Prison
Privatisation Report International
No. 44, November 2001
Published by the Public Services
International Research Unit (PSIRU),
www.psiru.org/justice
This publication is supported by a grant from the Foundation Open Society Institute.
IN THIS ISSUE
RECENT
REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS
France:
new programme announced
The
announcement, made on
One
of the stated aims is to ensure that all prisoners have their own cells. “We
must take care to respect human dignity and show that the prison world must be
a world of security but also one that prepares inmates to rejoin society and
prevents the risk that they will reoffend,” said minister of justice Marylise
Lebranchu.
In
the first instance six new prisons will be ‘semi-private’ adding to the 21 that
already exist. These are expected to open between the second half of 2002 and
2004. However, a government spokesperson told PPRI that there are no certainties about where the rest of the facilities will be located or
how they might be financed and operated.
As
a result of the recent retendering of contracts for the existing 21semi-private
prisons, current operators will be switched from
n A group of more than one hundred immigrants’
rights and prison activists from several countries occupied a tour boat in
The
action, organised by Droit Devant!!, was in protest over the company’s
involvement in the operation of private prisons, detention centres and voucher
schemes for asylum seekers.
According
to
Sodexho
has also been the target of a campaign by students in the
Partnerships not dismissed
It was stated in PPRI #43 that a report on public/private partnerships, Public Private Comparator Gevangenissen by WS Atkins, Justice Solutions International (JSI) and NEI Kolpron Finance (NEI), was presented to the Dutch parliament in August 2001.
PPRI has learned, however, that this report was not
received by Parliament. On
The
Atkins/JSI/NEI report was used as the basis for the committee’s report to the
minister although not all of its content and conclusions were conveyed. The
reports dealt with how further autonomy within the Dutch prison administration
might be achieved as well as the feasibility of public/private partnerships for
new prisons.
The
steering committee concluded, however, that there were a number of tasks which
should remain integral to the government’s core business:
n the decision to determine or recognise a
provision or the organisation of an institution where sanctions are allowed to
be executed;
n the decision to imprison or restrict freedom
of an individual where basic rights are determined;
n agreeing to engage the management of an
institution and to empower them with legal authority;
n preparing and determining rules in respect of
the operation of an institution.
In
his letter the minister stated that he agreed with the committee’s conclusions
that there should be further autonomy within the prison service as long as
complete political responsibility and democratic control, particularly in the
execution of sanctions and imprisonment, were maintained.
The
committee also suggested that there should be further investigation into the potential for public/private sector
co-operation for prisons.
In
response, the minister stated that there are differences of opinion about the
use of public/private partnerships and
reiterated that he did not intend to reduce state control. But he did not
reject the idea of public/private partnerships outright.
In accepting the need for further efficiencies
the minister also noted that the committee had recommended starting a project
to develop new collective bargaining agreements for staff in the prison service agency. The current system of
national bargaining was regarded as a barrier to further autonomy within the
service.
He
also said that the steering committee’s report provides a number of ideas to
change the management relationships between the ministry, the corrections
agency and the institutions and that these will be worked on in the coming period. Although, due to other priorities, he
would not be submitting any suggestions for change before next year. The next
general election in the
The
minister was also in favour of the recommendation that a system of independent inspection should be created.
For a public/private partnership prison to be established there would have to be enabling legislation and, before that, a consultation process. As yet, no such process has been announced.
nThe prisoner population in the
n Due to staff shortages in the western region in particular, prisons are taking on security staff employed by firms such as Group 4 and Random and training them for six weeks while they work alongside public employees. There are around 200 of these staff out of a total workforce of 8,000.
Industry subsidised: but in whose interest?
Almost 75 per cent of the large privately built and operated
prisons in the
The study covered 60 prisons with 500 beds or more located in 19 states. This comprised half of the private prison market.
The
findings included:
n at least 44 (73per cent) of the facilities
received one or more development subsidy. The actual rate is very likely to be
higher but cannot be determined because state corporate income tax credits are
not disclosed;
n a total of $628m in tax-free bonds and other
government-issued securities were used to finance 37 per cent of the prisons
studied;
n 38 per cent received property tax abatements
or other tax reductions;
n 23 per cent received infrastructure subsidies
such as water, sewer or utility hook-ups, access roads and/or other
publicly-paid improvements;
n subsidies were found in 17 of the 19 states in
which the 60 facilities are located;
n facilities operated by the two largest
companies, Corrections Corporation of America and Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation, are frequently subsidised ... 78 per cent of CCA’s and 69 per cent
of Wackenhut’s ... suggesting that these companies have been aggressive in
seeking development subsidies;
n not one of the dozens of economic development
officials interviewed - covering 83 per cent of the facilities, often with
multiple sources - could cite any formal economic impact study or cost-benefit
analysis related to the prisons.
The
authors noted that “the prison industry has not needed this extensive
assistance from the public sector because of an inability to raise money from
private capital markets.”
“It
could also be argued,” they say, “that the frequent failure of governments to
hold private prison operators accountable for substandard conditions -
including poorly trained guards, inadequate facilities, insufficient medical
care, etc - in effect subsidises the
companies by freeing them of the cost of full contract compliance. These are
legitimate issues but not the subject of the present study.”
“We
are surprised to find subsidies so prevalent. We also wonder why they are
necessary, given that governments are also paying the prison companies to
operate the facilities,” said Philip Mattera, primary author of the study.
“We
are struck by the uneven quality of information available from local
development officials,” said Mafruza Khan, co-author. “Many officials did not know all of the
taxpayer investments that had been made in local facilities. And despite
granting hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, not one public official
could cite a cost-benefit analysis or impact study on their facility.”
“Whatever
the perceived development or contracting benefits of private prisons, they must
now be balanced with a full accounting of their costs,” said Greg LeRoy,
director of Good Jobs First. “These massive taxpayer investments should be held
to the same standards as any other economic development expenditures.”
Jail
Breaks: Economic Development Subsidies Given to Private Prisons, Good Jobs
First, October 2001. The full report is on the internet at:
www.goodjobsfirst.org/jbrelease.htm
n The Association of Private Correctional and
Treatment Organizations (APCTO) has
rejected the report’s findings. In a
press release dated 25 October 2001APCTO’s chief executive,
CSC hit by downturn
One of the great claims made by the private
prison industry is that it is ‘recession proof.’ But
proof that this might be yet another exaggeration is provided by the current
fortunes of
The
company announced on
The
company stated that Mr Gerson’s lengthy experience with government contracts
“will enable him to assist in the monitoring of the company’s relationships
with the agencies that are its clients.
Occupancy
rates have been falling at the company’s 34 facilities, which hold 8,600
inmates in 17 states and
CSC’s
other restructuring plans include:
n closing “as soon as practicable” six juvenile
and one adult facilities totalling 528 beds. Those facilities had combined
losses of $600,000 in the third quarter of financial year 2001;
n saving $2m in costs through a 25 per cent cut
in non-facility personnel and reductions in travel and business development
budgets;
n selling one prison for $8m and realising
assets worth a further $23m, as well as what it describes as selling “raw
land”. The company sold a 479-bed jail
in Dickens,
But
Mr Slattery believes the decline in prison occupancy levels is a short-term
trend. “Increases in parole rates combined with economic slowdowns
traditionally lead to increased need for correctional services,” he said.
Most of the restructuring, which is estimated to cost $8m, will be completed by the end of 2001. In the first nine months of 2001, CSC lost $6.28m on revenues of $131.8m compared with a profit of $4.71m and revenues of $158.3 million in 2000.
PPRI made
several attempts to discuss the impact on CSC’s aspirations outside of the
Lehman Brothers targeted
Not With Our Money! (NWOM), a New York-based
network of student and community activists campaigning against private prisons
in the US, is targeting Wall Street financial institutions which support the
private prison industry.
NWOM
is currently lobbying Lehman Brothers to halt two major financial deals: a new
stock offering for Cornell Companies Inc and a debt refinancing for Corrections
Corporation of
NWOM wants to convince Wall Street not to give the private prison industry what it calls “a blank cheque” and that financial support for the private prison industry is unacceptable.
According
to NWOM, in the last decade Lehman Brothers has become the most important ally
of the private prison industry by managing major financial deals, including
credit agreements, bond issues and stock offers.
Most
recently, Lehman was the lead underwriter for an offering of three million
shares in Cornell Companies Inc. that was expected to raise an estimated $50m.
The finance was needed by Cornell for expansion. Lehman is also the managing
agent for Corrections Corporation of
NWOM
is encouraging those concerned with Wall Street’s support for the prison
industry to express their concerns by contacting Richard Fuld, chairman and CEO
of Lehman Brothers. Mr Fuld can be contacted at: Tel: ++ 201 524 2000
(switchboard - ask for Richard Fuld’s office);
Fax: ++ 212 526 3317 or email: rfuld@lehman.com
Contact
Not With Our Money, Tel: ++ 646 486 6715. Email: nwom@nomoreprisons.org
Lehman Brothers - A snapshot of their recent
involvement in private prisons
nIn 1988, Lehman Brothers (then known as
Shearson Lehman) was involved in a joint venture with American Correctional
Systems, Bechtel and Daewoo to develop a $40m
medium security private prison in
nIn 1997, Lehman was one of the underwriters of
the initial public offering of stock made by CCA Prison Realty Trust, the real
estate investment trust spinoff of Corrections Corporation of
Also
in 1997 Lehman was the underwriter for a $34.5m offering of certificates of
participation to finance the East Mississippi Correctional Facility that was to
be run by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation.
n In 1998 Lehman was the underwriter for $59m of
revenue bonds issued by the Idaho State Building Authority to finance a private
prison to be operated by CCA.
n In May 1999 Lehman served as the lead arranger
for a $1 billion credit facility for Prison Realty Corp. (the new name of the
CCA real estate investment trust).
nIn June 1999, Lehman served as the underwriter
for a $100m offering of Senior Notes by Prison Realty.
v In August 2001 Lehman helped Cornell Companies
Inc. carry out a sale/leaseback deal under which ownership of a group of its
correctional facilities was transferred to an entity called Municipal
Corrections Finance LP, generating $173m in cash for Cornell.
Logan’s view
The full text is available on the internet at:
Caller: “... Can you give me a little colour in terms
of post September 11 what is going on in terms of activities of the borders
that you’re picking up, anecdotally with the INS. And then how many illegal aliens are in your
prisons currently and what the normal length of stay has been.
Caller: “You’ve got to, you have to write them down.”
“The other thing that you’re seeing that to be
honest with you I have no idea how this is going to impact us but it’s not
bad it can only be good is with, with the focus on people that are
illegal and also from Mid Eastern descent, um, in the United states there are
over 900,000 undocumented individuals from Middle Eastern descent. That’s, keep in mind, that’s half of our
entire prison population. That’s a huge
number. Um, and that is a, a population
for, for lot’s a reasons that is being targeted. So I would say the events of September 11,
um, let me back up. The federal business
is the best business for us. It’s the
most consistent business for us, and the events of September 11 is increasing
that level of business.”
“It’s clear that since September 11 there’s a
heightened focus on detention… more
people are gonna get caught. So I would
say that’s positive… it’s not bad it can only be good is with the focus on people that are illegal
and also from Middle Eastern decent in the United States there are over 900,000
undocumented individuals from middle eastern decent... That’s a huge number,
and that is a population, for lots of reasons that is being targeted.”
Ohio cuts: public or private?
The need for corrections budget cuts in Ohio
have created a classic dilemma of the privatisation era.
The
state wants to make cuts which could mean the closure of three prisons.
Currently the state has contracts with Management and Training Corporation
(MTC) to operate two facilities.
But since MTC’s prisons are deemed to be saving the state $3.5m a year they are not being targeted for closure. The more likely option is that state-run prisons will face the axe and, while prisoners will be transferred to other facilities, up to 800 people could lose their jobs. Some 48 staff in the department of rehabilitation’s headquarters and training centre have already been laid off. The State says that staff with seniority would be able to ‘bump’ those with less.
The
state governor has also said that the union which represents most public sector
corrections staff should make concessions.
Sodexho set to expand
UK Detention Services Ltd (UKDS) has been
chosen by the prison service as preferred bidder for a new 450 place women’s
prison at Ashford, south east England and joint preferred bidder with Premier
Custodial Group Ltd for the 840 place men and women’s facility at Peterborough
in Cambridgeshire.
Both
prisons will be Category B and privately financed, designed, built and run.
Negotiations will continue before final contract announcements about both
prisons are made. Ashford is expected to open in July 2003 and Peterborough in
2004.
According
to the prison service, the Ashford
contract is worth about £43m in capital project costs and £213 million overall.
Neither UKDS nor Premier has experience
of working with women prisoners in the UK.
Failed bidders were Group 4 for Ashford and Peterborough and Citadel (a consortium comprising Securicor, WS Atkins, Skanska, Costain and BNP Paribas) also for Ashford. Securicor, Skanska and Costain are involved in Parc prison at Bridgend in Wales (see PPRI # 42, 38, 34, 30, 29, 23 and 21-18).
In making the announcement
on 5 November 2001, the director general of the prison service, Martin Narey,
said: “These awards will provide modern prisons quickly and at a cost that
represents good value for money for the taxpayer. They will help to relieve the
pressure on existing prisons in the London and Eastern areas and provide much
needed additional places, particularly for women.”
Private money go round
A
round up of some of the most recently filed accounts of British companies
operating prisons, prisoner escort services, electronic monitoring and
immigration detention centres (see PPRI
# 38 and 25). NB: Not all companies are listed here.
nPremier Custodial Group Ltd, the UK’s largest private prison service
operator, had a pre tax profit of £12.4m
for the period 28 September 1999 to 31 December 2000. Revenues were £160.9m.
The group had an average of 2,851 employees during the period. The directors
reported that they were “optimistic about the long term prospects for Group
continued growth,” pursuing custodial services opportunities in the UK and the
supply of electronic monitoring equipment around the world.
The
following UK companies are owned by Premier Custodial Group Ltd (itself owned
50 per cent each by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Serco PLC):
Premier Prison Services Ltd - provides custodial
management services to the Home Office
Premier
Training Services Ltd - manages Hassockfield Secure Training Centre
Premier
Geografix Ltd - manufactures and leases electronic tagging equipment
Premier
Monitoring Services Ltd - electronic monitoring services to the Home Office
Lowdham
Grange Prison Services Ltd - design, construction, management and finance of HMP Lowdham Grange
Pucklechurch
Custodial (Holdings) Ltd - holding company
Pucklechurch
Custodial Services Ltd - design, construction, management and finance of HMP & YOI Ashfield
Medomsley
Holdings Ltd - holding company
Medomsley
Training Services Ltd - design, construction, management and finance of Hassockfield Secure Training Centre
Moreton
Prison (Holdings) Ltd - holding company
Moreton
Prison Services Ltd - design,
construction, management and finance of HMP Dovegate
Kilmarnock
Prison (Holdings) Ltd - holding company
Kilmarnock
Prison Services Ltd - design, construction, management and finance of HMP Kilmarnock
Ashford
Prison Services Ltd - non trading company formed in connection with bid
for new
prison contract
Cambridgeshire
Custodial Services Ltd - non trading company formed in connection with bid for new prison contract
n Wackenhut (UK) Ltd, which used to run the prison industries at
HMP Coldingley, manages Tinsley House immigration detention centre. The
company’s revenues for the year ended 31 December 2000 were £22.56m (£13.05m in
1999) and pre tax profit was £0.76m (£0.16m in 1999).
n
Group 4
Prison Services Ltd is involved in the design and operation of remand
centres, prisons and similar institutions and the provision of associated
security services. For the year ended 31
December 2000 the company made a pre-tax profit of £2.68m (£1.96m in 1999) on
revenues of £27.25m (£28.05m in 1999). The company paid a dividend of £1.2m
(£0.7m in 1999).
n Group 4 Carillion (Fazakerley) Ltd managed to pay dividends of £3.8m to
shareholders during the year ended 31 December 2000. Revenues were £21.48m
(£19.46m in 1999) and pre tax profit was £4.94m (£5.02m in 1999). The company
is the holding company for Fazakerley Prison Services Ltd (FPSL) which has a 28
year contract for the finance, design, construction and management of HMP
Altcourse in Liverpool.
n Rebound ECD Ltd is a subsidiary of Group 4 Falck and the
management subcontractor for the two secure training centres, Medway and
Rainsbrook, which are run by ECD (Cookham Wood) Ltd and ECD (Onley) Ltd.
Turnover for the year ended 31 December 2000 was £8.66m (£6.89m in 1999). The
company made a pre tax loss of £253,000 compared to a pre tax loss of £1.7m in
1999.
The
company participates in two joint ventures, Education Care and Discipline Ltd
and Education Care Discipline Three Ltd with Carillion Private Finance Ltd in
relation to the design, construct, manage and finance contracts for Medway and
Rainsbrook. The shares in these companies are held by Prison and Court Services
Ltd.
n Group 4 Falck Global Solutions UK Ltd
(formerly known as Group 4 Management Services Ltd) manages outsourced contracts including
facilities management, maintenance and other services in partnership with other
third party service providers and
develops new contractual service opportunities. In October 2000, the
company acquired the immigration detention centre trade and assets from Group 4
Total Security Ltd.
Revenues
for the year ended 31 December 2000 were £10.9m and the company made a pre-tax
loss of £232,000.
n UK Detention Services Ltd (UKDS) operates and manages prisons but also tenders for contracts for the deign, construction, management and financing of other similar projects. During the financial year ended 31 December 2000 the company continued to run HM Prison Blakenhurst, held the contract to finance, design build and run HM Prison Forest bank and was awarded a contract to manage the Harmondsworth immigration detention centre at Heathrow Airport. For the financial year, the company made a pre-tax profit of £1.89m (££0.75m in 1999) on revenues of £23.12m (£11.91 in 1999).
The average monthly number of prison officers employed by UKDS was 542 compared with 271 in 1999. The company also employed 13 management, 81 administrators and 24 maintenance personnel (10, 25 and 12 respectively in 1999).
The company paid directors fees and pension contributions of £171,000 (£218,000 in 1999) and also paid £80,000 in fees to Nicholas Hopkins Associates (£77,000 in 1999) for public relations services. Mr Hopkins is a director of UKDS.
During
the year Sodexho SA charged the company £96,000 for technical services.
Similarly, Corrections Corporation of America Inc. charged £90,188. UKDS passed
on £1.38m of costs to Agecroft Prison Management Ltd (APM, see PPRI #40) relating to the start-up of HM
Prison Forest Bank. These costs had been incurred on behalf of APM.
A
note to the company’s accounts refers to a provision of £170,000 for legal
proceedings which “relates to claims from former employees. Subsequent to the
year end, two cases have been settled.”
CCA
(UK) Ltd and Sodexho SA were the controlling parties in UKDS as each owned 50
per cent of the capital until 13 November 2000 when Sodexho became the 100 per
cent owner.
n Securicor Custodial Services Ltd’s principal activities are prisoner escort, court custody services and prison management operations. The company also has an electronic monitoring contract. The accounts for the year ended 30 September 2000 noted that “concerns regarding the increasing application of performance penalties outside of contract terms and conditions have been resolved, however, there is continuous customer pressure to deliver improving standards of service in all contract areas.”
The
company’s revenues for the year were £36.7m (£36.38m in 1999). Pre tax profit
was £238,484 (£1.21m in 1999).
The
company’s highest paid director received £148,695 while the total of directors’
remuneration was £673,068 excluding pension contributions.
During
the year, the company paid for services from the following related companies:
Securicor Custodial Services Ltd £13.12m
Securicor Security Services Ltd £20,000
WS Atkins Investments Ltd £10,000
WS Atkins Planning & Management Consultants
Ltd £1,000
WS Atkins Facilities Management Ltd 315,000
WS Atkins Consultants Ltd £31,000
WS Atkins Management Consultants Ltd £43,000
Skanska BOT AB £10,000
Costain Engineering & Construction Ltd £130,000
A
note to the accounts stated that Securicor Security Services Ltd were to
receive additional finance charges of £937,000 in respect of their subordinated
loan.
n The cost of bidding for contracts under the
private finance initiative (PFI) range typically “from six figures to around
£12m for a complex military or large engineering project” according to Keith
Clarke, chief executive of construction firm Skanska. However, an interview in
the PFI Report, November 2001, did
not reveal how the firm recovered its costs.
Scotland’s inspector speaks out
As the Scottish Executive moves towards further
privatisation (see PPRI # 43,40, 37
and 36) Scotland’s chief inspector of prisons, Clive Fairweather, has publicly
stated his position on the issue.
In an interview with the Sunday Herald, 14 October 2001, Mr Fairweather said: “Running a private prison is about making a profit, which is not necessarily the same as running a good prison. Prisons should be about reducing future offending and therefore reducing the number of future victims of crime. Anyone who is serious about the correctional or rehabilitation agenda surely has to look where the experience and expertise currently lies - and concentrate on outcomes rather than pure costs.”
“It
has taken me a long time for me to make up my mind about private prisons in
Scotland. The private sector may be currently more suited to containing
prisoners in decent conditions where rehabilitating or challenging individuals
is less of as priority, such as with remands or petty offenders. Prisons are
not just about buildings, locks and keys and prison staff are not just
turnkeys. You need experienced professionals ... 91 per cent of staff at
Kilmarnock have not worked in a prison before.”
“Profit-driven
private prisons would minimise the number of staff and pay them less. Staff at
Kilmarnock have told me they love their jobs, but will not be there in two
years time because they cannot afford to stay.”
“The
solution is not dogmatic, or purely financial, but what’s best for the public
in crime prevention terms,” he said.
Gorrie contract up for tender
Australasian Correctional Management Ltd
(ACM)’s contract to manage the 710 bed Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre at
Wacol, Queensland is due for renewal. The government has launched a tendering
process for a five year contract. The prison has been run by ACM since it
opened in 1992. Thirteen prisoners have died from unnatural causes at the
prison since it opened in 1992 (see PPRI
#43 and 41).
Damages of A$432,000 awarded
Australasian Correctional Management Ltd
(ACM) and the Government of New South
Wales have been ordered to pay compensation of A$432,000 to a former ACM
employee at Junee Correctional Centre.
In
1997 Robert Napier was working as the manager of the prison factory when
prisoners threatened his life. As a result, he suffered nervous shock and
psychiatric illness. The amount of compensation was set by the judge at Wagga
District Court on 17 September 2001 after she found that neither the government
nor the company had provided adequate security to protect Mr Napier. ACM has
run the prison since 1992 (see PPRI #
41, 40, 38 and 35).
n The New South Wales corrections department has
negotiated with ACM to increase the number of prisoners held at Junee from 600
to 750. Improvements to the facility will needed in order to cater for the
increase.
New construction in NSW
The New South Wales government has approved
guidelines for privately financing around A$5 billion worth of new infrastructure over the next four years.
One of the projects could be a new A$70m prison and a $20m facility with six
courts.
The
government’s private finance model is based on the State of Victoria’s which in
turn was based on the UK’s private finance initiative (see PPRI #42 and 40).
According tot he government, the New South Wales model of public/private partnerships should not be regarded as privatisation. Under the guidelines, contract summaries for privately financed schemes would be audited by the auditor general and tabled before Parliament. Wider public interests would also be considered before a project is offered for private finance.
The
policy document Working with Government: Guidelines for Privately Financed Projects
was published on 5 November 2001
Assault victims settle with ACM
Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) has
settled out of court a damages claim brought by eight detainees who were
allegedly assaulted by ACM staff at the Villawood Detention Centre at Sydney in
April 2001 (see PPRI #42 and 41-36).
The
terms of the settlement were not disclosed after a Federal Court hearing
lasting several days was concluded on 22 October. The court was still due to hear the
detainees’ claim against the minister for immigration arising from the same
incidents.
The
detainees’s claimed that both ACM and the minister breached their duty of care
by allowing a group of ACM guards in riot gear to allegedly punch, kick and
beat them with batons.
Federal government unchanged
The ruling Liberal/National coalition has won a
third term of office as the Federal government of Australia. The coalition,
which is responsible for contracting out the country’s immigration detention
centres to Australasian Correctional Management (ACM), based its campaign on
denying asylum seekers the right to enter Australia to apply for refugee
status.
The
government is currently negotiating with ACM to expand its operations by 3,000
beds.
n Detainees who work in the kitchen for up to
A$10 per day at ACM-run Port Hedland immigration detention centre went on
strike on 1 November 2001. Their aim was to try and get more assistance and,
within an hour of taking action, ACM managers agreed a settlement. Ironically,
ACM staff had been unsuccessful in their attempt to negotiate with ACM over
annual wage agreements.
n The department of immigration and
multicultural affairs (DIMA) which oversees immigration detention centres, has
advertised for staff for its detention task force. The advertisement states
that the task force is responsible for reception and processing of unauthorised
boat arrivals, detainee management and removal, liaising with and monitoring
outsourced service provision of detention, legislative and policy enhancement
on detention issues, the management and administration of the task force as
well as managing community perceptions.
Ontario considers the cost
An anti-privatisation forum is being held at
Metro Hall, Toronto on 26 November 2001. A range of labour and community
organisations opposed to private prisons, health, electricity, water,
education, municipal and other services have formed a new grouping known as the
Consider the Cost Coalition to try and
roll back the provincial government’s privatisation programme.
The
coalition includes: Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Canadian
Environmental Law Association, Canadian Federation of Students, Canadian Health
Coalition, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Canadian Union of Postal
Workers, CAW Canada, Concerned Citizens of Walkerton, Ontario Coalition for
Social Justice, Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations,
Ontario Electricity Coalition, Ontario Liquor Boards Employees Union, Ontario
Secondary School Teachers Federation, National Union of Public and General
Employees, Public Service Alliance of
Canada, Service Employees International Union and the United Steelworkers
(District 6).
The
November event has been timed to coincide with a meeting of the Canadian
Council for Public Private Partnerships, an organisation set up to promote
privatisation.
More
information from the Centre for Social Justice. Tel ++ 416-927-0777.
Email:coalition@socialjustice.org
n Canada’s first privately operated prison for
adults opened in November 2001. The Central North Correctional Centre at
Penetanguishene in Ontario is run by Management & Training Corporation (see
PPRI # 40, 38, 37, 35, 34 and 32).
Within days of opening the Liberal Opposition corrections critic, Dave Levac,
alleged that the company was cutting corners after it was revealed that
prisoners could not receive telephone messages. Citizens Against Private
Prisons (CAPP) also criticised the government for appointing a six person
voluntary prison monitoring committee which would report only to the minister
for corrections rather than the community as a whole.
The
Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, No.101, September 2001.
Includes a report of the April 2001 seminar,
Implementation of Public Policy, Issues of Theory and Practice. One
contributor, John Hargreaves MLA, describes the flawed process by which the ACT
government decided on the financing and operating model for its new prison (see
PPRI # 41, 38, 35, 30 and 25).
Framed,
Issue 41, Justice Action, 19 Buckland St , Chippendale NSW 2008, Australia.
Tel:++ 9281 5100. Fax: ++ 9281 5303
This issue focuses on policing and includes
updates on campaigns in New South Wales.
Victoria
Legal Aid, Sixth Statutory Annual Report 2000/2001,
http://203.89.220.54/main1.cfm?CategoryID=9&TopicID=77
Includes details of a federal Supreme Court case
in which Australasian Correctional Management (ACM, owned by Wackenhut
Corrections Corporation) was found to
have exceeded its powers, denied natural justice to a prisoner and failed to
comply with regulations. ACM is appealing the decision.
Contracting
Culture: from CCT to PPPs, the private provision of public services and its
impact on employment relations, by Sanjiv Sachdev, Kingston University, for
UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London, NW1H
9AJ, England.
A report which examines the effect of public/private partnerships and describes the
impact on conditions as “enormous”. It identifies key trends and issues for
public services.
Socio-Legal
Newsletter No. 35, November 2001 published by Cardiff Law School, Cardiff
University, P O Box 427, Cardiff CF10 3XJ,Wales, UK.
Includes articles on international prison
privatisation and refugee and asylum policy in Australia.
Making
Crime Pay: Private Prisons Arrive in Canada, by Patti Ryan in The Lawyer,
October 2001,journal of the Canadian Bar Association, www.cba.org/national/main/coverOct01.asp
An article profiling Ontario’s prison
privatisation policy and the contracting out of Canada’s first correctional facility for adults.
Privatization
Update and Profile of Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Corrections USA (CUSA)
PO Box 394, Newton, NH 03858, USA. Internet: www.cusa.org
The latest editions in CUSA’s series of reports
based on press coverage of ‘what the prison privatisation industry doesn’t want
you to know.’
Prison
Legal News Vol.12 No.11, November 2001 2400 NW 80th St,.PMB 148, Seattle WA
98117. Internet: www.prisonlegalnews.org
Latest edition reporting legal issues affecting
prisoners, predominantly in the US. Includes an article on how Mississippi
taxpayers fund payments to private prisons for ‘ghost inmates’.
Our
Communities Are Not For Sale! Local-Global links in the fight against
privatisation, United for a Fair Economy (UFE), Institute for Policy Studies,
October 2001. UFE 37 Temple Place, Boston, MA 02111. Email, info@FairEconomy.org.
Internet:www.FairEconomy.org
A pamphlet focussing on service sectors in the
US but providing a framework for international co-operation amongst activists
in the US, Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Includes a section of prisons.
Guide
to The Prison Industrial Complex, Mennonite Central Committee, Fall 2001. MCC,
110 Maryland Avenue NE, #502, Washington DC 20002, USA. Email: mccwash@mcc.org
A pamphlet describing current facts, trends and
issues in the US, the private sector’s role
and a guide to resources.
CCA
Back from the brink by Joseph T Hallinan in the Wall Street Journal, 6 November
2001
A major article detailing the federal
government’s contracting out strategy which is helping to maintain the fortunes of the leading private prison
operators in the US (see PPRI # 38).
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