Prison Privatisation Report
International
No. 58, October 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
CUBA REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
SOUTH AFRICA UNITED KINGDOM
UNITED STATES IRAQ
CANADA GERMANY
CUBA
Wackenhut at Guantanamo Bay
It was not press released
and it is not listed on the company’s website. But a small classified
advertisement in the employment section of Gazette, 26 September
2003, “the authorised publication for
members of the military services stationed at Naval Base Guantanamo Bay”
states: “WCC has been awarded a contract by the Department of Homeland Security
Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement for the security operation of the
Migrant Operations Center at Guantanamo Bay. Wackenhut Corrections is now
hiring approx. 20 positions, including: custody officers; supervisory custody officer;
recreational activities coordinator and administrative clerk. Full and part
time positions available.” According to WCC’s in-house publication All
Points Bulletin, Third Quarter 2003, the company will be providing
custodial services for some 100 detainees.
SOUTH AFRICA
Perpetuating the myths
A Times (UK) article
(South Africa turns to private jails, 6 October 2003), reported from
Johannesburg that “the construction of giant, multimillion pound private sector
prisons is being hailed by South Africa as the most cost-effective way of
tackling the country’s burgeoning prison population.”
The newspaper doesn’t say who is doing the hailing but it is
not the government. However, it could be Group 4 and Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation, who are involved in running the two prisons. The government is
locked in to contracts that guarantee returns to the consortia of 25% and 29.9%
respectively (see PPRI # 56, 54, 52, 51, 42, 38, 36, etc).
The daily costs of the two private prisons have caused a
crisis in the public sector with thousands of jobs frozen and a shortage of
funds for rehabilitative programmes. The private prisons are protected from
overcrowding while the public sector is 68% overcrowded. Lower recidivism rates
are yet to be proven. On 2 September 2003, speaking at a meeting of South
Africa’s correctional services portfolio committee, the chief deputy
commissioner for corporate services referred to the contracts as “25 years of
slavery”. At a conference on private
prisons in London in June 2003, a senior South Africa Treasury official said:
“We ordered a Rolls Royce when we should have ordered a Toyota.”
Despite the newspaper’s assertion that “many more [private prisons] are expected to follow if the experiment proves successful” the government has not yet committed its next four prisons to the private sector. It hopes to renegotiate the costs of the existing unaffordable contracts. But the companies might only agree if they are guaranteed more business.
However, the Times is correct when it states that
there are calls for an investigation into alleged improprieties surrounding the
private prison contracts. In a report published in July 2003 (see PPRI
#57), professor Julia Sloth-Neilsen of the University of Western Cape, said:
“It is inexplicable that faced with the department’s [of corrections] admission
of impropriety in the privatisation process, matters have not been taken
further. If this matter is not being taken up by any other investigative
authority ... this should be a priority of the Committee [corrections
portfolio] ... if indeed state officials (or former state officials) benefited
materially from the privatisation process, this must be exposed and, if
necessary, criminal charges lodged.”
UNITED STATES
Latest research undermines
industry claims
The private prison
industry’s claims for cost savings, innovation and lower recidivism rates are
not supported, according to the findings of a new report prepared for the
National Institute of Justice by Abt Associates Inc.(see PPRI #25).
Researchers examined state and federal governments’
practices of contracting with private firms to manage prisons. Focusing on
secure facilities holding convicted adult offenders the report includes case
studies from Texas, Florida and Oklahoma, “the states with the longest and most
extensive experience with contracting for privately operated imprisonment.”
Abt found that nearly all contracts active on the last day
of 1997 reportedly received some oversight from the contracting agency but that
the levels contrasted “sharply” between out of state and in-state facilities
and that “practices of monitoring …
vary widely.” In 38 per cent of all contract agreements with out-of-state
facilities, “the monitors or administrators rated the quality of service as
below that of comparable facilities in their own department of correction,
compared with seven per cent of the contracts with in-state facilities.”
However, Abt also note that: “most assessments of
performance rely on the contract officers’ judgments regarding contract
compliance. There are a number of methodological issues that must be resolved
when assessing whether or not objectives are being achieved.”
On the three state case studies, Abt concluded that: “in
short the evidence from Texas suggests that the private firms are delivering a
service that would cost the government approximately 9-10 per cent more if the
state’s corrections department operated the facilities directly. This assumes
that the estimates of the department’s costs … are accurate, of course. Lacking
more information about how these costs were estimated, it is not possible to
evaluate them.”
They also note that: “contracting for management services
alone doesn’t seem to have relieved overcrowding any faster than would have happened
if the state built and then operated the facilities.” The answer to the
question, did contracting achieve conditions of confinement any faster than was
achieved in the state-operated facilities was “probably not.”
Responses from the Texas Department of Justice to an Abt
Associates survey in 1998 were that the performance of 15 private facilities
was equal to comparable publicly operated facilities.
Abt’s findings on whether Florida’s private prisons resulted in less criminality were that “absent a stronger methodology, however, the [Florida’s commissioned] study does not provide indisputable evidence that privately operated prisons are doing any better or any worse than the public prisons.” Abt found that there had been “no formal assessment” of whether private firms had introduced innovation into the state’s prison system. As Abt point out: “The legislature may have assumed that any innovation of significance would result in more effective prisons (ie, lower recidivism) and less costly ones. The existing studies of comparative costs and of comparative recidivism rates do not support any strong influences about the state’s obtaining more innovative imprisonment from the private sector.”
Finally, in Oklahoma Abt found that the primary motivation behind
the state’s decision to privatise was to prevent the acquisition of prison
properties. Abt’s view on whether the
state had been able to avoid locking itself into political obligations to
support the private prison industry “for now
… seems to be yes”.
The state reduced overcrowding and also avoided expanding
the government workforce. “Had the state built enough prisons to house those
now held in privately operated facilities … the DOC workforce would have
increased substantially ... public employees are represented by union
representatives who wield substantial political power in state elections.”
Governments’ Management of
Private Prisons, Abt Associates Inc, 15 September 2003. Prepared
for the National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street, NW. Washington DC
20531
CSC appealing wrongful death
finding
Correctional Services
Corporation (CSC) and a nurse formerly in its employ have been ordered by a
Texas court to pay $35 million compensation plus a further $5.1million in
punitive damages to the parents and estate of Bryan Alexander (see PPRI
# 55, 52, 45-42, 36, 30, 26, 24, etc ).
Eighteen year old Mr Alexander had been a prisoner at the
company-run Tarrant County Community Correctional Facility in 2001. He died in
hospital of a rare penicillin-resistant form of pneumonia on 9 January 2001,
two days after being moved from the boot camp. Unless overturned on appeal CSC
will be responsible for $26 million of the judgement while nurse Knyvett Reyes
will have to pay $14.1million. The 370 bed boot camp was closed some six months
after Mr Alexander died.
The lawsuit brought
by Mr Alexander’s family claimed that CSC and its nurse did not provide
adequate and timely medical care. Ms Reyes testified that she treated Mr
Alexander for a cold, flu and strep throat. Witnesses said that the nurse
thought Mr Alexander was faking. The jury found that the nurse and CSC acted
with malice in ignoring the prisoner’s pleas for help.
CSC had received $2.9 million a year to operate the boot
camp. According to the family’s lawyer, Charlie Smith, “This case was more like
a homicide case than a wrongful-death lawsuit because of the way this young man
died. Bryan’s family was hopeful that this jury would speak loud about the
conduct of these defendants so it will not happen to another child in the same
circumstances as Bryan Alexander.”
According to an accountant who testified in court, recent financial reports filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission showed that CSC is worth more than $50.8 million. CSC’s lawyers stated that the company has about $35 million in insurance coverage. “In this case, the plaintiffs are asking the jury to punish the company. If the jury punishes the company, they are probably going to be punishing the stock holders ...” said Vic Anderson, a lawyer for CSC. The company is expected to appeal against the jury’s verdict.
Investigation launched
New York State Board of Elections has opened an
investigation into whether Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) broke state law
by providing unreported help to New York lawmakers. In February 2003 the
company was fined $300,000 by the state Lobbying Commission for handing out
expensive gifts to state lawmakers (see PPRI # 55, etc). In March 2003
the Board of Elections ordered CSC to obtain refunds from some New York
lawmakers for over-contributions to campaigns. Between 1992 and 2000, CSC
received $25.4 million from the state to provide halfway house services to the
New York prison system.
Prisoners escape
Two prisoners being held on drugs charges escaped from the
CSC-operated 391 bed Frio County Detention Centre, Texas. They were reported
missing on 8 September 2003.
YSI loses contract
CSC subsidiary Youth Services International (YSI) - run
Genesis Treatment Centre for young people closed on 10 October 2003. The 51 bed
facility in Newport, Virginia had been open for just two years, was
under-utilised, under staffed and problematic. State inspectors investigated
two incidents in which staff members improperly restrained patients: one
patient suffered a broken arm , the other a broken nose. As a result, two YSI
staff were fired and others received training.
A number of former staff have filed discrimination complaints with the
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Prior to this closure CSC, through YSI, claimed to be the
leading private provider of juvenile programmes in the US with 19 facilities
and 2,500 juveniles in its care. CSC also operates 12 facilities with some 4,500
beds for adults.
MTC problems in New Mexico
Mckinley County, New Mexico,
is terminating its contract with Management & Training Corporation (MTC) to
run the county jail (see PPRI # 55, 51, 50, etc). There have been
numerous problems at the facility although these were not mentioned in MTC’s
press release announcing that the county and the company had reached a mutual
agreement to end the contract by 1 December 2003. Four prisoners escaped from
the facility on 4 July 2003. As a result, MTC fired the warden and a
corrections officer for administrative lapses in judgment.
MTC also runs the 672-bed Santa Fe County jail in New
Mexico. That facility has also been problematic. In July 2003, a state audit
found that prisoner classification, grievance procedures, discipline, record
keeping and prisoner programmes all needed improving. Also cited were
inadequate staffing levels and poor handling of prisoners’ property. The audit
was prompted by concerns about how MTC was managing the McKinley County
Detention Centre. The company was given 30 days to improve or face losing the
$2.8 million Santa Fe contract. Four months earlier a US Department of Justice
report detailed problems at the jail including poor medical care for prisoners.
Lawsuit filed
MTC, Physicians Network
Association and Santa Fe County have all been named as defendants in a lawsuit filed
in Santa Fe’s US District Court by the family of Tyson Johnson. They claim that staff at
the Santa Fe County jail neglected prisoner Tyson Johnson, who hanged himself
on 13 January 2003.
Despite being placed on suicide watch, Mr Johnson hanged
himself with a supposedly ‘suicide-proof’ blanket inside a padded cell. Mr
Johnson’s family alleges that instead of tending to his psychiatric care staff
neglected and taunted him. The family are seeking monetary damages as well as
changes to the jail’s policies.
Arizona - private ‘super
prison’ stopped
The state of Arizona’s
Governor Napolitano has decided not to commission a private ‘super prison’ for
women (see PPRI # 55 & 52). She told the Arizona Republic, 2
October 2003, that she was not convinced that private prisons save money or
provide better services.
While prison reformers in the state have welcomed this
decision they are still campaigning for sentencing reform in the light of the
governor’s decision to spend $700 million on building some 9,000 additional
prison beds at existing prisons. More details: American Friends Service
Committee, www.afsc.org/az
CCA’s promising outlook -
“surface barely scratched”
Corrections Corporation of
America (CCA) now has 58,732 beds, representing some 49.4% of the private
prison market in the US. This compares with Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s
21% (25,021 beds), Management & Training Corporation’s (MTC) 9.2% (10,927
beds), and Correctional Services Corporation’s 6.3% (7,474 beds). CCA claims to
be the sixth largest prison system after the Federal Bureau of Prisons and four
states. It has 59 facilities in 20 states and the District of Columbia.
Speaking at the 2003 Deutsche Bank Global High Yield
Conference, 8 October 2003, Irving J. Lingo, CCA’s chief financial officer,
said that the company will benefit from the following domestic conditions:
public sector prison overcrowding will continue to increase; there is a steady
increase in the population of the 18-24 age group - which is most likely to
commit crime, be caught, convicted and incarcerated; and favourable 2004
federal budget initiatives.
The company expects to pick up new federal contracts as the Office of Federal Detention Trustee will receive $810 million, an increase of $41 million over 2003; the budget calls for the Bureau of Prisons to meet needed bed space through the use of excess state and private prison capacity (as at 1 September 2003, CCA had around 7,000 spare beds); and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is budgeted for $2.48 billion in 2002, an increase of $113 million over 2003.
Mr Lingo also said that 46 states have projected budget
deficits for 2004 which makes new prison construction “ difficult at best.” CCA
believes it has opportunities in Florida, Texas, Arizona, Colorado and Kansas
to expand facilities by between 2,000 and 4,000 beds by 2005.
According to Mr Lingo the US corrections market is worth $50
billion and so far only 6.1% of that is outsourced. There are now some 120,000
private beds today compared with 10,973 private beds in 1990. Corrections
privatisation has “barely scratched the surface,” he said.
Spirited talk from Wackenhut
Following the buy-back of
Group 4’s 57% stake in the company in July (see PPRI # 57-55, 50, 49, 47
& 44), Wackenhut Corrections Corporation hopes to become a billion dollar
company by 2004. Like CCA, the company is pinning its hopes on new federal
contract opportunities related to homeland security. Federal contracts already
provide the company with 20% of its revenues.
The company is also planning to remove itself from what it
regards as risky and more costly aspects of the corrections business, operating
facilities for women and juveniles.
Problems at some of these facilities have caused high profile scandals
in recent years. However, the company continues to win new contracts. For
example, on 15 July it renewed a four year contract worth around $52 million
with Michigan’s department of corrections for the operation of Michigan Youth
Correctional Centre.
Wackenhut plans to expand its mental health business,
acquire new businesses and change its name. The company currently has some 41%
of the international corrections market.
According to All Points Bulletin, Special Edition
August 2003, Vol IX, No.3, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation dubbed 9
July 2003 - the day the company repurchased its stock from Group 4 - as
“independence day” describing the move as “the wind beneath our wings that will
allow us to fully pursue our dreams of independence, autonomy and extraordinary
growth.”
Lawsuit in Colorado
The Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition (CCJRC) has
filed a lawsuit to prevent Wackenhut Corrrections Corporation taking control of
land that a city council wants to sell to the company. The CCJRC claims that
Pueblo City Council violated Colorado’s open meetings law and local zoning
ordinances when it committed land to the company. The lawsuit seeks to void the
council’s actions and to uphold the zoning status that forbids government use
of the land.
Stephen Raher co-director of the CCJRC said: “Pueblo City
Council has demonstrated a pattern of conducting public business behind closed
doors and ignoring the opinions of Pueblo residents. The laws that were
designed to ensure open process in government have been flagrantly violated and
the people of Pueblo have been shut out of this process.” The CCJRC advocates
prison only as a last resort. More details from: CCJRC www.ccjrc.org
CANADA
MTC contract renewal in doubt?
Management & Training
Corporation’s (MTC) contract to operate the Central North Correctional Facility
at Penetanguishene, Ontario may not run beyond its first five year term (see PPRI
# 49, 44, 38, 37, 35, 34 & 32). A provincial election in October swept the pro-privatisation
ruling Progressive Conservative party from office, replacing them with the
Liberals. In opposition, the Liberals argued against against prison
privatisation. It is unlikely, however, that the new administration will buy
out MTC’s contract before its expiry date. Early termination could take place
if the company fails to meet performance standards.
However, Liberal corrections critic Dave Levac told the Mirror,
10 October 2003, that: “We’ve been unable to see it [MTC’s contract] in its entirety,
so we will have to look for an escape clause. I wouldn't do it at the expense
of the taxpayer, which means we may have to wait,” he said.
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
Privatisation opposed
A government threat to
privatise prisons in the Republic of Ireland has been met with fierce
opposition from the country’s leading figures in criminology, law and human
rights. Ostensibly aimed at cutting the overtime worked by the country’s 3,400
state employed prison officers, who earn an average of Euros19,000 a year from
overtime, the director general of the
prison service has said that prisons may be privatised and smaller ones sold
off if an agreement cannot be reached with the Prison Officers Association.
However, some observers believe that the government is simply looking for an
excuse to privatise.
On 24 September 2003 an open letter was delivered to justice
minister Michael McDowell. The letter, signed by academics and human rights
supporters, challenged the claims that private prison are economical or innovative
citing instead international experience that “reveals privatisation to be a
costly failure, with private prison companies being subsidised by taxpayers.”
The signatories also called on the minister to publicly oppose prison
privatisation and to commit to a process of “truly effective criminal justice
and penal reform.”
Ivana Bacik, a law lecturer at Trinity College, Dublin,
said: “Yes, the prison system is in
desperate need of reform. But
privatisation represents a copper-fastening of the mistakes of the past, rather
than a recipe for a better future. If implemented, the Government will be
trading one bad policy for another.”
“If the Government is truly concerned about the high cost of incarceration, they must look to address the root causes of crime, and reduce the number of people sent to prison,” said Dr Paul O’Mahony, a criminologist at Trinity College. “Crime reduction must be the goal of responsible government. The private sector does not and cannot share this goal, as corporations that imprison people for profit can only maximise that profit when prisons are full to capacity. If the Government privatises Irish prisons, they will be putting corporate interest before public interest.”
“While reform of the prison system is long overdue, it must
be based upon sound international evidence and best practice, not the failed
and simplistic ideological imperatives that have driven prison privatisation in
other parts of the world,” said Rick Lines, executive director of the Irish
Penal Reform Trust, an NGO. “The
Government is attempting to manufacture a crisis in the prison service in order
to force through an unpopular measure disguised as a ‘solution’. Let us be
clear that privatisation is no solution.”
“If the Government is truly committed to addressing problems
in the prison system, we challenge them to begin a national dialogue towards
developing truly effective criminal justice and penal reform,” said Aisling
Reidy, executive director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.
More information from: Rick
Lines, Irish Penal Reform Trust, Dublin.
www.penal-reform.ie
Email:info@penal-reform.ie
UNITED KINGDOM
Premier’s view of the market
On releasing its financial
results for the half year to 30 June 2003 Serco - now 100% owners of Premier
Custodial Group - presented their view of the UK justice market on 3 September
2003.
Premier’s total revenue over the life of existing contracts
for five prisons, one secure training centre, two immigration detention
facilities and court escort, custody and electronic monitoring services in the
UK is £2 billion. Immediate market opportunities are worth a further £3.4
billion, including extensions to Lowdham Grange prison and Dungavel House
immigration centre, the building of Colnbrook House and the rebidding of escort
and electronic monitoring contracts. The potential also includes contracts for
two prisons in England and Wales, one in Scotland, two Secure Training Centres
and an additional 200 STC beds at as yet unidentified sites, five immigration
facilities, police custody suites, probation services, mental health services,
customs and excise and tribunals.
However, not included in Serco’s calculations are two 1,500
bed prisons in addition to the two currently under construction (to be operated
by UK Detention Services Ltd, see PPRI # 54, etc), and two others
planned for sites at Woolwich in London and Ashworth on Merseyside, north west
England which Premier would be bidding for.
A recent Home Office strategy document has revealed that £32 million is
to be spent on purchasing two sites for large multi-functional prisons in the
2004-2005 financial year. Meanwhile, the Treasury has not yet released funds
for a tendering process for the London and Ashworth prisons.
Premier’s Dovegate - not a
positive report
At Premier Custodial
Group-run Dovegate prison bullying is ignored, staff are inexperienced,
staffing levels are low and drug use is prevalent, according to the chief
inspector of prisons for England Wales. The prison opened between July and
November 2001 and is the most recent privately financed, designed, built and
operated prison in the UK. The operators have been fined at least £426,597 for
contract deficiencies (see PPRI # 56).
Between 31 March and 4 April 2003, Dovegate - run by Premier under a 25 year contract -
was inspected by the chief inspector of prisons. Her report, dated June 2003
was published in September and included 135 recommendations for improvement.
She also noted that neither the cost per place per annum nor the cost per
prisoner place were available. Set out
below is the complete introduction to the chief inspector’s report.
The
contribution of the private sector to the management of prisons in England and
Wales has been both controversial and significant. It has been controversial
because critics are uneasy about the application of the profit motive to
prisons, for example fearing that corners may be cut and cheap, inexperienced
staff recruited. However, it has also been significant because, as has been made
clear in a number of reports from this Inspectorate, the private sector has
often been open to innovation and change, which the public sector Prison
Service has in the past found it hard to achieve.
In
some ways this inspection of the HMP Dovegate - financed, designed, built and
now managed by the private sector - illustrates both sides of this debate.
There was some welcome innovation, and good staff-prisoner relationships. But
there was also a worrying lack of experience and confidence amongst a young, locally
recruited staff, few of whom had any previous prison experience, and who were
operating with low staffing levels and high staff turnover.
By
contrast Dovegate’s prisoners were not inexperienced. As an 850 bed category B
training prison, Dovegate receives large numbers of long-term, relatively
sophisticated prisoners, used to the system and capable of exploiting any
weaknesses or naivety in the staff who supervise them. These are not the most
compliant or easily managed prisoners, and it is to the credit of the
establishment that our inspectors, informed by impressive results from our
prisoner survey, identified a largely safe prison, with mutual respect
displayed between staff and prisoners.
Yet
this is still not a particularly positive report. Dovegate has had a troubled
start since its opening in 2001. There is a veneer of calm, but it disguises
some fundamental concerns which the newly appointed – and very experienced -
Director is now seeking to address: implementing more fully the normal processes
and procedures required to manage the demanding prison population for which he
is responsible.
And
there is much to attend to. We identify weaknesses in a significant number of
areas central to sustaining a safe prison, where a policy façade covered limited
substance. For example, inspectors saw security intelligence that suggested
illicit articles were not uncommon, yet found that cell searching lacked
thoroughness; drug use appeared prevalent, yet drug reduction measures were
given low priority; an incentives and earned privileges scheme was in place,
yet few prisoners were downgraded even if their behaviour warranted it; and an
anti-bullying strategy was in place, yet little worthwhile action had been
taken to confront bullies.
We
observed an inability or unwillingness to confront prisoners appropriately; and
we consider that this is directly related to the youth and inexperience of
staff and the fact that they were deployed in relatively small numbers on the
wings. This personnel profile is not untypical of contracted out prisons, but
the risks are obvious and it is to the Director’s credit that he was entirely
open as to the need to support and nurture his young staff. And there is good
work to nurture. Relationships between staff and prisoners across the prison
were good, as was the accommodation and food. This was supported by excellent
communication through Dovegate’s innovative in-house TV station.
Some
failings identified in the inspection were not within Dovegate’s control. In
common with other contracted–out prisons, adjudications were not carried out by
Dovegate’s managers, but by a Prison Service controller. This is a cumbersome
arrangement and sometimes meant that appropriate management action was not
taken to resolve conflicts, and on occasions that prisoners were able to
exploit the situation in order to avoid punishment.
However,
other deficiencies were within the prison’s control. It had contracted to take
a further 60 prisoners beyond its previous complement, but had chosen to place
these new arrivals in a number of single cells “doubled” in a patently
unsatisfactory and unhygienic way. Healthcare was poor. Though race relations
appeared properly managed, the establishment appeared ignorant of the scale of
its foreign national population - a
quarter of all prisoners - and as a result provision for them was inadequate.
Similarly, purposeful activity had not kept up with the growth of the
establishment and activities themselves needed further development, for example
to deliver accredited learning; although there were innovative practices, such
as the use of more able prisoners as learning support assistants.
Resettlement
was even more underdeveloped. The personal officer scheme existed in name only;
sentence planning was of variable quality; there were too few offending
behaviour programmes to meet evident needs; and drug treatment provision was
inadequate.
Overall,
the inspectors’ findings illustrate the distance still to go before Dovegate
can be considered a healthy prison. The new Commissioner for Correctional
Services, Martin Narey and his staff, now have direct responsibility for
contracted out prisons. They will need to consider how to ensure improvements
at Dovegate. This report should also be a salutary reminder that the Commissioner’s
commitment to expose failing public sector prisons to private sector
competition (“performance testing”) will not always deliver an immediate
private sector panacea (a similar conclusion was drawn by the National Audit
Office in its recent report on the operational performance of privately
financed prisons) .
Dovegate,
with its young and energetic staff, has been able to put in place some
commendable innovations, which public sector managers might view with jealousy.
But this inspection has also exposed concerns about the sustainability and
long-term safety of the establishment where essential procedures and processes
are not properly implemented: partly because inexperienced private sector staff
have yet to develop the skills and confidence to properly manage their
prisoners.
* A Full Announced
Inspection, HMP Dovegate, 31 March-4 April 2003, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. The
full report is available on the internet:
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/prisons/inspprisons/inspection.html
IRAQ
More cashing in
President Bush has included
$10 million to finance 100 prison-building experts for six months at $100,000
per expert in his $20.3 billion budget request for reconstructing Iraq (see PPRI
#56). The experts will be needed as also included is $400 million for two new
4,000 bed prisons at a cost of $50,000 per bed.
Meanwhile, the British government has asked group 4 Falck to
participate in the rebuilding of Iraq’s prison sector. A Group 4 spokesperson
told Politiken, 28 August 2003, that: “We have no plans to actually
operate prisons in Iraq. We will consult Iraqi prison personnel and provide
relevant personnel training.” Group 4 is already providing other security
services in Iraq.
Controversial firm to build
and operate prisons?
Hochtief, the Essen-based
construction firm, plans to construct and operate prisons as part of its new
strategy to move away from traditional construction. However, the firm has
courted controversy recently. For example, it could be prosecuted by the
Government of Lesotho for alleged involvement in bribery related to the Lesotho
Highlands Water Project. Although, having taken on two such cases and with
others pending, the government may not be able to afford the trials of other
companies such as Hochtief and Impreglio of Italy.
Hochtief also recently survived a US Supreme Court case in
which Hungarian-born Josef Deutsch alleged that he had been forced to work for
the company as slave labour during World War II. However, the case hinged on
the court’s refusal to review a US appeals court ruling that struck down as
unconstitutional a 1999 California law suspending the statute of limitations so
that prisoners of war could sue in US courts. Meanwhile, in Prague, top
managers of CEZ, the power utility, have been charged with violating the
country’ law on public procurement. The charges stem from the construction of
the company’s new headquarters in 2002, work that was awarded without tender to
AB Michle, a subsidiary of Hochtief. The contract should have been put out to
tender. After choosing AB Michle, CEZ invested in the company.
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
Email: Stephen Nathan,
stephennathan@compuserve.com