Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 55, May 2003
Published by the Public Services International
Research Unit (PSIRU) University of Greenwich, London, England.
www.psiru.org/justice
This publication is
supported by a grant from the Foundation Open Society Institute.
IN THIS ISSUE
WCC buys out Group 4’s holding
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC) has paid $132m to acquire the 57 per cent stake in the company that Group 4 bought in May 2002 (see PPRI # 50, 49 & 47). Last year Group 4, the Denmark-based security and prisons company acquired WCC’s parent company The Wackenhut Corporation to create the world’s second largest security firm. It also brought together the two largest international prison companies but a complex legal structure has kept them separate for contract bidding purposes.
Although Australian and South African authorities that contract with both companies saw no possible conflict issues, the UK government referred the deal to the competition commission. In October 2002 the commission found there were no public interest concerns, particularly since Group 4 had stated its intention to dispose of Wackenhut’s corrections business. Even though WCC was the obvious buyer this process has taken almost a year.
Announcing the deal on 1 May 2003, WCC’s chairman and chief executive, George Zoley, said: We think that this transaction presents a unique opportunity to increase WCC’s independence and create value for WCC’s minority shareholders ... we also feel confident that the removal of a controlling shareholder will provide WCC with more flexibility to pursue new opportunities related to the continued expansion of the business both domestically and abroad.”
The deal also terminates an agreement from 7 March 2002 “wherein Group 4 Falck agreed to reimburse WCC for up to 10% of the fair market value of WCC’s UK joint venture interest in the event current litigation related to the sale of The Wackenhut Corporation to Group 4 Falck results in a court order that WCC sell its interest in the joint venture to is partner Serco.”
WCC currently has 59 contracts in the US, UK, Australia, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand with a total design capacity of 43,067 beds.
CSC settles for $300,000 fine
Correctional Service Corporation (CSC) has agreed to pay a $300,000 civil fine for failure to disclose gifts it made to New York politicians who helped the company obtain millions of dollars worth of business (see PPRI #52, 45-42, 36, 30, 36, 24, 21, 14 & 3). However, the company did not admit to breaking the law and, while disagreeing with some of the Lobbying Commission’s findings, agreed to settle. The fine was a record for the state Lobbying Commission. CSC was also ordered by New York’s state board of elections to seek refunds on political contributions it made in 2002. State law forbids companies from giving more than $5,000 per annum to campaign committees. But in 2002 CSC gave at least $7,500 to such committees. In 1997 CSC was also cited for over-contributing.
Arizona sell off?
As the state of Arizona grapples with how to deal with its $1bn budget shortfall (see PPRI # 52), Senate Bill 1126 ‘providing for the sale and operation of state correctional facilities’ proposes to allow private companies to make closed bids for state prisons and purchase the right to run all prisons - except maximum security and juvenile facilities - on ten year contracts. The Bill states that the prison sale should be completed by 1 July 2004.
Meanwhile, consultants Ernst & Young have suggested that Arizona has “potential excess assets” and should sell infrastructure such as freeways, office buildings, hospitals, state parks and prisons with the state paying to lease them back. If the state adopts this proposal, Ernst & Young has offered to handle the transactions - for a fee.
A proposal to build and operate an Arizona private prison in Mexico within 20 miles of the border has been rejected by the state’s senate appropriations committee (see PPRI #52 & 49).
A Texas legislative working group is studying radical proposals (House Bills 1480, 1669 and 2190) that could lead to, amongst other things, privatising an entire division including some 22,000 state prison beds of the Texas department of criminal justice (TDCJ); the increase from 1,000 to 2,000 the number of beds allowed in any one private facility; shifting decisions on privatisation from the legislature to the department of criminal justice; and removing state oversight of private prisons.
These measures are aimed at reducing corrections costs by around $120m as a contribution to reducing the state’s $10bn budget shortfall. Texas already has the most private prisons - both state run and federal - of any state in the US. Proposals from corporations interested in taking over the state’s facilities were due by 30 April 2003.
The sponsor of the legislation, Mr Ray Allen, is not only the chair of the house corrections committee but also the chair of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Public Safety Committee. ALEC provides model legislation for state politicians on harsher sentencing and prison privatisation and generally advances conservative principles (see PPRI #38). According to the Houston Chronicle 29 April 2003, a spokesperson for Mr Allen’s office confirmed that he had also received campaign contributions from private prison companies “all duly recorded and reported in accordance with all the applicable rules and regulations” (see PPRI #46).
Meanwhile, the Texas Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, which includes the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is opposing the legislation, arguing that the claimed costs are spurious and the private sector’s record in Texas is poor. Even the TDJC itself argues in a submission that savings from privatisation are mostly mythical.
A
‘White Paper on Prison Privatisation Bills HB 1480, HB 1669 and HB 2190’
arguing against the privatisation proposals is available from Michele Deitch,
attorney and consultant, Email: MYDeitch@aol.com
The ‘White Paper Regarding Privatising Texas Department of Criminal Justice Facilities and HB 1480, 1669,1852 and 2190' is available from the American Civil Liberties Union website www.aclutx.org/legislature/privateprisonswhitepaper.htm
Twenty years after its inception Corrections Corporation of America, now the largest private prison operator in the US, is to implement faith based programmes in all its facilities over the next three years. Dallas, Texas-based Bill Glass Champions for Life (CFL), an evangelical prison ministry, will partner CCA in a bid to improve prisoner and staff safety, reduce both prison costs and reincarceration rates. As at 2002 CFL operated in 17 CCA facilities.
CFL began in 1972 and operates prison ministries in 42 US states as well as Mexico, Bermuda, the Dominican Republic, South Africa and Russia. The organisation’s website notes that “when President Bush launched his faith based initiative programme in 2001 - effectively enabling religious organisations to compete on a level playing field for social service contracts - rehabilitation leaped back onto the public agenda.” CFL also claims that there is a “growing body of scientific research and literature linking religious participation among prisoners to decreased prison incidents, decreased recidivism, improved mental health and decreased severity of future crimes, if committed, upon release.”
According to the Information Network Focus on Religious Movements (INFORM) at the London School of Economics, CFL “clearly identifies itself with a number of other Christian groups on its website that share a theological-political world view. These organisations appear to network extensively and have overlapping membership - as would be expected by their overlapping goals. This context places Champions for Life as part of the so-called Christian Right in the USA.”
One organisation that the CFL website recommends as an ‘additional resource for growth’ is The Promise Keepers (PK), a US men’s faith group which has been criticised by the National Organisation of Women (NOW). According to NOW, “many of the well financed leaders of the religious right publicly support the PK ministry, such as Jerry Falwell, Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ and James Dobson of Focus on the Family.” The latter a group that, according to NOW, “thinks the Republican Party is too moderate.”
As at March 2003 Corrections Corporation of America held 55,000 prisoners in 38 owned and 22 managed facilities in 21 states and the District of Columbia. It had one facility under construction. Its customer base includes: Federal Bureau of Prisons 13.8%; US Marshals Service 11.4%; Immigration and Naturalisation Service 6.9%; Wisconsin 5.6%; Georgia 5.3%; Texas 4.8 %; Tennessee 4.8 %; Florida 4.7 %, Oklahoma 4.3%; other 38.4%. According to CCA, it has 50.1% of the US market, followed by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation 20.4%; Management & Training Corporation 8.8%; Cornell Companies 7.9%; Correctional Services Corporation 6.8 %; and others 6.0%.
According to the company, historically, economic downturns have not materially affected the demand for prison beds. However, CCA currently has spare capacity of some 8,000 beds.
The company is looking to Federal budget initiatives such as: increased funding to the US Marshals service of 4.1%; increased funding of 29.7% for the INS; and the Office of Federal Detention Trustee was funded at $1.4bn - an increase of $592m above the administration’s request.
Costs associated with facilities are primarily salaries and employee benefits, food and medical supplies. The company believes there are numerous opportunities for cost savings in staffing patterns, food procurement and medical expenditures.
Source: Irving E. Lingo Jr., CCA chief financial officer, presentation at Lehman Brothers High Yield Bond and Syndicated Loan Conference, 18-21 March 2003
Action in South Carolina
This extract from the current
issue of Grassroots Leader, the newsletter of the North Carolina-based
organisation Grassroots Leadership, reveals how, a recent campaign in South
Carolina “illustrated the problems when juvenile justice issues get mixed with
up the profit motive.”
In October 2002, Grassroots Leadership learned that a
consulting firm from Columbia, South Carolina, planned to build a 320 bed
non-profit juvenile academy in adjacent Fairfield County. Their original
presentation to the Fairfield County Council - of which Grassroots Leadership
staff member Kamau Marcharia is also a member - raised more questions than
answers. A sample of the line of
questioning at the County Council meeting:
Q: If this is an “academy,”
will the South Carolina State Department of Education review and approve the
curriculum?
A: No.
Q: So, if it isn’t really an
educational institution, is it a juvenile detention facility?
A: No, it’s an academy.
Q: So, if it’s not a juvenile
detention institution, the youth will be free to leave?
A: No, they won’t.
Q: What’s to keep them from
leaving?
A: Some of the security
personnel will be armed.
As it became apparent that the consultants were more
interested in helping themselves rather than troubled youth in the state,
Grassroots Leadership mounted an organising campaign to stop the facility from
being built. We met with folks in the community where the ‘academy’ was
scheduled to be built and helped them develop strategies to oppose it. We developed and submitted to the County
Council, the local and state newspaper a list of 36 questions concerning the
proposed facility. Fairfield County
residents packed the next County Council meeting and wrote letters to the
press.
Meanwhile, Grassroots Leadership staff did research and
passed the results on to members of the community. They in turn gave this information to The State, South
Carolina’s statewide newspaper, which launched its own investigation. The
startling results of this investigation, published in a series of articles,
documented that:
The
supposed ‘non-profit’ which was sponsoring the ‘academy’ had exactly the same
board of directors as the for-profit consulting firm that was sponsoring the
project.
Although
the proposed project was in Fairfield County, the firm had obtained a $437,000
empowerment zone loan that was intended for use in adjacent Richland County.
In
its loan application, Rosewood stated that the South Carolina Department of
Juvenile Justice had contracted to assign youth to the facility – a claim
denied by the DJJ’s director.
In
three months, the six main consultants used public funds from this loan to pay
themselves from $22,500 to $27,500, billed at up to $225 per hour.
At the present moment, the project seems dead in the
water. Columbia city officials have cut
off payments on the loan and have demanded return of the $187,000 they had
already paid.
According to The State, the South Carolina State
Senate, the state prosecutor and the FBI have all opened investigations. Even though it looks like the ‘academy’ is dead
in the water, we’re still keeping our eyes and ears open. As this example shows, profit-seeking
entrepreneurs see juvenile justice not as a public service but as a potential
major profit centre.
It’s quite conceivable that, had Grassroots Leadership
not intervened, the facility might have been built and 320 youth needlessly
detained. The lesson to be learned from
this experience is that, when there’s money to be made in ‘juvenile justice’
neither juveniles nor justice will be well served.
Grassroots Leader, Spring 2003, Grassroots Leadership, www.grassrootsleadership.org
Acacia:the inspector’s leaked notes - “violence unreported”
Leaked confidential briefing notes from Western Australia’s inspector general of custodial services allege that the AIMS Corporation-managed Acacia Prison is failing to meet the terms of its contract and that its performance is not satisfactory (see PPRI # 52, 48, 37, 36, 34, 32, 30, 28 & 26). The inspector general, Professor Richard Harding, and his team inspected the prison in March 2003.
According to documents dated 21 March 2003 seen by the West Australian Professor Harding states:
a recurrent message from prison staff working in the blocks was that they were too thin on the ground to feel safe at all times;
the whole management system, from top to bottom, is under tremendous stress;
we wonder whether it could cope with a major incident or, less dramatically, whether it may quietly collapse as morale erodes;
there is no doubt that a tangible amount of violence goes either unreported or unsanctioned. Prisoner safety at Acacia is markedly less than we would hope;
there also seems to be a considerable amount of drug use at the prison;
many long term prisoners told us that quantities of food seemed to have diminished as the population increased, as if the same sized cake were being divided more times;
there can be a wait of two or even three weeks to see one of the doctors and this is below community standards;
rehabilitation schemes were meant to be the flagship for offender programmes. The reality is that the arrangements are chaotic.
The inspector general also noted that there was a high level of grievances amongst prisoners and evidence that some had been locked in their cells and electricity cut off as a form of punishment. The prison’s cultural area was not used by Aboriginal prisoners as they felt it was irrelevant and inappropriate.
Along with two state-run prisons in Western Australia, Acacia is now on the inspector general’s alert list of prisons at real risk of significant failure. In his briefing notes Professor Harding wrote that “we will be keeping it [Acacia] under close review during the next six months to a year - a period which could be crucial to its future.”
This was the prison’s first official inspection by the inspector general. Unlike like the chief inspector of prisons in the UK, Professor Harding’s team can also inspect the way that the department of justice manages the contract. The report is expected to be published by September 2003.
AIMS has a 20 year contract. The prison opened in May 2001 and the company was penalised A$1.05m in its first year of operation.
Strike action at Acacia
Staff at the AIMS Corporation-run Acacia Prison at Wooroloo, Western Australia, went on 48 hour strike in March over staffing levels and wages (see PPRI # 52, 48, 37, 36, 34, 32, 30, 28 & 26). Both custodial and non-custodial staff members of the Community and Public Sector Union - Civil Service Association took action on 20 March 2003 after negotiations with the Sodexho-owned company broke down. The union believes that the prison needs 30 more custodial staff to ensure the safety of staff and prisoners and to meet its contractual obligations under case management requirements. The CPSU-CSA’s branch secretary, Ms Toni Walkington, has called for AIMS Corporation’s contract to be scrapped and for the prison to be run by the state.
Labour notes
Guards at Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) - run immigration detention centres in mainland Australia called off a strike in January 2003 after the company agreed a raise of A$18 per week. On 1 February 2003 some 120 guards at ACM-run Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre in Brisbane, Queensland held a second 24 hour strike as part of their claim for a 7.5 per cent pay increase. ACM had offered only three per cent for three years. Police had to patrol the prison’s perimeter fence while the prisoners were locked down for the duration of the strike. Guards have also complained of staff shortages. At Arthur Gorrie there had been an increase of more than 100 prisoners - to around 800 - in the previous 18 months without any increase in staff. ACM had also proposed using prisoners to carry out work normally done by staff. The Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU) represent both groups of staff.
A state emergency response team and dog unit had to be called to deal with a disturbance at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre on 12 April 2003. Prisoners started fires, refused to return to their cells and confronted prison guards. As a result some 35 prisoners face charges of unlawful assembly.
Men’s prison for South Australia
In addition to a new prison for women, the state government is resuscitating a plan to develop a privately designed and operated 700 bed prison for men at Pelican Point on the Le Fevre Peninsula (see PPRI #50, 48, 43, 41, 10 & 7). The plan was shelved by the former Liberal government as the prison population decreased. However, the prison population of South Australia is due to increase as a result of new law and order reforms. Group 4 manages the state’s only private prison to date, Mt Gambier.
Victoria restructures
The government of Victoria is to integrate the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner (OCSC) and CORE - the public correctional enterprise into a single business unit from July 2003.
This reflects the recommendations of the Kirby inquiry (see PPRI # 38) which reported on the management and operation of Victoria’s (then) three private prisons. The investigation found that the underlying policy framework of encouraging competition between providers resulted in fragmented service delivery and was no longer appropriate.
Can MTC help Victoria?
Management & Training Corporation (MTC) of Utah would like to help the government of Victoria. A letter from MTC’s senior vice president, Mr Ron Russell, to Victoria’s corrections minister Andre Haermeyer in February 2003 states: “I understand that you are currently experiencing some overcrowding issues in your prisons. MTC would be happy to travel to Victoria to meet with you, discuss your current operations and explain how we may be able to partner with you in improving those operations.” The letter also states that MTC is “the only major private prison vendor in the US that has conscientiously elected to remain private” and that “the work of changing the lives of offenders is more important to us than ensuring rapid growth and profit to our shareholders.”
Before MTC’s approach, however, the government had decided that its new prisons would be managed by the state (see PPRI #51 & 50).
Closer inspections for ACM at Junee
Australasian Correctional Management’s (ACM) operations at Junee Correctional Centre have been monitored more closely during financial year 2002/2003 than in previous years (see PPRI # 52, 46, 41, 40, 38 & 35).
In his annual report for 2001/2002, the inspector-general of corrective services for New South Wales commented that “there appear to be a number of ongoing areas where the contractor and the department [of corrective services] have disagreed in terms of service delivery, but these matters never seem to be resolved. Nevertheless, the department continues to find that the contractor satisfactorily meets its contractual obligations.” the report continued: “We have not received the report of the monitor for the 2001/2002 financial year so we are unable to provide any in depth comment on improvements that may have been made buy the contractor ... while it seems that the Junee Correctional Centre outperforms the department’s operations that does not mean that outstanding issues should remain unresolved. The department needs to be more robust in sorting out matters of concern with the contractor. We will, in conjunction with the three new official visitors at the centre monitor operations more closely in the 2002/2003 financial year.”
New South Wales, Inspector-General of Corrective Services, Annual Report 30 June 2002. See PPRI #52 for concerns raised in the monitor’s 2001/2002 Performance Report on Junee.
ACT prison plan shelved
Plans for a $100m prison to be built in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) may have to be shelved for a few years (see PPRI # 48, 41, 38, 35, 30 & 25). This is a result of economic problems caused by bush fires in January 2003. However, a new remand centre is likely to go ahead.
Kilmarnock suicide inquiry
The fatal accident inquiry into the death of prisoner James Barclay at Premier Prisons-run Kilmarnock prison continues for written submissions until mid-May (see PPRI # 52, 51, 49- 47, 44, 43, 40, 37 & 36). The Sheriff’s findings are expected to be handed down in the summer.
Kilmarnock prison is due for its next inspection by the chief inspector of prisons for Scotland in August 2003.
Court rules on Schluechtern site
The Hesse Administrational Law Court has ruled that a prison cannot be built at Schluechtern (see PPRI # 43, 37 & 30). The decision on 2 April 2003 follows a campaign by residents to prevent the Hesse government building a semi-private prison. However, the prison is going ahead at Hunfeld, 130 Kms north east of Frankfurt. Construction has had to be postponed as no local firms were considered for the project.
Agape wins a contract
Agape, an international Christian foundation, has been awarded a contract to build and operate a 600 bed prison in the Gyeonggi Province. The facility, the first privately operated prison in the country, is expected to be open in 2005. Agape is currently fund raising for the $33.8m construction costs. The government will subsidise the operation costs by around $4.2m per year. The design of the prison should allow prisoners double the cell space currently found in state run prisons, most of which are, in any case, overcrowded.
Budgetary Submission to the Queensland Treasury, Queensland Council of Unions, 2003, www.qcu.asn.au
"In recent years, Australian state governments have been increasingly interested in‘public-private partnerships’ (PPPs) modeled on the British Private Finance Initiative (PFI). These public-private partnerships represent an evolutionary advance on earlier, ad hoc, schemes for private-public partnerships, such as Build Own Operate and Transfer (BOOT) schemes and sale and leaseback arrangements. The crucial development in this process has been the recognition that PPPs do not resolve the problem of financing a growing infrastructure program within arbitrary debt limits. The appearance that infrastructure can be delivered without incurring a corresponding debt is a pure illusion, closely related to the accounting tricks that brought about the collapse of enterprises such as Enron and HIH. The fact that debt is shifted 'off the balance sheet' does not make the corresponding obligation any less pressing."
Government Issues, February 2003, Clayton Utz, www.claytonutz.com
The newsletter from Australian corporate law firm Clayton Utz includes an article on the State of New South Wales v Napier [2002] NSWCA 402 “another case with potential ramifications for the delivery of government services in Victoria.” The Court of Appeal found that the state was under a duty of reasonable care and, therefore, liable for injury to an employee of a company operating a factory within the Australasian Correctional Management-run Fulham Prison in Victoria.
Asylum: Voices behind the Razor Wire, by Heather Tyler, Lothian Books, March 2003 www.lothian.com.au
Asylum gives voice to the real people behind the sensationalism surrounding recent problems at Australia’s privately operated immigration detention centres. Includes first hand accounts from asylum seekers and former guards.
Invisible Punishment, the Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, Marc Mauer and Meda Chesney-Lind, eds. New Press, New York and London.
This book explores the far - reaching consequences of thirty years of ‘get tough’ criminal justice policies in the US. As well as chapters by the editors there are contributions from Vivien Stern on The International impact of US Policies; Tracey Huling on Building a Prison Economy in Rural America; Incarceration and the Imbalance of Power by Angela Davis; Judy Greene on Incarceration as a Business Opportunity; and ten others.
Borrowing Against the Future: The Impact of Prison Expansion on Arizona Families, Schools and Communities, www.azadvocacy.org
The authors note that, for every dollar spent from the state’s General Fund on college for Hispanics, about $1.54 is spent on incarcerating them. About 25 per cent of Arizona’s population is Hispanic. Yet Hispanics account for 35 per cent of the prison population and just 16 per cent of college students. The report argues against the state’s plans to develop two private prisons with some 3,000 beds.
Prison Privatisation Update #9, 1 July - 31 December 2002, Corrections USA, March 2003. Email: CUSA, bdawe82086@aol.com
The latest largely US report of media coverage from CUSA. CUSA has also recently compared private and public prison and jail salaries in the US. Private jails pay staff 43.6 per cent less than their public counterparts and private prisons pay 39.4 per cent less.
Private Prisons: Public Safety Threatened, A Summary of Recent Escapes 1995-2002, Corrections USA and California Correctional Peace Officers Association, February 2003. Email: CUSA, bdawe82086@aol.com
The latest update: there have been at least 250 escapes from private prisons throughout the USA. These occurred at privately operated secure facilities and during private inmate transports. The numbers do not reflect additional escapes from private non-secure centres.
Prison Legal News, March 2003, 2400 NW 80th Street PMB 148, Seattle WA 98117, USA. www.prisonlegalnews.org
This issue includes an article on alleged poor practices by ARAMARK on its food services contract for the Florida department of corrections.
Cutting Correctly in Maryland, J. Greene & T. Roche, Justice Policy Institute, 4455 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite B-500 Washington DC 20008, www.justicepolicy.org
“As illustrated by the long and growing list of states that have successfully trimmed the fat from corrections budgets, there are many safe and thoughtful ways that Maryland officials could go about cutting corrections costs.” Privatisation is not one of this report’s recommendations.
The Wall Street Transcript Security Stocks Analysis, February 2003.
“ ... we also think that there is an indirect play on homeland security in the private corrections area ...”A report of a roundtable discussion between US stock analysts and top management from firms discussing opportunities in US homeland defence, the outlook for federal spending, growth areas in security, terrorism abroad, etc. Only available on subscription.
Privatisation of basic services, public order and law enforcement within the context of the rights of the child, September 2002, World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), PO Box 21-8, rue du Vieux-Billard, CH 1211 Geneva 8, Switzerland.
This paper, submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of Child discussion on the role of the private sector as service provider, “unequivocally calls upon all states and governments to live up to their obligations and not engage in any privatisation of detention centres, prisons or correctional or remand centers for children and juveniles in the form of management and/or operation of the entire place of detention by private for-profit companies ....”
Managing prisons in a time of change and A Human Rights
Approach to Prison Management, both by Andrew Coyle, International Centre for
Prison Studies, 75-79 York Road, London, SE1 7AW, England www.prisonstudies.org
Both are guides to best practice in prison management. The first draws on international experiences. The second is a handbook for prison staff. It “demonstrates how it is possible to manage prisons efficiently within an ethical context” and is available in English, Arabic, French, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish.
Penal Reform International, newsletter of Penal Reform International, No 51, December 2002, www.penalreform.org
This latest issue of PRI’s newsletter reports on the Latin American Conference on Penal Reform and Alternatives to Imprisonment that was held in San José, Costs Rica, in November 2002. The newsletter describes how, at the conference, PRI board member Alvin Bronstein “addressed the issue of prison privatisation. He insisted that private prisons are morally wrong, socio-politically a failure and an economic disaster.”
The Investigators Handbook, Centre for Public Services, 1 Sidney Street, Sheffield, S1 4RG, England. Email:mail@centre-public.org.uk Internet: www.centre.public.org.uk
A guide to investigating companies, organisations, government and individuals. “The private sector is embedded in the public sector to a far greater extent than it was two decades ago ... the increasing influence of transnational companies, business lobby groups and regional and international institutions in the global economy means that political decision making increasingly takes place within European and international institutions.”
ENDS
Prison Privatisation Report International
Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU)
School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences
University of Greenwich
30 Park Row, London SE10 9LS, England
Internet:www.psiru.org/justice
Email: Stephen Nathan, stephennathan@compuserve.com