Prison Privatisation Report International

No. 68, May/June 2005

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.

ISRAEL
Privatisation process has cost $1.5 million - so far

Israel’s government had spent $1.5 million by April 2005 on the tendering process for a new prison (see PPRI # 67, 64-62, 60, 59, 56, 52, etc).

The figure was included in the government’s response to a petition filed in the High Court of Justice by human rights lawyers in March. Their petition sought an injunction halting the tendering process for an 800 bed prison at Beersheba and argued that the enabling legislation passed by the government in March 2004 should be annulled.

On 24 March 2005 the court denied the injunction request but set a date for a full hearing on 14 December 2005. This has since been brought forward to 10 October.

The government was given 20 days to respond to the petition.In its response dated 11 April 2005 the government argued that the petitioners’ case is weak and that halting the process will cause severe damage to the public interest, prisoners’ rights [those left in Israel’s overcrowded prisons] and to the third parties [the short listed bidders] not included in the petition. The government also claimed that its proposed private prison is a “unique and original model” designed to guarantee prisoners’ rights and address some of the problems and lessons learned from private prisons elsewhere.

Another key element to the government’s argument is that, because of the heavy investment required by the three short listed consortia, it has committed in advance that, in the event of the tender being cancelled, each bidder will be paid compensation of $500,000.

There is also concern that any delay in the process could cause the foreign bidders to withdraw from the process. The government argues that: “such a complex and expensive project requires a very high level of business certainty and a foreign bidder not used to the Israeli justice system might conclude that the risk is too great. One must also bear in mind that the tender was limited to companies with practical experience in running private prisons and these are only found abroad. The withdrawal of foreign bidders could undermine the whole project and de facto render the law [enabling legislation] meaningless.”

In response to the petitioners’ argument that the bidders either lack experience of running prisons or have suffered operational failures the government plans to visit the companies’ prisons prior to choosing the successful bidder. The three foreign companies involved are Cornell Companies Inc. and Dominion Correctional Services of the US and GEPSA of France.
Case No. 2605/05 Supreme Court, Sitting as the High Court of Justice. Human Rights Division, Academic College of Law, Ramat Gan, and Shlomo Teuzer v Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Internal Security.

Freedom of Information Appeal in June

The Tel Aviv Court of Administrative Appeals has rejected a petition by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) which argued for the tender documents for Israel’s private prison contract to be published in full (see PPRI #67).

The court accepted the government’s view that revealing the documents might endanger the security of the prison (even though it is not likely to be open before 2007). However, the court recommended that segments of the documents dealing with prisoners rights to various services could be revealed but this was not made an order. The court also ruled that Israel’s Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the tendering process and, in any case, the process is now ‘closed’ as the bidders have been short listed.

ACRI’s lawyers - the Human Rights Clinic at Tel Aviv University Law School - have appealed to the Supreme Court and a hearing is due in June 2005.

COSTA RICA
Contract award thwarted

The government of Costa Rica’s attempt to award a prison management contract to Management & Training Corporation (MTC) of Utah has been thwarted by the Constitutional Court (see PPRI # 62, 52, 51, 49-46 & 42).

A tendering process started in 2001 and the government subsequently wanted to award MTC a contract for the finance, design, construction and operation of a new 1,200 bed prison at Pococi. However, the court agreed with a petition filed by the Ombudsman arguing that contracting out custodial functions would be unconstitutional. The full decision has not yet been published.

UNITED STATES
Florida - lower recidivism rates still not proven

Legislation in the State of Florida stipulates that private prisons operate more effectively, more efficiently or both than public sector prisons. Yet a new research study of Florida prisoners has found “no empirical justification for the policy argument that private prisons reduce recidivism rates better than public prisons.”

The study is the focus of a debate in the current issue of the journal Criminology & Public Policy.

In his editorial introduction, Scott Camp states:

“The hypothesis often advanced, at least by proponents of prison privatisation, is that inmates released from private prisons have a better chance of adopting a crime-free lifestyle when released. Although little specific information is provided about why this hypothesis should be the case, the presumption is that the greater efficiency of private prisons in delivering services better prepares inmates. The existing theoretical and empirical literature about the prison factors that influence a return to crime, though, is sparse, with the possible exception of research on specific programmes such as adult basic education and drug treatment. The study reported here goes a long way toward answering the practical question about whether private prisons better prepare inmates for release than public prisons in Florida, and it does so with greater methodological sophistication than other existing studies. Although it advances our understanding of the relative performance of private and public prisons on this factor, at least in one state, this study does not directly advance our theoretical understanding about why performance should differ in private and public prisons. Nonetheless, this study makes a great contribution in demonstrating how to use recidivism data to test any theories developed.”

Researchers studied 11,612 releases directly from five private prisons in Florida between 1995 and 2001 and 88,678 total prison releases appropriate for analysis.*

They found that “the base reoffence rates for adult males show that, in the short term, through an 18 month follow-up period, public and private adult male inmates are virtually identical across all six treatment/comparison group definitions…” In the longer follow-up periods of 36 and 60 months, “private adult male inmates have slightly higher reoffence rates in four of the six comparisons … and are the same as the public adult male inmates” in the other two comparisons.

They also found that the base reoffence rates for adult females show that, in the short term, public and private adult females “are virtually identical in five of the six comparisons.” In the longer term follow-up periods “no reofffence rates are statistically different.”

As for young offenders, base reoffence rates in the short term “show no differences exceeding 2.0 percentage points” whereas for the longer term follow-up period public young male offenders “have higher reoffence rates in all six comparisons.”

According to the researchers their study “provides several advancements”on prior research. They argue that: “these Florida data provide substantially larger case sizes with reliable recidivism rate estimates that allow more confidence in the empirical conclusions.” They found

“no empirical justification for the policy argument that private prisons reduce recidivism rates better than public prisons. However, the research on this issue has been limited and similar research is needed to test this claim in states other than Florida. Future research on the topic should incorporate reliable measures of programme attributes and participation, assess unique characteristics of private prisons that might affect recidivism, and determine whether certain inmate subgroups benefit from those distinctive attributes. In the meantime, until reliable evidence that private prison exposure reduces recidivism appears, public policy debate on the value of private prisons should focus on cost-savings or other arguments, not on recidivism-reduction claims.”

In a reaction essay** Charles W. Thomas, formerly of the University of Florida’s Private Corrections Project and the boards of Prison Realty Trust and Corrections Corporation of America and now of Avalon Correctional Services and the Homeland Security Corporation (see PPRI #62, 32, 30, 29, 26, 25, 21 & 13), does not offer an in-depth critique of the research study but argues that “neither Florida nor any other American jurisdiction with which I am familiar provides a clean context within which to evaluate the validity of either the claims of privatisation advocates or the counterclaims of their opponents.”

He also expresses “grave reservations about the wisdom of evaluating either private or public prisons on the basis of the weak quality of the recidivism data we typically have at our disposal. To do so creates a real risk that either blame or credit will be allocated in a way that is fundamentally unfair.”

In another reaction essay*** Gerald G. Gaes, formerly director of the Office of Research and Evaluation at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, states that the Bales et al study (above) “only scratches the surface of a very important set of public policy issues”. He asks a key question: “Why should we expect private prison providers to be more successful in lowering recidivism rates? He asserts that, “the original promise was that prison privatisation would increase service quality. The premise was that the free market would introduce efficiency previously unknown in the Florida state adult correctional system. The resulting performance suggests that neither promise nor premise was correct. The research results are clear.”

Gaes is also an advocate of improved methods of articulating and measuring prison performance in order to “hold prison service providers accountable, both private and public.”
* Recidivism of Public and Private State Prison Inmates in Florida, William D. Bales, Laura E. Bedard, Susan T. Quinn (Florida State University) David T. Ensley, Glenn P. Holley (Florida Department of Corrections)
** Recidivism of Public and Private State Prison Inmates in Florida: Issues and Unanswered Questions, Charles W. Thomas, (Homeland Security Corporation).
***Prison Privatisation in Florida: Promises, Premise, and Performance, Gerald G. Gaes, (National Institute of Justice).
Criminology & Public Policy, Volume 4, Number 1, February 2005 www.criminologyandpublicpolicy.com

Costly failures at GEO-run youth prison

The daily cost per prisoner at the Michigan Youth Correctional Facility (MYCF) in Lake County, Michigan, was higher than 33 of 37 other state run correctional facilities, Michigan’s auditor general has found (see PPRI #35).

If the department of corrections had housed the prisoners in other lower cost state correctional facilities it could have achieved cost savings of $2.2 million annually. The auditor also stated that the department should “consider the need for and use of MYCF and evaluate its contract options.”

The GEO Inc-run facility opened in 1999 and is the state’s only privately owned and run prison. As at August 2004 it held 480 males aged between 14 and 19 years old.

The audit also found that the prison was only moderately in compliance with selected policies and procedures related to safety and security. The auditors noted that MYCF failed to:

• consistently perform security classification reviews and did not correctly calculate and record prisoner security levels;
• ensure that all corrective officers performed and documented the required number of prisoner shakedowns and cell searches;
• ensure that employees entering and exiting the security perimeter were subject to required random searches;
• properly complete and monitor gate manifests to help control the movement of critical and dangerous items in and out of MYCF;
• ensure that employees received the required hours of new employee and in-service training;
• enforce cell search requirements for prisoners identified as security threat group prisoners.

The audit also concluded that the department of corrections had not evaluated the benefits of maintaining a separate correctional facility for youthful prisoners. The report included nine findings and 11 corresponding recommendations including that the department discontinues the waiver of prisoners’ security levels as a means to maintain full occupancy at MYCF. The department of corrections agreed with 10 of the 11 recommendations and partially agreed with one.
Michigan Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit, Michigan Youth Correctional Facility: A Facility Under Contract With the Department of Corrections, Report Number 47-280-04, Released May 2005. www.audgen.michigan.gov

SOUTH AFRICA
Increase in cost of private prisons

Expenditure on South Africa’s two private prisons will have increased from R435 million in 2002 to R613 million in 2006/07, a nominal increase of 40.9% and a real increase of 3.6% for accommodating exactly the same number of prisoners according to the NGO Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) (see PPRI # 64, 63, 61, 58, 56, 54, 52, 51, etc).

In its submission to the government’s Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services 2005/06 budget vote in April 2005, CSPRI also noted that: “In 2002 the [Corrections] Commissioner complained to Parliament that the two private prisons are the single largest expense item for the department ... it does not appear that the Commissioner’s complaint is being addressed.”

Meanwhile, four new publicly built and run prisons are being developed. The prisons at Leeuwkop, Nigel, Kimberley and Klerksdorp will provide space for 12,000 prisoners by 2006/07. According to the department of correctional services these “new generation correctional centres are based on models from Europe and the United states and their cost-effective design … and their facilities are more conducive to rehabilitation.”

A further four prisons will be developed in the 2006/07 financial year but it has not yet been decided whether these will be commissioned under public- private partnerships.

• The chief executive of NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development) has called for the speeding up of new infrastructure projects using public private partnerships across Africa. Speaking at an African Development Bank seminar recently, Professor Wiseman Nkuhlu said: “Appropriate project finance structures that ensure risk sharing among governments, multilateral institutions and the private sector can be designed. In South Africa mechanisms have been established for the financing of public roads, prisons, hospitals, etc, by the private sector.”
  

UNITED KINGDOM
Market testing suspended

The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has suspended the planned market testing of three publicly run prisons on the Isle of Sheppey, South East England. The NOMS will review its position on market testing in September 2005.

In the meantime the Prison Officers Association (POA), the trade union representing public sector prison officers, is negotiating on a multi-year pay deal, job evaluation, and a revised programme for improving performance at all publicly run prisons. However, market testing will remain the ultimate sanction if a prison fails to meet its performance targets.

Until recently, bids from the private sector were invited where publicly run prisons were deemed to be failing. But according to the NOMS’ performance criteria the three prisons on the Isle of Sheppey were not failing but were still going to be offered to the private sector to be run as a cluster.

The Financial Times, 30 May 2005, reported that the government was reviewing the future role of the private sector in the prison service. In response, a spokesperson for Group 4 Securicor said that the company was “disappointed” by the decision and that the “PFI (Private Finance Initiative) seems to have come to a grinding halt with no plans for the moment for involving private companies in the building and operation of new prisons.”

Meanwhile, a review of the prison estate in England and Wales is underway. A three year contract covering acquisitions, disposals, planning and estate management has been awarded to LSH, a subsidiary of WS Atkins. LSH is advising on new sites for prisons, administrative offices and staff quarters. And US prison firms GEO Group, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) and Cornell have been invited to the UK to bid for contracts. Both GEO and MTC have set up UK headquarters as a result.

Two tier workforce agreement

The government has agreed to end the disparity between public and private wages and conditions when public services are contracted out. A new code of practice provides that where public sector employees are transferred to contractors, those contractors will be obliged to recruit new staff on terms and conditions comparable to those of the staff transferred.

This will also apply to new contracts awarded by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). On 22 March 2005, the then prisons minister Paul Goggins stated that: “The roll out of the two tier code of practice, announced last week by the prime minister … will produce a level playing field for the [prison market testing] contest as all bidders will face the same market conditions and will need to focus on quality rather than cost.”

Helping GEO to grow

Florida-based GEO Group Inc. set up its new UK headquarters in 2004 and the company has aspirations to conquer the European custodial services market. According to the website of independent fee-based financial advisers Grant Thornton, “Grant Thornton UK LLP is advising GEO Inc, one of the world’s largest prison operators, on its bids to provide new prisons in the UK and other European countries.”

Grant Thornton is a member of Grant Thornton International, described as “one of the world’s leading organisations of accounting and consulting firms” operating from 600 offices in 110 countries. In the UK, Grant Thornton has advised both public and private sector clients on a range of private finance projects for police, courts and probation infrastructure and services. The website, www.grant-thornton.co.uk also notes that “Grant Thornton UK LLP has become a major international force in project finance in recent years. We are currently actively involved in developing new public-private partnership projects, and indeed new PPP markets in … Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Mexico, Spain, the UK and the USA.”

CBI influencing public service reform

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI, ‘The Voice of Business’ see PPRI # 57) is looking for a new director of its public services group. An advertisement captioned ‘influence the debate about the future of public services’ states that the director’s role will be to develop “new forms of quasi-public service markets and the use of the private and voluntary sectors to promote greater diversity, efficiency and quality in the provision of public services.”

The appointee will need to “demonstrate a blend of commercial, public policy and political skills coupled with a commitment to broadening the scope for managed competition and contestability in public services [and be] … confident in dealing at the most senior level in Government, business and the media.” In return they will receive a salary of “around” £80,000 per year plus benefits. The advertisement, placed in The Observer, 5 June 2005, also states that the new recruit will replace the CBI’s current director who has been appointed to “a senior public service reform role within Government …”

The current director is John Williams who has been on secondment from the Serco Institute to the CBI. He was formerly an executive at Serco Group plc which used to own 50% of Premier Prisons but is now sole owner.

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
Open prisons up for grabs

The government has announced that Shelton Abbey and Loughan House open prisons are to be redesignated as halfway houses for offenders on temporary release from prison and their operation will be contracted out to the private sector (see PPRI #67 & 60-58).

The department of justice has invited tenders for staffing, security, the provision of training and therapeutic programmes as well as catering, cleaning, laundry and general maintenance at the two facilities. Existing public sector employees face redeployment or retirement. The move follows a breakdown in negotiations with the Irish Prison Officers Association over working conditions and overtime.

The government is also commissioning a new prison at North County Dublin and a criminal courts complex through public-private partnerships. Prisoner escorting and electronic monitoring services are also to be privately run.

GREECE
Prisons exempt from PPPs – for now

New infrastructure projects related to national defence, prisons and policing are excluded from a draft law enabling public-private partnerships in Greece. The draft law being considered by the government is designed for infrastructure such as roads, schools and airports. The new law will replace the current practice where each new project requires legislation.

BELGIUM
MP calls for privatisation

Tony Van Parys of the Flemish CD & V Party (Flemish Christian Democrats) has called for Belgium’s prisons to be privatised in order to reform correctional services and provide a solution to overcrowding. The CD&V’s criminal justice specialist also believes that public-private partnerships will save money and teach the public sector new management techniques. Belgium’s prisons have the capacity for 8,311 prisoners but recently held 9,409. The May 2005 issue of MO (Mondiaal Magazine, www.mo.be) ran a debate (in Flemish) on Mr Van Parys’ proposal.

AUSTRALIA
Private prisoner figures

Private prisons in Australia held 17.5 % of Australia’s prisoners - 4,239 out of 24,171 - as at 30 June 2004. In 2003 4,197 out of a total prisoner population of 23,555 were held in private prisons (see PPRI #64). Source: Australia Bureau of Statistics, Prisoners in Australia 2004.

Port Phillip security increased

GSL Custodial Services has had to provide extra roving security and new fencing at the 744 bed Port Phillip Prison in Victoria (see PPRI # 63, 61, 59, 57, 56, 51-49, etc).

The company responded to a notice served by the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) which asked for changes to staffing arrangements. This was prompted by an incident on the night of 13 March 2005 involving rival factions of prisoners at a time when only seven prison officers were on duty to supervise 700 prisoners.

Correctional supervisors at Port Phillip have been awarded a pay increase to take account of increased responsibilities since 2003. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) determined that their work value had increased by 4% (leading to a 2% pay rise) but it also determined that industry supervisors’ duties at the prison had not increased enough to warrant a pay increase. The case had been referred to the AIRC in 2003 as the CPSU and the company (then known as Group 4 Correction Services Pty Ltd) had failed to agree terms. Correctional supervisors now earn A$51,368 per annum. The prison opened in 1997.
Australian Industrial Relations Commission, CPSU the Community and Public Sector Union and GSL Custodial Services Pty Ltd, (C2003/2062), Melbourne, 2 March 2005.

New South Wales news

A consortium comprising German construction firm Bilfinger Berger BOT, Macquarie Bank and United KG has been chosen as the preferred bidder for the A$130 million redevelopment of Long Bay Correctional Centre forensic and prison hospitals in Sydney (see PPRI #62).

The state premier announced in May 2005 that a new A$250 million, 500 bed jail will be built. The state’s prisoner population was around 9,000 in January 2005 and is expected to increase to 10,000 by 2008.

The government is continuing an inquiry into the comparative costs of GEO Inc-run Junee Correctional Centre and state run facilities (see PPRI # 67, 64, 61, 57, 55, etc).

Prison as investment

Australian investors in listed property trusts should buy into less traditional assets such as prisons, golf courses and self storage warehouses, according to JP Morgan Australia’s head of real estate, Tim Church. According to The Age, 7 April 2005, Mr Church’s view is that the Australian property market is almost at saturation point and investors should look overseas for quality assets. “You have only got to look at the United States. They’re very accepting of prisons as an income stream,” he told a forum of the Property Council of Australia.

From Texas to Queensland and beyond?

Queensland government officials have visited GEO Group Inc’s 1,000 bed Lockhart Correctional Center, Texas. According to the company’s in-house magazine GEO World the purpose of the visit was “to better understand the management system and the operation of the facility and, in particular, the prison industry programme.”

According to the magazine, Queensland’s director general of Corrective Services, Frank Rockett, said that “his department was facing the potential of expanding its offender capacity and was interested in examining options of reducing costs to taxpayers. One option being considered is building a larger than traditional sized prison in Queensland to benefit from economies of scale by lowering per prisoner operating costs.” Additionally, as Lockhart manages a unique prison industry programme whereby a portion of the wages earned by prisoners is applied to their cost of incarceration, “a win-win scenario is realised for the taxpayers and the prisoners who also keep a portion of their wages.”

The report continued: “Although director general Rockett expressed his appreciation to Warden Dixon and his staff for the warm hospitality and the informative tour, it is GEO that is appreciative to Mr Rockett and the Queensland Government for the compliment shown by including Lockhart in their fact finding tour.Although this particular tour highlighted the Lockhart Work Programme Facility, GEO is honoured by senior government correctional professionals from around the globe who tour our many correctional facilities operated under public private partnerships.”
Source: GEO World, Volume XI, Number 2, Second Quarter 2005.

HONG KONG
Checking out PPP prisons

A delegation of 28 officials from Hong Kong’s Special Administrative Region government visited the UK in April to study public-private partnership projects including prisons. The visit was arranged by Hong Kong’s Efficiency Unit, the British Consulate in Hong Kong and the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Restoring Prison Systems in War Torn Nations: Correctional Vision, Monitoring, and Human rights, Michael Welch, paper presented at the panel “Justice System Restoration in Conflict Torn Nations: Establishing Standards and Making Them Work” Eleventh UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Bangkok, Thailand, 18-25 April 2005. www.professormichaelwelch.com
This paper “explores the prospects and problems in restoring correctional institutions in nations where criminal justice systems have been dismantled due to war.” One of the author’s recommendations is that “corrections ought not become privatised. The debate over privatisation of prisons is extensive and complex. In war torn nations facing sever economic hardship, it is understandably tempting for officials to abdicate the prison system to a private firm that claims to be more cost effective. To date, however, there is little compelling evidence to support that claim. Moreover there remains an array of ethical considerations relevant to war torn nations as they strive to restore a criminal justice system whose vision rests on legitimacy and human rights rather than commerce, profit, and worse, corruption.”

Memphis ’68 Revisited, Si Kahn, AlterNet, 6 May 2005, www.alternet.org/story/21953
This article describes how, “with help from some unlikely places, Corrections Corporation of America is hoping to build the largest for-profit private prison in the United States.” Information on the campaign to stop prison privatisation in Memphis can be found at www.grassrootsleadership.org.

The print media’s portrayal of the private prison, Curtis R. Blakely, Vic. W. Bumphus, Probation Journal, Vol 52(1), March 2005, Sage Publications, www.sagepublications.com (see also Media Portrayals of Prison Privatisation-A Research Note, Curtis Blakely, Federal Probation, December 2004, www.uscourts.gov).
The article draws on a study of the US print media’s portrayal of prison privatisation. The authors conclude: “overall, respective article titles and content are becoming less favourable and more neutral. Furthermore, the percentage of unfavourable content has nearly doubled sine 1986, portraying the private prison more negatively now than ever before. Factors responsible for this trend are unknown, however, given the increased scrutiny of privatisation by politicians, labour unions and academicians, a more critical approach by the media is somewhat expected.”

Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs Special Investigative Audit Report, Fiscal Year Ending 30 June 2003, Oklahoma Office of the State Auditor & Inspector, April 2005, www.csd.sai.state.ok.us
This report into how the State of Oklahoma contracts for juvenile services was conducted at the request of the attorney general. It found questionable costs and service delivery, a lack of public accountability and a range of questionable practices including a state statute that appears to provide exclusive privileges to private non-profit corporations and reimbursements for questionable employee related expenses of private contractors.

Cost-Saving or Cost-Shifting: The Fiscal Impact of Prison Privatisation in Arizona, Kevin Pranis, Private Corrections Institute Inc www.CorrectionsInstitute.org in collaboration with American Friends Service Committee Tucson,www.afsc.org and Arizona Leadership Institute, www.azleadership.org
This report does not attempt to determine whether private prisons are more or less costly than public prisons but examines factors that need to be considered as part of any serious comparison. The author concludes that: “… our investigation shows that the research used to justify the expansion of [Arizona’s] private prison programme is methodologically flawed, outdated, and in one case, discredited by the researcher’s financial ties to the private prison industry. Further, critical issues such as the implications of municipal bond financing of private expansion have never been addressed.”

Risk Weighting and Accounting Choices in Public Private Partnerships: Case Study of a Failed Prison Contract, Linda English and R.G. Walker, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2004. www.cpaaustralia.com.au (This issue includes a number of articles on public-private partnerships).
In 2000 Victoria’s state government bought out the contracts for Australia’s first privately financed, designed, built and run prison, the 125 bed Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre at Deer Park, Melbourne. The prison had suffered four years of persistent problems (see PPRI # 38, 37, 35, etc). This paper is a case study “ … that shows how ex ante assessments of the extent of risk transfer from public sector agencies to private sector contractors were inadequate. Those assessments placed undue weight on some risks and failed to assess others.” The authors also stated: “The case of Deer Park shows that, in reality, it is very difficult for the state to transfer the ultimate responsibility for services which are perceived by the public as being core.” (NB: Assessments of likely economic impacts of potential or proposed projects are termed ex ante impact assessments).

Curb the Enthusiasm for Privatisation and US Prison Companies, S. Nathan, Prison Service Journal, Issue 158, March 2005. Email:psjournal@hotmail.com
In the summer of 2003 the chief executive of England and Wales’ National Offender Management Service went to the US, met with representatives of three prison firms and “started a dialogue with them about the possibility of their bidding for future work.” This article looks at the record of US prison operators in the UK to date, the research findings in the US that, overall, show that the claims for privatisation are unproven and calls into question the continued use of such firms in the UK.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, Report on HM Prison Kilmarnock, January 2005, Published 26 April 2005, Scottish Executive. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/04/14103535/35406
The findings of an inspection carried out 25-29 October 2004 at Premier Prison Services-run Kilmarnock Prison (see PPRI #67, 60, 56, 55, 52, 51, 49-47, 44, 43, 40, 37 & 36). The chief inspector of prisons for Scotland noted that: “there are few activities available to prisoners when they are out of their cells in the evening and at weekends “and that “the provision of learning is impoverished: there is a lack of proper provision for basic education in reading, writing and numeracy.” Food was described as “not good”. The inspector also commented on low staffing levels and a high turnover of staff compared to public prisons. “last year’s report was critical of the provision of opportunities for remand prisoners: one year later this report finds almost no difference.” He described relationships between staff and prisoners as “good”. The chief inspector listed 49 suggested improvements. The prison opened in 1999.

Electronic Monitoring: exploring the commercial dimension, Mike Nellis, CJM, No 58, Winter 2004/05, (magazine of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies) www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/ccjs//cjm/cjm.html
This article profiles Dmatek (see PPRI #67 and an earlier paper on electronic monitoring by Mike Nellis in PPRI #61). “The electronic monitoring of offenders is of growing significance across the world. Although loosely understood to be part of the ‘commercial corrections complex’ the companies involved in manufacturing this new technology have been largely opaque to criminologists and penal reformers. This paper, part of a larger work in progress, goes some way to demystifying one of them.”

Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders: Time for a Review, National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), April 2005. www.napo.org
In this report NAPO argues that the electronically monitored curfew order, administered by private security companies, should be scrapped. Electronic monitoring “costs twice as much to tag somebody as to supervise them by a member of the Probation Service.” Electronic monitoring “is now a multi-million pound business set for a major expansion after the election, yet the figures clearly show that the profit is huge and hardly value for money. It is also extraordinary that violations are not monitored or routinely followed up. There is an overwhelming case for the withdrawal of the curfew order. The time is surely right for an independent assessment of this concept.”

3 Investigates: Tagging Criminals, BBC TV, March 2005, www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/tv/3_investigates/tagging_criminals.html
Another BBC investigation following on from undercover reports on Kilmarnock prison (see PPRI #67) and immigration detention and escort contracts, this programme “investigates the companies paid millions through government contracts …. and asks the crucial question does it really reduce reoffending rates?” The programme also “uncovers a catalogue of technical failures and mismanagement that has led to criminals being left unmonitored and free to exploit the faulty system. The programme discovers from Home Office analysts how funding for research into electronic monitoring was withdrawn and reveals that existing research cannot prove tagging improves reoffending statistics over the long term.”

Group 4 Securicor-Giving the World and Investors a Sense of Insecurity, First Alternative Annual Report, Service Employees International Union, May 2005, www.FocusOnGroup4Securicor.com
“The first ever Alternative Annual Report on Group 4 Securicor identifies the major risks posed to the company’s 2005/6 performance from its approach to labour and training standards, particularly in the US.” The report does not deal with the company’s correctional services operations but instead assesses the security company’s activities - and Wackenhut Corporation’s in particular - since the 2004 merger (see PPRI # 63, 62 & 60). According to the SEIU, “there is a growing concern that as the global security industry consolidates, there is the potential for lower US standards to become a model for operations everywhere.” The SEIU is campaigning for the company to “become a better corporate citizen.” The company’s Annual General Meeting is in London on 30 June 2005.

FORTHCOMING EVENT

Privatisation and punishment: A perilous partnership, 16th Eve Saville Memorial Lecture. Monday 18 July 2005, 6-7pm at the Council Room, Kings College, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, England. The Lecture will be given by Professor Tim Newburn, Mannheim Centre for Criminology, London School of Economics.
Contact: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Email: ccjs.enq@kcl.ac.uk

ENDS

Prison Privatisation Report International
Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU)
Business School, University of Greenwich
Park Row, London SE10 9LS, England
Internet: www.psiru.org/justice
Email: ppri@dsl.pipex.com