and with different analytical capacities and levels of sophistication, management information systems are now acknowledged as essential elements of any modern correctional or prison service (Brennan, Wells & Alexander, 2004; Urban Institute, 1998; Burr, 2009; Stokes, James & Christian, 2008). These systems are the information ‘backbone’ of these services, providing for ease of retrieval of not just critical descriptive information (e.g., population counts) but also information needed for correctional decision-making (e.g., sentence calculation; risk classification of offenders; assignment to needs-based rehabilitation programs), monitoring implementation of new policies (e.g., remission for early release), and important planning and strategic analysis (e.g., population forecasting). In most developed nations in the world, these systems are taken for granted. Line staff, middle-level managers and senior executives rely upon these systems on a daily basis. Being without such ‘information retrieval’ capacity is not even imagined and even temporary and short-term ‘crashing’ of available information systems can create panic. For many developing nations, on the other hand, a different reality presents itself. It is routine that information is still recorded in a traditional manner, with paper and pencil on pieces of paper or manual registers. Prohibitive costs for developing automated systems have left most developing correctional systems lagging behind considerably, both in terms of operational or more strategic analysis. It is difficult to work on reforming a system when there is such limited objective data available to point to what might be going wrong or what could be going better. Added to this is the fact that various international standards and treaties expressly require correctional agencies to collect and store particular information on offenders in a reliable and consistent fashion, not just for operational purposes but also in the interest of respect for basic human rights (Stokes, James & Christian, 2008: 11-23) The OMIS designed and implemented for Namibia is a rare exception – a modern and fully integrated information system that has been developed and implemented realistically ‘in-house’, with only limited external consultant expertise and expense, and within an

___________________________________________________________________________ 4


affordable budget. Other African jurisdictions, as well as other developing nations in other parts of the world, could easily emulate the experience of the Namibian Correctional Service. TRADITIONAL VERSUS MODERN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT IN CORRECTIONS Just as in most other African correctional systems, the traditional approach for gathering information on offenders in Namibia, both at the institutional or Head Office level, was through reliance on a rather onerous manual, paper-based system in various record books or spread sheets. This of course does not allow for any easy way of verifying either the reliability or accuracy of the data on each offender, nor for tracking any individual offender’s behaviour and conduct during their term of imprisonment (i.e., other than through review of that offender’s individual case file). In many ways, searching or collating information on offenders becomes an arduous and time-consuming task, and for some types of information needs, it is not even possible. As an example, if it may be necessary to establish something as simple as the number of offenders who might be eligible for release in the next quarter, officials would have to wade through thousands of manual record entries to gather that information. The following quarter, if officials wanted the same question answered, they would once again have to wade through the same manual records. As another example, if a request was received from another government department, say from the National Health Service to provide a profile of offenders by current age and sentence length, the calculations that would have to be pursued (i.e., in retrieving dates of birth and calculating the current age of individual offenders) would take days and days of effort and considerable staff time. Typically, these kinds of questions would simply not be answered. The limitations of paperbased systems are quite simply the fact that collected information cannot be turned easily into ‘knowledge’, knowledge that may be critically important both for operational and strategic reasons. This leaves developing correctional systems continuously lagging behind as if in the dark. There are some obvious disadvantages to having access to information that is only stored in paper files, record books or spread sheets. The following are only a few: 

Searching of information through mostly disorganised files becomes a very tedious and a time consuming process that needs to be repeated over and over again. Typically, strained institutional resources are strained even further to respond to the information requests coming from Head or Regional Offices.



Reception and discharge of offenders remains a time consuming and resource intensive process that could be easily simplified.



Manual recording of information is vulnerable to greater chances of making errors since there is no mechanism for validating the information at the instant that recording is taking place.



Resources and space for storing and organizing files and record books securely are required.



Misplacing of information can occur routinely.



There is constant risk of data loss, for example, in the case of fire, water damage, or theft. Moreover, there are no possible ways of data recovery.



Accurate identification of offenders becomes a constant challenge. For example, since use of aliases is difficult to contend with and control. Often, there can be recording of data on the same offender under multiple offender numbers and names for a subsequent or different offence. For example, an offender could be released from correctional facility A and then be readmitted after some time to correctional facility B (under a

___________________________________________________________________________ 5


different name). During the time of readmission, a second offender record is created and assigned a new offender number. This now creates confusion since there is no simple way of determining if any particular offender was incarcerated, for how long and how many times. 

The human factor and possible ‘corruption’ enters the picture in a paper-based recording system since there are no audit trails on the offender file. If a staff member records or changes information incorrectly, there is no way of recovering the information on what or when was changed.



Many other issues arise regarding ease of information sharing within a paper-based recording system (including, for example, the possibility of miss-placing files or inadvertently giving offenders access to confidential information about other offenders).

Compared to the traditional paper-based approach for gathering and storing offender information, automated and computerised record keeping can bring some obvious and considerable benefits, some quite immediately and others over time as the system begins to be more well accepted, used and appreciated for its capabilities. On the positive side, these information systems can: 

Reduce data redundancy and inconsistency and increase the potential breadth of ‘corrections relevant’ data collection;



Increase accuracy as automatic checks can be programmed into the system. For example, the offender’s date of release can be calculated automatically based on sentence length and particular legislative parameters;



Minimise the possibility of data loss since all the information on offenders can be stored on a central server that is in a secure location and where there is a regular ‘backup’ schedule and disaster recovery mechanism in place;



Ensure that all transactions can be recorded and monitored -- whenever a user creates, edits or deletes any information on the offender an automated log can be created with a timestamp and the name of the user who created, edited or deleted the record;



Allocate an automated offender number to the offender that stays with them for the rest of their life hence avoiding any chance of duplicated numbers and miss-identification of offenders;



Allow for easy ‘searching’ for any recorded information on an offender. The user can instantly search for the offender with their name, offender number, biometric information and other relevant offender information listed in the database. This allows, for example, for much quicker response time in dealing with critical incidents or information requests at the regional or Head Office level rather than constantly barraging institutions to provide information;



Ensure that controlled and restricted access is easy to manage. An information system can be structured to give access only to users with access codes and this access can be restricted for different functions. For example, user A can only add information on the system, but cannot edit or delete information.



Allow for regular and quick production of automated counts and other daily, monthly or quarterly monitoring reports. Ease of creating ‘report summaries’ in many ways is perhaps one of the most important aspects of such a system. Critical reporting summaries (e.g., overcrowding figures by institution) can be generated easily and these

___________________________________________________________________________ 6


computer-generated reports can be checked for suspicious instances of inaccuracy. Ease of access to this kind of information (e.g., distribution of offenders across institutions) can also translate into more effective systems-level management. 

Be programmed to provide automated alerts – for example, of offender movement or incidents in which they are involved. Moreover, the information system can automatically issue an alert if the offender may be required for a court appearance, medical appointment, family visit, release or transfer or other required action, thereby ensuring that both the offender’s needs and rights are respected;



Assist in managing the offender’s progress throughout their sentence and after release. For example, the educational or vocational programmes the offender is involved in can be tracked. In a sense, the offender information system can record the ‘reintegration roadmap’ or sentence journey the offender may have followed and this in turn can significantly assist in making appropriate decisions about the offender;



Finally, a modern offender management system can give senior corrections officials access to critical information on offenders at any time, in any place, and not just in their office (through retrieval of information with various Smart Devices).

THE NAMIBIAN CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OFFENDER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM An offender management information system should store relevant data securely on the entire offender/inmate population within correctional facilities and/or being supervised in the community. The information stored in such a system typically includes basic background and descriptive information on offenders like their name, date of birth, age, date of sentencing, date of admission and other relevant information. However, the Namibian Correctional Service system goes well beyond this. For example, it has the capacity to store an identifying photograph of the offender as well as distinguishing scars or tattoos. The level of sophistication of the system is realized in the fact that it stores, retrieves and analyses more complex data elements that can then generate other summary information. For example, after collecting some basic information about the offender, the system produces a brief but informative profile for each offender who is admitted. In other modules of the system, it allows for: 

Instant retrieval of information for offenders who are re-admitted;



Sentence calculation and determination of possible conditional release dates;



Tagging and description of personal effects;



Generating a profile of current and past criminal history (as well as flagging for particular types of violent offences, use of weapons, multiple victims, escape history);



Calculation of a Security Classification Score based on a combination of criminal and social history factors;



Analysis of major areas of ‘criminogenic’ need that should be addressed;



Tracking of offenders as they are moved from one facility to another;



Chronological recording of health-related interventions and the frequency and nature of institutional incidents;



Digital storage of relevant case management reports and a record of involvement in programmes and other rehabilitative activities (e.g., educational or vocational).

___________________________________________________________________________ 7


A later section of this article will outline the modular structure of the OMIS in some more detail, and summarize the comprehensive set of data elements it can capture. The Namibian Correctional Service implemented its Offender Management Information System across its 13 correctional facilities beginning in July 2013. The entire offender population is currently on the system and this population stands presently at about 4 500 offenders. The system is structured in a modular format. Currently it is composed of 11 core modules as follows:           

Admission Reception and Assessment Health Management Case Management Rehabilitation Activities Institutional Incidents Visits Transfers Pre-Release Sentence Changes Release

In some cases, information that is gathered in one module is then used by another module. So for example, if there is a sentence change recorded in the Sentence Change module, then the release date for the offender is altered automatically in the Release module. All the transfers and releases from all 13 correctional facilities are recorded on the system. Consequently, in the case of a transfer to another facility, the offender is automatically recorded as a transfer from the ‘sending’ institution but as an admission by the ‘receiving’ institution. This enables the Namibian Correctional Service to establish quite easily at any point in time where each offender is within the system – an example of a simple automated task that previously consumed considerable time. Though the modules in some cases relate to each other, in every case the modules can function independently of each other and have been designed in a ‘plug-and-play’ setup. This means that the functioning of a particular module can easily be activated or left dormant depending on whether the information in that particular module is being collected. If another jurisdiction wished to adopt the system, for example, it would be a simple matter of deactivating those modules that may be of limited or no practical use. For example, if an agency has no case management procedures in place then there would be no need to activate the Case Management module. It is worth noting that considerable effort was made to ensure that the data collected in each of the modules of the Namibian Offender Management System conformed to the definitions in both the new Namibian Corrections Act of 2012 (NCS, 2012) as well as the most recent operations and procedures manuals (NCS, 2008; 2010). It should also be noted that at present, the Case Management, Rehabilitation Activities and Pre-Release modules have not yet been activated since implementation of the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy is still progressing and has not been introduced in every institution (Nafuka & Kake, 2015: 111).

___________________________________________________________________________ 8


IMPLEMENTATION OF AN OFFENDER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM: THE EXAMPLE OF NAMIBIA It is undeniable that implementation of any useful offender management system has to be managed in and of itself. It is, of course, a much more complicated endeavour than simply purchasing, installing and beginning to use a piece of new software. It is interesting to note in this regard that even in the developed world, the implementation of information systems in correctional agencies can easily suffer significant setbacks when planning is inadequate and piecemeal development of systems is allowed to create confusion and miss-application of resources. A case example is the experience of the California Department of Corrections as was described by an Independent Review Panel a few years ago (California Performance Review, 2004: 233-240). Even when a considerable level of funding is allocated to development of a corrections information system, delays and cost overruns are not at all unusual, especially when design and development is assigned to outside experts with little or limited internal involvement or real understanding of corrections operations or the needs of operational and senior managers (Burr, 2009). In the UK for example, it was observed that the approved lifetime cost of the project to develop a National Offender Management Information System was set at £234 million in June 2005. By July 2007, £155 million had been spent, the project was two years behind schedule and the estimated lifetime project costs had risen to £690 million (Burr, 2009: 5). The next few sections will discuss the development and implementation of the Offender Management Information System in Namibia in chronological order. This order represents ‘guideline steps’ for any corrections or prison service around the world more generally, and in Africa more particularly, that may wish to begin planning for implementation of a similar system in a cost-effective fashion. First and foremost, it is important to understand the basic requirements for implementation of such a system. Those requirements can be summarised as follows:     

Deciding on practical data/information requirements Internet or network connectivity A server (or servers) to host the database Other appropriate computer hardware Trained manpower for the data entry and retrieval of reports

Understanding operational needs and requirements A prerequisite for implementing an offender management information system is to first understand and define the particular information requirements of a given jurisdiction. In other words, specifications are needed in terms of the user requirements and how the system is expected to behave. Though some aspects of an offender management information system can be generalised from one jurisdiction to another (e.g., recording the offender’s name and date of birth), many other information elements are jurisdiction specific and have to correspond to local legislative requirements, policy or practice of that jurisdiction. Even in the very simple example of recording date of birth, does the month come before the day or vice versa? A good example would be the different rules or requirements for considering release of offenders. In some jurisdictions, release policies or legislation may allow for parole, while in other jurisdictions, they would allow only for release at the full completion of sentence. Simply transporting a system that has been designed for a North American or European context is neither practical nor beneficial if we happen to be working in a substantially different legislative and operational context. While certain data elements may be universal, others may need to be developed anew. Defining what the core data elements might be is only a starting point. For example, demographic data such as the name of the offender, a unique offender number, date of birth, ___________________________________________________________________________ 9


age, date of admission and sentence. However, a more thorough ‘needs analysis’ is required to determine the entire range of information requirements for the particular jurisdiction. In Namibia, this exercise was conducted over a period of five weeks where a group of wellinformed and seasoned senior managers of the NCS worked in focus group sessions in close collaboration with a consultant to outline: 1. The types of information modules that would be helpful; and 2. The data elements that should be captured within each of these modules. The fact that the consultant was familiar with local procedures, policies and practices and had designed a number of the offender assessment tools that were incorporated into the Offender Management Information System was very helpful. Automating the use of some of these tools (e.g., a new Security Classification Instrument) also facilitated implementation since the computer system was now assigning scoring and calculating automatically. Of further importance to note is that the logic of the Offender Management Information System followed the flow of the new Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy (Nafuka & Kake, 2015). It was considered crucial to incorporate elements into the system that would allow for monitoring aspects of this strategy. As well, the modular structure of the system essentially followed the established operational procedures that were to be followed at Namibian correctional facilities. This more or less sequential process is outlined below: Offender journey from intake to release process at NCS           

Admission Reception and Assessment Health management Case management Rehabilitation activities Institutional Incidents Visits Transfers Pre-Release Sentence Change Release

It is tempting when developing a new offender management information system to include collection of more data elements than is actually required in a practical and realistic manner. What should guide the design are a few simple questions: Will this information be easy to collect. For example, is it always available or is it objective? Is it really important to have this information (how will it be useful)? As an example, we may wish to know if offenders are ‘remorseful’ regarding their offence. This could be important in determining early release on parole. However, asking an admissions officer to record whether he/she thinks the offender is remorseful would be both likely quite unreliable and indeed unethical. On the other hand, asking a psychologist or social worker to record their professional judgment in a pre-release risk assessment report would be more appropriate. Collecting the right information, from the right source, in the right way and at the right time is one key to the design of a relevant and useful offender management information system.

___________________________________________________________________________ 10


Understanding infrastructure and hardware needs A well-functioning offender management information system has to be able to withstand the ‘load’ of multiple users, in multiple locations, wishing to retrieve or enter data, and all at the same time. For Namibia, the system was designed so that correctional staff from across the entire country could access the system at the same time (and even to share information with other agencies or countries if required). For all this to happen there was a requirement for a strong networking and cabling infrastructure to be in place. This necessitated the installation of physical cabling at all correctional facilities and the establishment of server-based links between each of the correctional facilities and the regional and head offices. Specifically, this involved the following equipment:     

Power skirting or tubing from where cables run through; CAT 6 network cables and fibre optic cables; Switches; Media convertors; In each facility, a server room, where all the equipment is connected together and from where all the cables are pushed through.

In order to economise on costs, cabling within facilities as much as possible employed prisoner labour under staff supervision. All of the internal cabling within the 13 correctional facilities was completed within a year. Once this infrastructure was installed at each correctional facility, facilities could now be connected together on a secure virtual private network (VPN). With the VPN in place, legitimate users could then access the OMIS from a central location where the entire database was hosted on a secure server. This server then needed to be backed up to storage at another location automatically so that there was no possibility of data loss. Below is a network diagram illustrating the breadth of the secure VPN for the Offender Management Information System in Namibia.

Centralised Server based in Windhoek to which all correctional facilities can connect

___________________________________________________________________________ 11


Having a secure VPN in place helps in making sure that data is protected and insulated at all times from intrusions. All of the interconnectivity between the correctional facilities in Namibia is managed via fibre channels and Pops that are provided to the NCS by the telecommunication provider Telecom Namibia. Importantly, this network and cabling infrastructure allows the NCS to track the offender population in each of their correctional facilities in ‘real time’ from the central secure location at Windhoek Headquarters. This enables the NCS not only to review up-to-date information, but also to prepare various population profile reports on a daily basis, and manage the system as a whole rather than as 13 separate facilities. For example, in noticing emerging congestion at one facility that can be counterbalanced with appropriate transfers to other facilities. Crucial types of operational decision-making are therefore all made possible with timely information that is available at the click of button. Understanding information technology equipment needs Permitted ‘users’ can access the OMIS in Namibia through their computers or laptops that are connected to the network and have been programmed to access the system. Not every computer that is connected to the network can access the system until that computer or laptop has been granted access. This is easily accomplished via management of IP addresses or MAC filtering on the server. Minimum specifications required on these computer machines to run the OMIS in Namibia are:    

Browser like Internet Explorer, Firefox or Chrome Windows 7 Operating System 2-4 GB RAM Latest version of Flash and Shockwave Player

Staff training and development The OMIS in Namibia was designed as a simple and a straightforward system with a userfriendly interface. Notwithstanding, considerable effort was directed towards training of staff members for data entry. Operators need to be well trained on how to enter the relevant data into the system. Obviously, if there is a lack of training or insufficient training, then users will neither accept nor appreciate the importance of the system nor will data be entered accurately and completely. The well-known adage ‘garbage in, garbage out’ then becomes a reality. Training and more training is essential to avoid this, as is initial and on-going monitoring of the accuracy of data entry in various facilities. As well, of course, there are some important legal and privacy issues that should be attended to by users and these have been clearly outlined in the Namibian Correctional Service through an Offender Management Information System Security Protocol (NCS, 2014). Even though computer technology is now ubiquitous, some potential users within correctional facilities might not have even basic knowledge regarding how to use a computer. The NCS managed this issue by first identifying qualifying officers with basic computer literacy and organising initial training on the OMIS with this group. Training in electronic security features also formed part of the training. Staff members initially trained to use the system that showed particular interest and understanding were then selected to assist in training other staff. As was already mentioned, the OMIS is a modular system and access to the system is controlled by the username and password that has a modular restriction. For example, a user with access to the ‘Admission’ module might have no access (or only view access) to the ‘Transfers’ module. Only few users would appropriately access certain modules in each facility (e.g., Health Management; Sentence Change). On the other hand, other information such as a Basic Profile Report on each offender that is automatically generated by the system would be accessible by a broad cross section of staff members. Each module can be added or ___________________________________________________________________________ 12


removed for general access purposes through the assignment of usernames and passwords. What this implies, of course, is that not all users may need to be trained on the specifics of each module. What is required instead is training on a ‘need to know’ basis, one module at a time. IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES: FROM DRAWING BOARD TO REALITY Once deployed, an offender management information system can become the primary ‘information and knowledge repository’ that is used daily by hundreds of correctional staff members and senior officials. Nevertheless, achieving this end goal requires surmounting of a number of key obstacles and challenges. These should be expected and strategies should be put in place to manage them. The challenges that are outlined below are some of the key issues that were faced by the Namibian Correctional Service in implementing their system. Most nations implementing an offender management information system will face very similar challenges and should be prepared in advance to deal with them. Beyond initial implementation, there is also continuous need to keep these systems updated so that changes in legislative or practice requirements are easily accommodated. For example, changes in eligibility for release on parole in Namibia were introduced after the system had already been put in place. Unless data coding and definitions can be easily modified (preferably with in-house expertise and ease of access to the system coding architecture), any offender management information system can become quickly out of date and too expensive to maintain. Indeed, much of the cost overruns that have been noted in the development of these systems have been attributed to the unanticipated need for continual ‘customisation’, an area where large computer systems firms capitalise to foster ‘dependence’ and thereby generate considerable profit (Burr, 2009: 6). Budget and political commitment Remaining up-to-date in Information Technology has become an increasingly important feature of any well-functioning organisation (cf. O' Brien & Marakas, 2011). However, there is a stark reality in Africa where it is generally acknowledged that correctional budgets are woefully inadequate (Kaggwa, 2012). Networks, servers and computer equipment in most of Africa (and similarly in Namibia) continue to be very expensive when compared to the European, American and Asian markets (ITU, 2014). To implement a system like the Offender Management Information System requires a significant IT budget and this has to be communicated effectively to political leaders to garner their support. Explaining the importance of modern information technology for corrections has to be contextualised in more than what might simply be more convenient for prison systems and explained more in terms of what is necessary for public safety and broader prison reform. This is not an easy task, especially in an atmosphere of scarce resources. What was most helpful in Namibia is the fact that the implementation of the Offender Management Information System was linked to a broader reform initiative that the correctional service had embarked upon – the introduction of a modern offender risk management correctional strategy encompassing a turn towards more scientific assessment of the risk and needs of offenders, enhancement of rehabilitative programming, and a particular emphasis on safe reintegration (Nafuka & Kake, 2015). As an illustration that this new ‘correctional strategy’ was fully endorsed by government is a statement made by the Namibian president, Hifikepunye Pohamba, at the 16th Annual Conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association held in Windhoek in October of 2014. His Excellency made a point of highlighting the following: “In March 2011, I launched the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy, which is aimed at promoting and applying contemporary approaches to dealing with offenders. A new strategic direction has been adopted whereby offenders are given new hope and encouraged to adopt a lifestyle that will ___________________________________________________________________________ 13


facilitate their reintegration into society, as law-abiding and productive citizens.” (Pohamba, 2014: 7). Convincing governments to give higher budgetary priority to improving correctional systems is difficult even in developed nations with strong economies. In developing nations, there is a doubling of effort required to convince government about the social benefits of modern corrections (e.g., reduced rates of reoffending) and how strategic front-end investment can create longer-term savings. It is too narrow simply to ask government for a portion of scarce funds just to improve access to information in Corrections. The request has to be explained in the form of a need for broader modernisation of the corrections system, in line with other social goals and vision. Assessing requirements realistically It is typical for computer systems companies to promise that they can develop ‘anything’ the user might need, regardless of how complicated it might actually be. For example, linking correctional systems with other police and court systems is certainly technically feasible, but also practically very difficult. In some well-resourced and modern prisons, for example, information systems have been developed that can track offender movement within the institution (e.g., through biometric tagging), keep accurate tracking of prisoner canteen spending preferences, issue automatic ordering of new supplies as stockpiles are diminished, and even allow offenders pre-selected menu choices for lunch or dinner. Detailed information gathering and use in corrections, as elsewhere in our lives, is gaining momentum and being applied for a myriad of purposes (Donnell, 2015). Nevertheless, the fact remains that all of these applications come at a cost. In correctional systems in developing nations, it is perhaps more reasonable to begin with the basics – and then climb the ladder slowly and methodically without wanting to jump over too many rungs too quickly. Many times the corrections and prison services themselves might get confused with their own requirements, or want to rush too quickly. It is critical to understand, for example, that a system from one country cannot simply be transplanted to another country. Terminologies and data definitions will have to differ and there will always be particular correctional practices and policies that have to be accommodated. As a starting point, a clear and comprehensive analysis is needed of the jurisdiction’s basic requirements, obviously as per the existing legal and policy framework, but also with an eye to areas of emerging change where information requirements may need to be satisfied. The only real alternative is a customized solution that purpose-fits a given jurisdiction. There is no OMIS-in-a-box that can be purchased. It is possible to be cost-effective in building one’s own system but it is impossible to borrow someone else’s entire system, even though some parts may be useable. With this in mind it is obvious that the greater the involvement of correctional officials who know their own system, the greater the chances that the right areas will be covered in the right way. Staff training and development Training for implementation of an offender management information system is not a ‘once only’ development and training initiative. Resources are needed for on-going development and training of end-users and sometimes finding the right people and applying the right training model can be a challenge on its own. Fundamentally, training has to be taken seriously, as this is one challenge that can destroy the relevance of an information system even if every other technological foundation is in place. Correctional services are notorious for shortcutting on training staff. Too little training at the beginning can create continual problems to contend with later (e.g., continued errors and/or delays in data entry). The old saying should be changed to ‘failing to train is like planning to fail’.

___________________________________________________________________________ 14


Yet the amount of training is not the only issue – the quality of that training is perhaps even more important. Correctional staff members are often difficult to inspire. However, presenting them with only dry and technical information without making it come alive in real world practice, with real world examples, makes it even more difficult to hold their attention. The training model applied in Namibia made extensive use of real offender examples for data entry training, as well as using a combination of both technical and substantive expertise as training facilitators. Typically, systems development personnel conduct training of correctional staff in implementation of new information systems. Though these individuals may be well versed in computer jargon and systems development details, their knowledge of correctional systems and issues often fall short. For conducting training in Namibia, two key strategies were deployed. First, facilitation of training made use of both technical expertise (e.g., the Head of IT in Namibia who also happened to be the systems programming developer) as well as substantive expertise in the areas for which staff were being trained For example, officials well versed in offender reception and initial assessment procedures were used for training in key offender intake modules. Furthermore, only staff that displayed some basic computer literacy were trained in the initial tranche of training by the institution. These staff members were then used for one-on-one training and mentoring of other staff members who were less comfortable with computer technology. Finally, a special effort was made to conduct basic computer literacy training for all staff members who might have occasion to use the system. SCREENSHOTS OF THE OFFENDER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM IN NAMIBIA As noted earlier, the Offender Management Information System in Namibia went live in 2013 and since then most of the modules have been fully implemented and relevant information entered on the entire offender population. To illustrate what the user interface for the system looks like, below are a few screenshots from the system. Examples are also shown of a few of the reports that can be generated for any period of time. The data displayed is of course ‘dummy’ data due to security reasons. Screenshot 1: Login screen Each staff member is assigned his or her own unique username and password. This allows for various ‘permissions’ to be granted to users for access to the system either to enter or retrieve information. There is also a secure headquarter login that allows senior staff to view and generate reports from the entire database.

___________________________________________________________________________ 15


Screenshot 2: View offenders screen This screen allows us to see the list of offenders, by name and unique offender number, in the respective correctional facilities. This list is divided into 3 categories: 

Active Offenders, are the ones that are inside the correctional facility at a particular point in time;



Closed Offenders, are the ones that were released or have died and are no longer in the correctional facility;



All Offenders, is the combined list of all the offenders on the database who have ever been in that respective correctional facility.

This screen also provides access for the users to the search function, adding an offender, alerts, transfer alerts, reports and a help feature. For example, if an Officer in Charge of a facility wishes to look more carefully at a particular offender’s Basic Profile, they simply click the ‘view offender’ tab and it appears.

Screenshot 3: Offender basic profile Every offender has his or her own Basic Profile. This profile is an electronic file on an offender that depicts their photograph for identification purposes as well as summarising essential descriptive information. Notable is that at the top of the Basic Profile, a number of key pieces of information are displayed including the facility where the offender currently resides, their full name, gender and current age, the location within the facility where the offender is being held (i.e., unit or residential block), their security classification, whether there is any escape history, and the amount of time left before sentence expiry. Shown as well are the ‘tabs’ for the various other modules of the OMIS that provide deeper layers of information on the offender (e.g., Reception and assessment, health, case management). The Basic Profile is held within the Admissions Module of the OMIS and the remaining sub-tabs ___________________________________________________________________________ 16


of this module include further information regarding the offender’s identity (e.g., scars or tattoos), offence-related details, whether there are any further charges pending, a detailed inventory of the offender’s property upon admission, any aliases he/she has used, and family contact details the offender has provided. If the offender has died, a summary of the circumstances of his/her death is also captured.

___________________________________________________________________________ 17


Screenshots 4 and 5: Offence analysis and victim details The next two screenshots illustrate the level of detail that is captured within the Reception and Assessment module regarding the offender’s major offence and any pertinent victim information. The offence information notes the location of the offence, whether there was violence involved, a weapon was used, if the offender was under the influence, whether there was a significant public reaction and other relevant offender information. Among the victim information that is captured, the OMIS notes the age and gender of the victim and whether the offender was related to the victim in some way.

___________________________________________________________________________ 18


Screenshot 6: Report on age distribution of offenders This is an example of one of the reports that can be generated – an age profile of the offenders admitted during a particular period of time. Similar reports can be generated for other categories of information (e.g., sentence length, type of offence), and either over a particular period of time, for all offenders within a facility, or for all offenders in the system as a whole. The OMIS currently has the capacity to generate about 90 tables collecting data with multiple fields. The OMIS was designed in a way that allows reports to be generated on each field of information that is collected. If there is a report that is needed it can be added easily to the OMIS through some relatively straightforward programming logic.

PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION As explained earlier, the OMIS has been designed as a dynamic system that can be expanded easily. With the foundation system in place, the NCS is currently considering priorities for expansion of the system so that some additional objectives can be achieved. There is some priority consideration to expand features of the system in the following areas: 

Biometric and automated finger print system Introduction of a finger print scanning and recognition system to the OMIS that will allow the NCS to identify offenders via their fingerprints. This will allow the service to overcome the problems encountered when offenders can change their names and sometimes get treated incorrectly as first time offenders. Also under consideration is the possibility for facial recognition.



Integration of the system with sister organisations The OMIS in Namibia is currently a standalone system and there is no automated mechanism in place for the sharing of information with sister departments like police, justice and home affairs. Ways to simplify information sharing through technology is a huge issue as different computer systems are often designed with different coding languages and with different logic structures. Just as one example, system “A” might store the name of the offender with 10 characters but system “B” stores the name in seven characters. Hence, in this case when the information is shared three characters will be lost. Each system developer will have his or her own way of unfolding their programming logic and this can make integration of systems difficult to achieve. There are also

___________________________________________________________________________ 19


different data protection policies in place that do not always allow for ease of information sharing. The obstacles are not insurmountable, but they are quite real and persistent. The NCS and local and national police services in Namibia are currently working together and drawing up a common business logic and application interface so that some critical pieces of information can be more easily shared on a common ‘hub’ for special access. 

Community Corrections Module: An important aspect of the NCS Offender Risk Management Strategy is the further development of community corrections options, both at the front-end as alternatives to imprisonment (e.g., community service orders) and at the back-end to assist in reintegration (e.g., more formalised community supervision and support). This is a perhaps slow but steadily emerging feature of improving correctional services in Namibia (Martin, 2015). A Community Corrections Module is currently in preparation with the analysis of requirements and designing phase of development currently taking place..

CONCLUSION A well-designed, effective, and comprehensive Offender Management Information System is indisputably the way forward for the modern practice of offender management in corrections and prison services around the world. Though it may be true that political support and an adequate information technology budget are required, there are ways to realize cost efficiencies when development and implementation of such a system is managed mostly inhouse. The experience of the Namibian Correctional Service proves the point. It did not cost Namibia millions of US dollars to develop and implement the system. It was achieved within a realistic budget and in a methodical buildings-blocks approach – one step at a time! The advantages of such a system, even for developing jurisdictions that have a serious scarcity of resources, are immeasurable. It should be seen as an investment and as a way to save money in the longer term. It should also be seen as a very practical way to better respect the human rights and dignity of both offenders and staff members. For offenders, it can help ensure, for example, that they are more effectively managed in less overcrowded institutions, that their health conditions are more closely monitored, their court appointments are not missed, their release occurs when it should. For staff members, an effective offender management information system allows them to use accurate information on a daily basis in better managing their offender caseloads. Fundamentally, better and easier access to information allows corrections professionalism to mature and grow. ____________________________________________________

LIST OF REFERENCES Brennan, T., Wells, D. & Alexander, J. 2004. Enhancing prison classification systems: The emerging role of management information systems. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections: Washington, DC. Burr, T. 2009. The National Offender Management Information System: Report of the Controller and Auditor General. National Audit Office. London: The Stationary Office. California Performance Review. 2004. Reforming Corrections: Report of the Corrections Independent Review Panel. Available at: http://www.cpr.ca.gov/Review_Panel/Information_Technology.html (retrieved on: 1 May 2015). ITU (International Telegraph Union). 2014. Measuring the Information Society Report: Executive Summary. International Telecommunications Union: Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2014.aspx (retrieved on: 15 May 2015). Donnell, P. 2015. A new age of humane treatment: How technology can change prisons, eTeknix, November, 2015. Available at: http://www.eteknix.com/a-new-age-of___________________________________________________________________________ 20


humane-treatment-how-technology-can-change-prisons/ (retrieved on: 8 November 2015). Fowler, L. 1999. Information Management. In P. Carlson and J. Garrett (eds). Prison and jail administration: Practice and theory. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Hardyman, P.L., Austin, J., Alexander, J., Johnson, K.D. and Tulloch, O.C. 2002. Internal prison classification systems: Case studies in their development and implementation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections. Kaggwa, S.K. 2012. Report of the Special Rapporteur on prisons and conditions of detention in Africa. Presented to the 52nd Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Yamoussoukro, Cote d’Ivoire Laudon, K.C. & Laudon, J.P. 2004. Management Information Systems: Managing the digital firm (9th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall/Pearson Education. Maruna, S. & Immarigeon, R. (2004). After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration. Cullompton: Willan. Nafuka, N.E. & Kake, P. 2015. Implementation of the Offender Risk management Correctional Strategy (ORMCS): From a punitive to rehabilitative approach. Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology, Special Edition No 1/2015: Change in African Corrections: From incarceration to reintegration: 101-113. Namibian Correctional Service. 2008. Reception and Assessment Unit Standard Operating Practices. Windhoek: Namibian Correctional Service Namibian Correctional Service. 2010. Unit Management and Correctional Strategy Standard Operating Practices. Windhoek: Namibian Correctional Service. Namibian Correctional Service. 2012. Correctional Service Act 9 of 2012. Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia, 5008. 7 August. Windhoek: Government Printers. Namibian Correctional Service. 2014. Offender Management Information System Security Protocol. Windhoek: Namibian Correctional Service National Computer Systems Ltd. Sa. NCS success stories: Defence & security. Prison Management System. Available at: http://www.ncs.com.sg (retrieved on: 30 May 2015). O’Brien, J.A. & Marakas, G.M. 2011. Management Information Systems (10th edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Pattavina, A. (ed.). (2005). Information technology and the criminal justice system. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Porporino, F. (2010). Bringing sense & sensitivity to Corrections: From programs to ‘fix’ offenders to services to support desistance. In J. Brayford, F. Cowe & J. Deering. (Eds). What else works? Creative work with offenders. London: Willan. Stokes, R., James, M. & Christian, J.2008. Handbook on prisoner file management. Vienna: United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. Syscon Justice Systems Inc. Elite Prisons: Know who you have incarcerated and how you need to manage them. Available at: www.syscon.net/Products/elite-prisons ( (retrieved on: 30 May, 2015). The Economist. 2015. Planet of the phones. 28 February. Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21645180-smartphone-ubiquitous-addictiveand-transformative-planet-phones (retrieved on: 30 May 2015). Urban Institute. (1998). State and Federal Corrections Information Systems: An inventory of data elements and an assessment of reporting capabilities. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Wright, K.N. (2004). An assessment of the capacity to measure performance among the nation’s prison systems. Federal Probation, 68(1): 51-58.

___________________________________________________________________________ 21

IMPLEMENTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR CORRECTIONS IN AFRICA: A CASE EXAMPLE OF THE NAMIBIAN CORRECTIONAL SERVICE AUTOMATED OFFENDER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

Recommend Documents