Prison Privatisation Report International

No. 46, March/April 2002

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

 

COSTA RICA

SOUTH AFRICA

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

NETHERLANDS

BELIZE

AUSTRALIA

NEW ZEALAND

UNITED STATES

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

 

COSTA RICA

 

MTC marching on?

 

Utah-based Management and Training Corporation (MTC) is the preferred bidder for Costa Rica’s first private prison contract (see PPRI # 42). A 1,200 bed facility, known as the Centro Penitenciaro de Pococi, will be built in the north of the country and will include 400 maximum and 800 medium security beds.

 

MTC is expecting to be contracted to finance, design build and operate the facility. Perimeter security will be provided by the government. Once contract negotiations are completed the facility should take between 14 and 18 months to build.

 

According to Mr Mike Murphy, MTC’s director of marketing, corrections, a rival bidder known as Corrections Corporation of  Latin America (CCLA) appealed against the government’s choice of MTC. Mr Murphy says that a formal decision on the appeal is imminent and he is optimistic about the outcome. “Our intelligence is that this company [CCLA] has no operational experience,” Mr Murphy told PPRI.

 

MTC is banking on this project to convince other governments in central and south America to not only privatise but also move away from the semi-private model currently being developed  in Chile (see PPRI # 45, 38 & 36). The company is happy to let Sodexho and “a lot of different facilities management companies” bid on these projects. “We are not in the real estate business,” he said.

 

Five years ago MTC operated four prisons. Now the company has 14 contracts including one each in Canada and Australia. “We looked at the UK market in the past but were hesitant due to the financial commitment required to get into the market,” said Mr Murphy, who added that, unlike its main competitors, MTC has no long term debt. As for other markets the company is “looking at” immigration detention centres. MTC is currently one of the bidders for a contract to operate  Australia’s immigration detention centres (see PPRI #45).

 

MTC’s international operations will be overseen by Wayne Scott who, before retiring in 2001, was executive director of the Texas department of criminal justice. Most recently, he was a member of the state’s board of pardons and paroles.

n MTC staff mistakenly released a prisoner from the Central North Correctional Facility in Ontario, Canada, in March 2002.  A province wide warrant for the prisoner’s re-arrest had to be issued. MTC opened the facility in November 2001 (see PPRI # 44, 40, 38,37, 35, 34 & 32).

 

SOUTH AFRICA

 

High hopes but private finance more expensive

 

The government of South Africa has high hopes for its latest privately financed, designed, built and run prison (see PPRI #42, 38, 36, 34, 30, 23, 20, etc).

 

Speaking at the official opening of the Kutama‑Sinthumule maximum security prison at Louis Trichardt in the Northern Province on 1 February 2002, the minister of correctional services, Mr Ben Skosana, said that the result of the project “will surely be an enhancement of the quality of services and better value for money.” He claimed that the project will save a direct capital investment of R345.4m over 25 years.

 

“We shall continue to explore private financing options for prison infrastructure development, not only because of the need to drastically expand the capacity of the system to deal with this massive overcrowding situation in our prisons, but also because of the obvious strain such a building programme would have on public funding,” he said.

 

However, in a speech on 9 October 2001 at the 6th Annual Infrastructure Financing & Development Symposium, there was a similar general message from the minister but also a different slant on the use of private finance. On this occasion it was stated that:

 

“However, in view of ... the high cost of private financing, public sector financing for prison construction remains the most cost effective option. Nonetheless, the government will continue to explore private financing options for prison infrastructure development, even though this is not the ideal, because of the need to drastically expand the  capacity of the system due to the massive overcrowding situation in our prisons and the obvious strain such a building programme would have on public funding. Notwithstanding the above mentioned limitations regarding private sector funding for prison infrastructure development, there is a continuum of options for involving the private sector in the provisioning of infrastructure services in the corrections environment.”

 

The new prison is financed, designed, built and operated by South African Custodial Management (SACM) a consortium equally owned by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Kensani Corrections - a local empowerment company  involved in operating inmate programmes, procurement and maintenance services. The construction subcontractor in SACM is CGM, an unincorporated joint venture composed of three local construction companies: Concor Construction, Group 5 and Makhosi Holdings.

 

Costs questioned

 

Keeping prisoners in South Africa’s two private prisons costs twice as much as keeping them in state run prisons, according to Southern Africa Report, 12 April 2002. The publication refers to “ferreting journalists” who claim that the Group 4-run Manguang prison in Bloemfontein costs taxpayers R200 ($17.5) per prisoner per day while prisoners at SACM’s  Kutama Sinthumule prison cost R167 ($14.9). However, the Report makes no mention of which state-run facilities the costs are being compared with. Manguang opened on 1 July 2001 and Kutama Sinthumule on 8 February 2002.

 

Mr Russell Mamabolo of South Africa’s department of  correctional services told PPRI that “management was still in discussion” over the cost issue and was not in a position to make a statement. 

 

According to South Africa’s commissioner of correctional services the prisoner population is at an all time high at 175,290. The country’s 238 prisons have an approved accommodation capacity of 105,435. Addressing the select committee on security and constitutional affairs on 21 February 2002, Mr Linda Mti and his management team said that overcrowding remains the biggest threat to gains made in enhancing the department’s core objectives of safe custody, humane detention and rehabilitation of prisoners. However, Mr Mamabolo also told PPRI  that there are no plans to commission any new prisons,  public or private. “The private prisons are being closely monitored to see if they are a viable venture,” he said.

 

Training based on Australian package

 

“During my initial welcome and introduction to the course I asked how many were up at 3 am in order to travel to the prison for a 6am start. Ten or so hands went up. How many were up at 4am? I estimate close to 30 hands went up. Large numbers indicated that they had to walk more than five kilometres as part of their journey to work. How many were working before beginning this training programme? Out of the 120 people only eight hands went up, a clear demonstration of this country’s severe unemployment problem.”

 

This was written by Mark Butler, ACM’s training manager at the company’s Fulham Correctional Centre in Victoria, Australia who was describing his experiences in developing the pre-service training for  correctional officers at the Kutama Sinthumule maximum security prison.

 

Writing in the spring 2002 issue of  All Points Bulletin, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s in-house magazine , Mr Butler also said that  training manuals and lesson plans had to be based on the Australian correctional industry training package and competency standards. Manuals and plans were then rewritten from ACM’s Australian operations to reflect the South African legal and correctional systems and the procedures.

 

A total of 213 correctional officers, three area managers, nine unit managers and six supervisors had to complete the pre-service course before 22 December 2001. Training took place at a nearby Air Force base. One of the company’s joint venture partners, security firm Fidelity Corporate Services, provided nine training staff.

 

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

 

Prison rules to be updated

 

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is due to  decide  on whether to update the European Prison Rules. For the first time the draft terms of reference for the exercise drawn up by the Council for Penological Co-operation - a standing committee  -  includes the management of private prisons as one of the issues that needs to be examined. Although the rules do not constitute a model system they do provide a minimum standard for all aspects of prison administration for member states.

 

NETHERLANDS

 

Securicor moves in

 

The Dutch subsidiary of British firm Securicor has been awarded a contract by the government to run detention facilities for offenders imprisoned for drugs‑related offences. Securicor Netherlands will benefit from the government being confronted with an influx of drug traffickers,  to the country, a lack of prison cells to hold them and political pressure from an increasingly influential right wing to take a tougher line.  Until recently, prosecutors had been  returning alleged offenders to where they had come from. But in March the government was pressurised into passing  a temporary emergency prison act enabling the minister of justice  to prosecute and incarcerate.

n Securicor EMS Inc has been awarded a $30m electronic monitoring contract by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The federal contract covers 50 states plus Guam and Puerto Rico. Securicor will provide the equipment and monitoring services from its base in southern California. Federal staff  will provide the field services. Securicor EMS regards itself as a ‘top three provider of electronic monitoring solutions for criminal justice agencies across the world.’ Securicor has electronic monitoring contracts in the US, UK, France and Australia. 

 

BELIZE

 

Privatisation considered

 

The government of Belize is attempting to privatise its prison service in order to streamline and modernise the administration of the prison. Negotiations are currently taking place with not-for-profit organisations but should these fail, private companies could  be considered.

 

AUSTRALIA

 

Immigration contract tenders

 

Short-listing of bids for the federal contract to run detention centres in Australia and a new facility on Christmas Island was due to take place on 10 May 2002. Tenders will close in July and the preferred tenderer will be notified in September. The new contract will start in November 2002.  Australasian Correctional Management’s (ACM) contract was retendered early after a series of riots, escapes and other incidents that led to doubts about whether the company was providing value for money (see PPRI # 45, 44, 42 & 41-36).

 

A new immigration detention centre to be built at Baxter, South Australia, will have an electrified perimeter fence designed to give escapees a non-lethal shock. A spokesperson for the immigration minister told The Australian, 15 April 2002, that “people have been hurting themselves on the razor wire [used at the Woomera facility] and this is a lot safer.”

n ACM’s parent company Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s fourth quarter 2001 profits were boosted by the  influx of refugees to Australia. WCC’s chief executive officer George Zoley referred to “positive Australian immigration centre contract performance.” The Australian Financial Review, 12 April 2002, reported that 3,600 refugees arrived in the second half of 2001 but the number of detainees has fallen from 3,000 to 1,300 over the past eight months.

n The contract between ACM and the department of immigration and multicultural affairs (DIMA) to run the Woomera detention centre north of Adelaide shows that it costs $A109,000 per day to detain 785 asylum seekers, according to The Australian, 31 January 2002. ACM was also receiving $A70 per day for each of the 700 detainees at Port Hedland in Western Australia.

n Three officers employed by ACM at Woomera detention centre who allegedly seized, interrogated and assaulted a 13 year old unaccompanied Afghani boy have been given their jobs back after first being fired in March 2002 over the December 2001 incident. The officers were reinstated after ACM held an internal investigation into the incident. The outcome of a police inquiry is awaited. A former detention centre medical doctor who both witnessed and reported the incident told The Age, 20 April 2002, that he examined the boy for bruising around the neck  and a welt on his face.

n ACM has lost a Supreme Court appeal against a decision to pay workers compensation to a former officer at Port Hedland detention centre. Todd Francis suffered post traumatic stress disorder after he led officers dealing with a riot in May 2001. He has been unable to work since the riot and, in August 2001,  ACM fired him. Western Australia Workcover ordered ACM to pay Mr Francis compensation back dated to June but ACM appealed.

n The Adelaide Magistrates Court has ordered the DIMA to produce some 50 boxes of documents relating to Australia’s detention centres and, in particular, video tapes of incidents at the Woomera detention centre.  The court is hearing the case of four Iranian men who escaped from the Woomera facility in November 2001 and who are claiming that they are being held as a form of punishment rather than administrative reasons.

n The human rights commissioner of New South Wales has launched an inquiry into the adequacy and appropriateness of Australia’s treatment of child asylum seekers and other children who are or have been held in immigration detention centres.

More details by email from:childrendetention@humanrights.gov.au

Also see the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission website at www.humanrights.gov.au

 

Management of prisoner ‘sub-optimal’

 

The Victoria state coroner who investigated the death of prisoner Ian Lamb at the Melbourne Custody Centre (MCC) in November 2000 declared that “I am satisfied that the management of the deceased ... was sub-optimal.”

 

She also raised concerns about policy and practice at the MCC which is  run under contract from Victoria Police by Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd (ACM), Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s Australian subsidiary.

 

“The case raises serious concerns about the training and monitoring of custody staff when charged with the responsibility of managing intoxicated persons. Apart from Mr Mathieson [the shift manager on the night in question], none of the staff was aware as to what was comprehended by the half hourly checks ...with the exception of Mr Mathieson, all the custody officers displayed a lamentable lack of familiarity with the  requirements of the policy in relation to intoxicated prisoners,” said the coroner.

 

Mr Lamb, 22,  had been arrested by police for being drunk and taken to the custody centre where he informed the duty nurse that he had also taken six mogadon tablets. Custody staff mistook Mr Lamb’s subsequent condition for a deep sleep, the coroner noting that “they are not qualified to make clinical assessments,” she said. Mr Lamb  died from aspiration of vomitus and toxicity to alcohol and nitrazepam.

 

The coroner also considered that ACM’s duty nurse should not have recommended that Mr Lamb  be kept at MMC and that “she should have arranged for an ambulance to transfer the deceased to hospital.”

 

A report commissioned by ACM and submitted to the inquest doubted the purpose of waking a prisoner in such a condition every half hour.

 

The coroner noted that, since Mr Lamb’s death,  the company had made some changes which “would seem to go a long way towards addressing the issues that arose in this Inquest. Primarily this is a training issue, but it should not end there,” she said. The coroner’s  recommendations included: that there should be “refresher training ... provided to custodial staff to ensure continued familiarity with ACM policies and procedures” as well as “on the job monitoring by senior staff to ensure that the policies and procedures are complied with.”

Record of Investigation into Death, State Coroner Victoria, Case No: 3642/00, 30 January 2002.

 

Acacia filling up

 

Western Australia’s only private prison was due to be filled to its 750 bed capacity by March 2002. In Acacia prison’s short history, however, there have been two violent incidents and one attempted suicide reported. The contractor is Australian Integration Management Services (AIMS, formerly Corrections Corporation of Australia) which is now owned by Sodexho SA of France. The contract is worth A$21m per year.

n Sodexho now has a ‘worldwide correctional services market champion’. He is Mr Herb Nahapiet, a director of Sodexho subsidiary UK Detention Services Ltd. According to Sodexho’s  annual report for the financial year ended December 2001, as well as its prison contracts in the UK, Australia and France it provides food services to five detention centres in Spain, 21 detention centres in the Netherlands as well as detention centres in the Italian cities of Avellino, Aversa, Benvento and Pozzuoli. Correctional services contributed Euros 91m, just one per cent of Sodexho’s worldwide revenues for the financial year 2000-2001.

 

Victoria’s briefing

 

Victoria’s office of the correctional services commissioner held a briefing on 26 March 2002 for parties interested in bidding for two new prison contracts.  Both the 600 remand and 300 bed medium security prisons for men will be privately financed, designed, built and maintained. Custodial and medical services and vocational training will be provided by the public sector. According to the government’s timetable, preferred tenderers will be announced in February 2003 and construction completed by late 2004. A third prison is to be publicly built and operated.

 

Corporate Governance Inquiry

 

Victoria’s public accounts and estimates committee has launched an inquiry to assess whether existing corporate governance arrangements are appropriate. One of the issues for consideration is partnership arrangements between the public and private sectors. The closing date for submissions to the inquiry is 30 May 2002. The committee has also sought submissions for an inquiry into private sector investment in public infrastructure. The inquiry will publish findings on a range of issues including the benefits and disadvantages to the community and the mechanisms used by the government to protect the public interest. Details: Email paec@parliament.vic.gov.au

 

No share in refinancing windfalls

 

The government of Victoria will not seek to share any benefits arising from the refinancing of PFI projects although it will require consent from a consortium before such a refinancing takes place. According to the April 2002 issue of  Update, Infrastructure and Projects produced by international law firm Maddocks, the government’s position is based upon the assumption that, in putting in its most competitive bid, the private sector has already passed on to the government any savings it might derive from refinancing.

 

The most high profile prison project refinancing  to date has been that of Group 4/Carillion’s Altcourse prison in Liverpool, England. In that case, the consortium made a windfall of £10.7m but only £500,000 was passed on to the government (see PPRI # 36). The latest prison contracts in England are due to state that refinancing windfalls should be split 50/50 between the contractor and the government.

n Australia’s construction industry wants government help with the costs of bidding for public-private partnership infrastructure projects. Companies argue that the cost of bidding for some projects is ten times higher than standard construction costs which typically involve 0.1 per cent of the capital costs. The Australian Constructors Association has also lobbied “every major client in Australia” to restrict the short list of tenderers for projects to just three companies instead of five. The Australian Financial Review,22 March 2002, reported that the Victorian government is the only authority that pays bidders to tender.

 

Bids in for Arthur Gorrie

 

Four companies have been invited to submit tenders for the management of Queensland’s Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre (see PPRI #45-43 & 41).  They are: Group 4 Correction Services Pty Ltd, Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd (ACM), Australian Integration Management Services Ltd (AIMS, owned by Sodexho SA), and Management and Training Corporation (MTC). The government did not allow an in-house bid from the department of corrective services. A new five year contract will commence from December 2002. The prison has been run by ACM since 1992.

n Queensland’s other privately managed prison, Borallon Correctional Centre, has completed  its first year under new management by MTC (see PPRI # 38-36).

 

Australia’s prisoner figures

 

Between 1950 and June 2001, the official population of Australia increased from 8.31 million to 19.4 million, an increase of 133 per cent. Over the same period, the number of prisoners rose as a proportion from 52.22 to 115.84. In 1991 there were 15,021 prisoners but by 2001 there were 22,458. In the state of Victoria alone there has been a 30 per cent growth in the prisoner population in the last four years. As at 26 March 2002 Victoria had 3,450 prisoners and there  were  also 6,620 offenders being dealt with by community correctional services.

 

 

NEW ZEALAND

New public sector prison

 

A new prison commissioned and operated by the public sector is to be developed in the Northland region. Corrections minister Matt Robson stated that:“This will be the first Maori design prison in the world. It will target re‑offending, and it has a far better chance of reducing crime than the old style prisons,  he said. “Up to 350 of them will now serve their sentences in their own communities, under the watchful eye of families and whanau. Offenders are more likely to be accountable for their crime when closer to their community. There is little to be gained from shipping an offender from the North to a prison in Dunedin.”

n According to the 2001 annual report of New Zealand’s department of corrections, apart from one escape in November 2000, Australasian Correctional management (ACM) has been satisfactorily meeting the terms and conditions of its contract to manage the Auckland Central Remand Prison (see PPRI #38, 34 & 32).

nThe Labour party has pledged its philosophical opposition to prison privatisation if it wins  next November’s general election. Labour is currently part of a coalition that governs New Zealand. Corrections minister Matt Robson, a member of the Alliance party, stated recently that ACM’s contract to operate the Auckland Remand Centre would not be renewed when it expires. However, close scrutiny of ACM’s contract might reveal that simply not renewing the contract could lead to a legal challenge by the company.

n Chubb New Zealand Ltd provides prisoner escort and court room custodial services to 11 courts and three prisons in Northland and Auckland. It also provides home detention services in most urban centres some rural areas. Between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2001, 772 offenders commenced home detention orders.

 

UNITED STATES

 

Industry gives $1.1m to campaigns in southern states

 

Private prison companies gave more than $1.1m in campaign contributions to state‑level candidates in 14 Southern states during the 2000 elections, favouring incumbents who typically have a high rate of re‑election, according to a new study.

 

The study by the Institute on Money in State Politics also said that much of the campaign cash went to influential members of key committees that consider prison‑related legislation. “Using these strategies, the companies made sure that more than 90 per cent of their contributions in the 2000 cycle went to candidates who would actually vote on the decisions that affected their bottom line,” noted the study.

 

Texas candidates benefited most heavily from the  contributions, with 156 of them receiving more than $361,000 of the $1.1m. North Carolina followed, with 107 candidates receiving $226,500. Florida ranked third, with 122 candidates receiving nearly $158,500.

 

Key contributors were Corrections Corporation of America, which made more than 600 contributions totalling more than $443,300 to candidates in 13 states; Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, which gave 336 contributions totalling more than $237,750 to candidates in six states; Cornell Corrections, which made 284 contributions totalling nearly $100,000 in three states; and Correctional Services Corporation which gave 208 contributions in two states, for $97,670.

 

In several states where private‑prison interests gave heavily, lawmakers subsequently passed measures to bolster private prisons or defeated efforts to reduce funding for them. “In many cases, lawmakers considering the policy decisions received campaign contributions from the companies that stood to profit from the decisions,” the report said. It provided several examples:

n The North Carolina Legislature approved Senate Bill (SB) 25, authorising the state to contract with private firms for building  two new prisons that the state will then buy back. The legislators

who sponsored SB25 received $3,700 in political gifts from proponents of the legislation. The bill was first sent to the Senate Finance Committee, where more than 60 percent of the members had received at least one cheque from private‑prison interests; contributions to committee members totalled $21,303. It later went to the House Finance Committee, where nearly half of the members had been among the beneficiaries of $8,950 in campaign contributions. And it was signed by Governor Michael Easley, who received $40,675 in  campaign contributions from prison interests, leading the 14 Southern gubernatorial candidates in private prison contributions.

 

n In Georgia, the  Legislature rejected both a proposed ban on future private prisons without permission from state or local  authorities and a ban on the importation of sex offenders or other violent criminals. House Bill 456 won approval in the House, but died in the Senate Corrections, Correctional Institutions and Property Committee. Nearly 60 per cent of the Senate candidates received at least one contribution from an industry source, compared with just 24 per cent of the House candidates. Four of the nine Senate committee members received contributions of $2,700. In all, private prison contributions totalled $56,650, with 95 per cent of the money going to incumbent candidates, who typically  have an extremely high rate of success in their re‑election contests and thus were likely to be acting on legislation affecting the industry.

 

n Oklahoma provided another example where the Legislature took steps to reduce the state’s skyrocketing inmate population by reducing the  number of people sent to prison for non‑violent offences. But in Senate Bill (SB) 397 lawmakers also took two other steps that ensured continued incarceration of prisoners. They added eight violent crimes to the list of those for which offenders must serve at least 85 per cent of their sentences and also repealed the governor’s authority to release qualified, non‑violent offenders if the prison system reaches 95 per cent of its capacity.

 

Private prison interests gave $52,100 during the 2000 election cycle, and nearly 83 per cent of that money was given to winning candidates. Nine of the top 10  recipients of private prison funds favoured SB 397, while the tenth  was excused from voting on the legislation.

 

n Lawmakers in Mississippi allocated $6m in 2001 to pay for empty prison beds for non‑existent inmates and then overrode a gubernatorial veto of the funding, thus keeping the money in the budget. During the 1999 elections in Mississippi, private prison interests contributed nearly $42,000 to 38 candidates. CCA lobbyist Buddy Medlin and his firm gave $18,385 of that amount, or more than 44 percent. And nearly 30 per cent of the contributions were made either  just before the election when some winners are all but certain or after the election.

 

n In Florida, lawmakers considered two bills to abolish the state correctional privatisation commission and transfer its  duties. Both measures arose from concerns over conflict‑of‑interest allegations involving the staff of this oversight body and the consultants with whom they worked. Both bills died.

 

Executives and lobbyists for private prisons were active  campaign contributors in 2000, giving 122 candidates more than $158,400. And more than half of the House and Senate candidates, or a voting majority, received at least $1,000 in contributions from industry sources. Wackenhut Corrections  gave $12,500 of its $65,200 on 1 November and  2 November, just hours before the deadline for contributions at midnight 2 November.

 

n Texas lawmakers encouraged rehabilitation of prisoners in setting corrections policy during the 2001 legislative session, in  an effort to rein in tough‑on‑crime policies and corrections spending that had led to an increase of 105,000 prison beds during the 1990s. Private prison interests contributed $361,293 during the 2000 election cycle, and 97.5 per cent of that money went to winning candidates and sitting office holders who would be considering prison spending in the next legislative session.

 

“On top of the strategically made contributions, the companies employed powerful lobbyists to push their interests in the halls of the legislatures, at a cost that’s difficult, if not impossible,  to measure,” the report noted. By using both lobbyists and targeted campaign contributions, the companies made in-roads during 2001 legislative sessions in Southern states and blocked legislation that would have been harmful to their interests.“They paid handsomely to play the public‑policy game, and likely will do so again,” concluded the report.

A Contributing Influence: The Private‑Prison Industry and Political Giving in the South, See www.followthemoney.org

 

Industry hits on the Feds

 

The Association of Private Correctional and Treatment Organizations (APCTO) has been actively promoting its members’ interests lately (see PPRI # 45, 44, 40 and 37).  Last November, APCTO members met with top officials of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discuss, amongst other topics, the merits of out sourcing and the importance of fair and open competition. The department of justice (DOJ) has out sourced only one per cent of its workforce and, according to  APCTO, the OMB has asked for “help in identifying potential activities and services the DOJ could competitively bid out to the private sector.”

 

APCTO leaders also held a panel discussion with congressional staff members on “the positive attributes of privatisation in the correctional treatment and juvenile justice fields” on 30 January 2002. APCTO’s president, Steve Logan, told attendees that: “We want to promote the gathering of data, including the independent data like the recent Heritage Foundation and Reason Public Policy Institute studies that show how privatisation works.”

 

APCTO’s 2002 federal legislative agenda includes: creating a privatisation caucus in the US Congress; supporting a measure that requires all federal government departments to allow private industry to compete for contracts where there exists an opportunity in the private sector to provide a similar or same service; developing a relationship between APCTO and appropriate federal government agencies and the US Congress; and increasing the opportunity for private correctional and treatment organisations in the 2003 financial year budget process. APCTO’s annual membership meeting took place on 18 April 2002 at Management & Training Corporation’s (MTC) headquarters in Salt Lake City. The next Congressional ‘meet and greet’ event is in the summer of 2002.

n APCTO has announced that Jim Macdonald, corrections industry stock analyst with First Analysis Corporation, has become a member of the organisation.

 

Unions put their views

 

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), along with various labour, religious, criminal justice and public interest groups, hosted a prison privatisation policy briefing for more than 40 congressional legislative assistants from Republican and Democratic offices at the Capitol building on 17 April 2002.

 

The briefing centred around the privatisation of federal and state prisons,  discussing whether  contracting out the management and operations of prisons to private, for‑profit companies save money; how well do privately operated prisons perform; and, should the federal government rescue the industry by initiating a $4.6bn prison privatisation initiative over the next ten years.

 

Some of the sponsoring organisations joining AFGE included the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Communications Workers of America (CWA),  the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Public Safety and Justice Campaign (PSJC). AFGE  represents over 23,000 federal correctional officers and is the largest union for government employees, representing 600,000 federal workers in the US and overseas, as well as employees in the District of Columbia. 

 

Feds need contingency for private prisons

 

With more than 18,000 federal prisoners kept in privately owned or operated facilities the Justice Department should develop contingency plans in the event that bankruptcies or other financial problems disrupt services. Most private prison space is provided to the department of justice by three companies: Corrections Corporation of America, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Cornell Companies Inc. The justice department’s Office of the Inspector General report is dated July 2001 but was only published on 13 February 2002.

The Department of Justice’s Reliance on Private Contractors for Prison Services, Report No.01-16, is on the internet at www.usdoj.gov/oig/audit/0116/index.htm

n Corrections Digest 8 February 2002 reported that President Bush has asked Congress to consider buying private prisons for federal offenders on an as-need basis instead of constructing new facilities or expanding existing facilities.  Between 1993 and 2001 the federal government  spent over $4bn constructing new prisons and during that time the federal prison population grew  by 76 per cent from 88,565 in 1993 to 156,572 in 2001. The publication also reported the president as saying that the “purchase of excess private sector and other correctional facilities may offer an affordable alternative to federal construction of additional prison space” and that the justice department “will evaluate the feasibility of purchasing private facilities for use by the BoP.”

 

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

 

Quality of prison operations in the US federal sector: a comparison with a private prison, by Scott D. Camp, Gerald G. Gaes and William G. Saylor in Punishment & Society, Sage Publications, London , California and New Delhi, January 2002.

This article argues that previous comparative studies in the US “have been flawed by methodological shortcomings.” The authors “encourage researchers to take up the challenge of this article to develop measures that allow for comparisons of prisons. Little research effort is being expended toward developing measures that capture institutional sources of variation. However, it is precisely this type of information that will allow us to move beyond the rhetoric  to examine how privatisation affects the quality of confinement of inmates in public and private prisons.” (A previous version of the manuscript was presented at the American Society of Criminology Meeting, California in 2000. See also PPRI # 25).

 

Private Corrections Industry, Beds and Cons - Changing Dynamics, Areas of Potential Growth. Morgan Lewis Githens & Ahn, Inc, January 2002.

See www.mlga.com

A stock analyst’s report which concludes that “the strength in stock prices of private corrections companies since November 2000 is ... sustainable over the long term. Despite slowing growth of prison populations at the [US] state level, we believe that the underlying cash flows of these firms should continue to improve, and that, relative to past trading highs, the stocks are conservatively valued.”

 

Prison Legal News, Vol. 13, No.5, May 2002. PLN, 3400 NW 80th Street #148, Seattle, WA 98117, USA. www.prisonlegalnews.org

This twelfth anniversary issue includes articles on bailing out the US corrections industry, a lawsuit over alleged sex abuse and torture in a private prison in Oklahoma and suicides and staff negligence at a private prison for juveniles in Arkansas. See also PLN Vol 13, No.1, January 2002 for an expos_ of the American Legislative Exchange Council (see PPRI #38).

 

Corporate-sponsored Crime Laws by John Biewen, April 2002.

See www.americanradioworks.org/features/corrections/index.html

This American RadioWorks correspondent explores how some groups with vested interests work to influence public policy.

 

Private Prisons for Dummies: The Wild Ride of Corrections Corporation of America ... and resources on the criminal justice-industrial complex.

Paul’s Justice Page, www.paulsjusticepage.com/crimepays.htm

A web page “created to counteract the public relations money spent not just by private prisons but the larger criminal justice-industrial complex.”

 

Privatising Justice, the Impact of the Private Finance Initiative in the Criminal Justice System. Researched and written by the Centre for Public Services for the Justice Forum, published by the Justice Forum, March 2002. c/o Association of Magistrates Officers, 1 Fellmongers Path, Tower Bridge Road, London SE1 3LY, England.

See also www.amo-omline.org.uk and www.centre.public.org.uk

The report for this coalition of five trade unions draws on case studies of prisons, courts and police services in the UK and calls for an end to all private finance initiative (PFI) and public-private partnerships (PPP) and for public sector capital investment to be increased substantially.

 

HLM, The Howard League Magazine, Vol.20, No. 2, May 2002, Howard League for Penal Reform, 1 Ardleigh Road, London N1 4HS, England. Email:howardleague@ukonline.co.uk Website:www.howardleague.org

The current issue includes five articles on prison privatisation and the private finance initiative (PFI).

 

Public Investment in Infrastructure: Justified and Effective, March 2002, The Institution of Engineers, Australia. 11 National Cct, Barton, ACT 2600, Australia. Tel ++02 6270 6547. Email policy@ieaust.org.au

A discussion paper from the IoE which details the arguments for and against public investment and advocates increased public expenditure for improving assets: “... many policy makers do not understand that markets, while working well in most sectors of the economy, have their limitations when it comes to providing infrastructure. Governments also need to be aware that in many cases the private sector cannot provide infrastructure, and in many others, while it can provide infrastructure, the economic cost of private provision is far higher than the cost of public provision.”

 

Commercial in Confidence: An Obituary to Transparency? By William de Maria, in Australian Journal of Public Administration, Blackwell Publishers, December 2001.

This article addresses the issue of accountability and transparency in relation to the use of commercial-in-confidence clauses to withhold information. “The commercial-in-confidence exemption practice, insofar as it quarantines official information from public scrutiny, is an infection of the democratic body politic.”

 

Borderline, Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, by Peter Mares, UNSW Press, Australia, 2001.

The book discusses the legal, moral and political issues surrounding Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. “The most dramatic shift in policy since 1992 ... has been the decision to contract out detention to the private sector.” This book includes a chapter on WCC’s operations in Australia: “It is impossible to find out to what extent ACM is actually held accountable in practice for breaches of  DIMA’s detention standards in relation to detainee welfare. The performance measures linked to standard such as ‘dignity’ or ‘privacy’ have been deleted from the publicly available version of the Detention Agreements between ACM and the Commonwealth ‘for commercial reasons’...”

 

South Africa - Privatising the Prison System by William G. Martin, in African Political Economy Monthly (incorporating Southern Africa Economist), Vol. 14, No. 5, 2001.

This article examines the introduction of private prisons into South Africa within the context of  US foreign policy towards the continent. “ ...Wackenhut’s expansion is part of wider trends: rampant neo-liberalism with the shrinking and shirking of state responsibilities and the escalating numbers of the poor, and especially black youth, denied education and employment  - and all too often being destined for a violent life in prison or the fields of war ... far from being the home of civilisation, the post Cold War Africa is no longer targeted for modernisation but rather fear, a source of terror, disease, crime and drugs. This generates in turn a profitable opportunity: the construction of an overlapping set of prisons, detention centres and security check points ...”

 

Facing the Facts: A Guide to the GATS Debate by Scott Sinclair and Jim Grieshaber-Otto, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, March 2002. More details from  www.policyalternatives.ca

This analysis provides a detailed critique of official World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) rebuttals [of critiques], documenting  numerous instances where they provide simplistic or misleading assurances about the threat to public services.

“Nowhere are GATS proponents on shakier ground than when they assert that the GATS fully protects public services through its so-called governmental authority exclusion. For example, WTO director general Michael Moore has asserted that ‘GATS explicitly excludes services supplied by governments’ - a bald statement that is clearly untrue. This controversial exclusion- which proponents claim protects public services - is, at best, unclear and subject to conflicting interpretations. At worst, if narrowly interpreted by dispute panels, the exclusion is of little or no practical effect.”

 

ENDS

 

Prison Privatisation Report International

Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU)

School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences

University of Greenwich

30 Park Row, London SE10 9LS, England

Internet:www.psiru.org/justice

Email: Stephen Nathan,  stephennathan@compuserve.com