Community Reintegration of Offenders at an Overcrowded Rural Correctional Facility: Work Experiences of Correctional Officials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author(s) conducted a worthy study in the field of corrections in South Arica. However, in my view, another round of revision is required in order for the manuscript to do justice to the topic and to be worthy for publications. A main area of improvement is the need for the focus to be more specific on the role and experiences of correctional officials of offenders' reintegration in society. Currently the focus seems to be a spread between reintegration in society, overcrowding in correctional centres, and officials' experiences, without a strong link bringing these aspects together. The study needs to be more directly contextualised in the South African landscape, and in the landscape of the Department of Corrections specifically. A more detailed description of Rooigrond Correctional Centre needs to be provided. It would further be of scholarly value for the authors to engage with related and recent studies in corrections in the South African and international landscape. In doing so, the study will be better positions and the value and contribution of the study to the body of existing knowledge be emphasised. The research method and analysis are appropriately defined and presented. With clear guidance from the editorial team, the authors may successfully revise the manuscript to be worthy of publication.

 

Numerous language and editorial errors and inconsistencies were observed, and the manuscript therefor needs to be submitted for language editing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We have worked on the manuscript in accordance to your useful review comments. W have attached all the corrections made on the correction sheet attached.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript has the potential to make a contribution to the field of corrections. However, the authors need to consider the following:

1. There are various sweeping statements throughout the manuscript. Thus source reference(s) must be included to substantiate a statement or information presented. 

2. This manuscript is unfortunately poorly edited. A professional editor should edit the manuscript before final submission. In the attached document the reviewer has made extensive comment on poor sentence construction. 

3. Refer to recent sources when describing overcrowding in South African corrections. Consult the 2021/2022 Annual Report of the DCS and JICS. 

4. UK vs USA spelling - be consistent. 

5. Authors please consider the following:

As heading 6 and 7 are still part of your findings it seems a bit confusing to have these as separate headings. The reviewer suggests that you rather refer to themes and sub-themes. Thus -

Theme 1: The influence of overcrowding on social reintegration of offenders (and then discuss the sub-themes)

Theme 2: How overcrowding affects correctional officials at a professional level (and then discuss the sub-themes)

Theme 3: How overcrowding affects the correctional officials at a person level (and then discuss the sub-themes). 

Please find attached the manuscript on which extensive comments have been made. Hopefully this will guide the authors in re-working the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The manuscript needs to be professionally edited - in some instances there are poor sentence construction, spelling errors, UK vs USA spelling. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for the constructive comments we received for improving our manuscript. We have effected all your suggestions on the manuscript. We have also attached the correction sheet for the changes effected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, you have successfully attended to the revision recommendations. All the best with the publication.

A final round of English language editing would further enhance the quality of the work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your genuine review comments for improvement of our manuscript. We have effected your comments.

Regards;

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for taking my recommendations/suggestions to heart and working on improving the manuscript. Just a few minor comments/recommendations:

Page 1, last para: "... which may increase (delete the s at the end of the word) their risks of offending". 

Page 2, 3rd para: ... facility which is located in one of (insert this word) the most rural areas (include the s at the end of this word) of the North West province". 

Page 2, 3rd para: Delete the 2016 stats pertaining to SAs prison overcrowding and include the 2021/22 statistics from the DCS. In 2021/22 the DCS incarcerated 143 233 inmates but with bed capacity for only 108 804 offenders. Therefore, SAs correctional facilities are 31% overcrowded. You will find this information in the DCS Annual Report. 

Page 2, last para: Not Judicial Inspectorate for Corrections but Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services. 

Page 3, 2nd para: Insert a full stop after the reference to Olivares (2018). 

Page 14 - 5.4.1 Include the word Sub-theme: Health

Autor(s) can consider numbering the sub-themes (only a suggestion). 

Some minor mistakes as indicated. Most of the major issues from the first review have been addressed and corrected. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you once more for genuinely providing feedback that improved our manuscript. We have effected all the changes suggested and the manuscript has improved a lot.

Regards;

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf