Prison Privatisation Report International

No. 48, June/July 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

AUSTRALIA

COSTA RICA

PERU

UNITED KINGDOM

CANADA

ICPA CONFERENCE: INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM FOR INDUSTRY

 

 

AUSTRALIA

Inspector critical of court security contract

 

“The state authorities, apparently somewhat taken aback by the bottom line costs, and AIMS, struggling to cover its shrinking commercial base in Australia, are locked in commercial dispute and complicated arbitration proceedings. The mutual distrust is palpable and toxic.”

 

That was one of the comments made by Richard Harding, the inspector of custodial services for Western Australia, in his recent report on the contracted out prisoner escort service for the state’s metropolitan court custody centres.

 

Corrections Corporation of Australia commenced a contract with the government of Western Australia on 31 July 2000. Subsequently, the company became 100 per cent owned by Sodexho of France and changed its name to AIMS Corporation. In November 2001 the inspector of custodial services also reported on the rest of the service (see PPRI #45, 43, 42, 38 & 34).

 

Describing this component of the contract as the “most onerous” Harding raised concerns about the department of justice’s handling of the contract - describing its oversight as “superficial” - as well as the company’s implementation of it. To their credit, both parties started to address some issues before a draft of the inspector’s report had been made available. He also noted that “an assessment of the suitability for purpose of all court custody centres needs to be completed by the department. To varying degrees, all of the ... centres have issues that require immediate attention to enable the contractor to properly fulfil the terms of the contract.”

Amongst the inspector’s findings were:

n a number of serious staffing issues including a shortage of staff on busy court days at many locations, the absence of ongoing staff training and lack of interaction and, therefore, control from AIMS head office;

n at one site, Armadale, the contractor had allocated 123 working hours per week but the supervisor kept the allocation down to 110. “For actual hours worked to fall so far beneath that allocated calls into question the contractor’s proper fulfilment of its service obligations, as well as the capacity of the parties to negotiate realistic contract variations.”


nstaff have developed the confidence to cope in most circumstances, but this seems to have been as much by good fortune as by design of the contractor...”

n at the Central Law Courts, however, “the frequency of the use of force and restraints indicate that the staff see their job as one of managing conflict and risk, rather than the delivery of a court custody service.”

n AIMS management have “endeavoured to operate its court custody management business from a head office in Brisbane and a state office in the Perth central business district. The absence of a hands-on management approach has impacted negatively upon the operation of the centres and the performance of the contract.”

n the absence of a formal complaints mechanism for persons in custody was “a real matter for concern” and they had not been encouraged to raise grievances with the contractor or the department of justice. The inspector noted that “current contract arrangements are biased in favour of authors of incident reports. This imbalance is neither in the interests of the contractor nor the persons in custody and should not be tolerated by the department.”

n the contract requires the contractor to provide a transport service to the courts as required. “Currently, it is not providing the service it has contracted to deliver.”

n “There is considerable disparity in the service standards that have been achieved at each of the seven metropolitan court custody centres, ranging from excellent to barely coping.”

 

The inspector made six major recommendations for improvements. He also stated that “the most cogent need ... is for a resolution of the commercial squabbles, so that in the public interest a reasonably promising start may be consolidated.”

Report of an Announced Inspection of Metropolitan Court Custody Centres - November 2001, Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services, Perth, Western Australia, April 2002. www.custodialinspector.wa.gov.au

 

Northern Territory, New South Wales and ACT

 

The Northern Territory government has rejected privatisation for its prisons and in June passed legislation maintaining prison officers as public servants (see PPRI #35). In New South Wales, however, the department of corrective services is currently considering a public private partnership for a new 350 bed prison in the central western area of the state.

 

Meanwhile, the Australian Capital Territory’s (ACT) plans for a new prison of its own are on hold as no funding has been allocated (see PPRI # 41, 38, 35, 30 & 25). ACT currently contracts with the state of New South Wales to take around 160 sentenced prisoners at a cost of A$10 million per year. Full privatisation has been ruled out for such a project but the government might consider some kind of public private partnership. However, it has earmarked $1.26 million in 2002-03 for the design and planning of a new remand centre to replace the ageing and overcrowded Beconnen Remand Centre. A further A$50 million has been budgeted in 2003-04 for the capital costs.

 

Frost report in Victoria

 


There have been dramatic improvements at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre since the prison, formerly known as the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (MWCC), was taken over by the government of Victoria (see PPRI #42, 38, 37, 35, etc)). According to the corrections minister Andre Haermeyer, since October 2002 drug use and the recorded rates of self harm and assaults have decreased. “Positive random drug test results had been running at 9.2 per cent for the period July 1999 to June 2000. The rate recorded for July 2001 to May 2002 has decreased four per cent. Improvements in performance ... have vindicated the government’s decision to take back public management of the prison,” he said in a media release 2 July 2002. Publication of a report on the prison’s most recent performance is expected.

n A kilogram of high grade cannabis worth some A$17,000 was found by prison officers at a property next to the Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) - run Fulham Correctional Centre recently. The property is used by prisoners engaged in outdoor work. Two weeks before, the state corrections commissioner ordered an investigation after a prisoner sentenced for drug dealing was able to meet with a so-called underworld associate while on a supervised 12 hour community access visit.

 

Acacia’s bad apple

 

A prison industrial officer employed by AIMS Corporation at the company-run Acacia prison in Western Australia has been jailed for 12 months after being found guilty of trying to smuggle drugs into the prison on 30 May 2002 (see PPRI # 37, 36, 34, 32, 30, 28 & 26). The state attorney general Jim McGinty said that the arrest came after three months of drug testing at Acacia showed up unacceptably high levels of illicit drugs. Random drug tests were positive in 18 per cent of the prisoner population compared with an overall average of 14 per cent in Western Australia’s publicly run prisons.

 

Private pay and conditions

 

A work value review process for staff at ACM-run Fulham Correctional Centre in Melbourne has broken down leading to arbitration. According to the Community & Public Sector Union (CPSU), the eventual decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Committee “should bring a resolution to the longstanding issue of wage injustice suffered by officers employed at Fulham.” Meanwhile, staff at Group 4-run Port Phillip Prison have won an eight per cent increase in pay effective 24 February 2001.

 

South Australia contracts intact

 

Mike Rann, the premier of South Australia, has ignored demands from the Public Service Association trade union that the  private prison and court escort contracts should not be renewed. Mr Rann has renewed the contracts arguing that it was no good “trying to unscramble the egg.” The government is also considering a new women’s prison and five police stations to be built as public private partnerships. Following advice from a UK government advisor South Australia has now established a special unit to deal with these projects.

 

Queensland revelations

 

The previous contracts for the operation of Borallon Correctional Centre - run by Corrections Corporation of Australia (as was) from 1989 to 2000 - “were basic and did not clearly define responsibilities and risk ... made no or limited reference to best practice in the delivering of services” according to Helen Ringrose, director general of Queensland department of corrective services (see PPRI # 46 & 38-36).

 


Speaking at a conference earlier this year she also said that the new contract with Management & Training Corporation (MTC) which commenced in January 2001 is designed “to create an environment where the provider will strive to be innovative, to be a lead agent for change...” and “performance is linked to a bonus.... a fundamental shift away from penalty clauses.” However, “as this is the first year of operation for Borallon [under MTC] it has been too early to award an innovation bonus. The centre is demonstrating innovation in programme delivery...”

Striving Towards Financial Best Practice: Correctional Facilities Management, Helen Ringrose, Queensland Department of Corrective Services, paper presented at International Quality and Productivity Centre, Cost Effective Correctional Facilities Management, 6-7 March 2002, Sydney.

 

COSTA RICA

ILANUD takes issue

 

Participants of the ‘IV International Course on Effective Assistance Measures to Facilitate the Reinsertion into Society of Persons Deprived of Liberty’ meeting in San José, Costa Rica in July 2002, passed a series of resolutions including the following concerning prison privatisation:

* noting with great concern the frequent inefficiency of the rules that protect [these] fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty, with the weak role of judges, attorney generals and defending lawyers that have the obligation to control the constitutionality of the laws and penitentiary rules, and the practice of the penitentiary administration;

* concerned about the fact that, in such situations, there are private enterprises proposals to control the execution of the sentence, being this the final phase of the criminal procedure, which is an unquestionable duty of the State, [we] proclaim that sentence execution is an exclusive and obligatory duty of the democratic state of law.

 

The course was organised by the United Nations Latin American Institute for Crime Prevention and Treatment of Offenders (ILANUD), with the cooperation of the Japanese Agency for International Cooperation (JICA), and the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI).  The course was attended by penitentiary experts, judges and attorney generals from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela.

n A public meeting on prison privatisation organised by ILANUD and attended by the vice minister of justice was held in the supreme court auditorium on 18 July. The meeting unanimously called for the government to reject the former administration’s attempt to privatise a new prison (see  PPRI # 47, 46 & 42).

 

PERU

Looking at options

 

“With the growing need for new prison beds as one component in the battle against crime, the primary question becomes ‘what methods of financing are the most feasible to foster improvement of the prison system?’ say Stephen Carter and Sofia Tata of Carter Goble Associates.

 


Writing in the summer 2002 issue of Prison Review International they describe how  a role for the private sector is being considered well beyond the managing of prison workshops. Through a study sponsored by the Comision de Promocion de la Inversion Privada (COPRI), alternative methods of design, construction, management and financing of new prisons are being evaluated.” The need for 13,000 new prison beds by 2015 has been identified. Requests for tenders are expected to be issued later this year.

 

UNITED KINGDOM

Escort contractors fined

 

Prisoner escort contractors in England and Wales have been fined over £621,000 for performance failures since 1999. Securicor Custodial Services has been fined £500,000; Group 4 Court Services £60,000; Premier Prison Services £36,000; and Reliance Custodial Services £25,000.

 

In answer to a parliamentary question, prisons minister Hilary Benn said: “Contractors, prisons and the police are all aware of the late deliveries to court and the potential cost to public funds. Each contract is monitored by a team of prison service staff against a series of performance measures. These cover a range of issues including delivery to court. Failures against the performance measures result in the application of penalty points and if these exceed a prescribed total in any single year they result in the application of financial remedy,” (Hansard, 1 July 2002).

 

He added: “The £500,000 in financial remedies imposed upon Securicor related to performance shortfalls during the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, when shortages of staff contributed to a number of failures to meet the requirements of the contract, including the timely delivery of prisoners to court. The situation was the subject of a discussion between home office ministers and members of Securicor’s senior management, as a result of which an improvement plan was produced by the company. This has now been implemented and there are indications  that it is beginning to achieve positive results”.

 

A survey carried out by the Criminal Bar Association earlier in the year showed that there were widespread problems with privately run escort services. Lord Justice Judge, the senior presiding judge of England and Wales, told the BBC in June 2002 that delays in producing prisoners from prison to crown court was a “serious, serious issue.”

 

Securicor operates the escort service in London; Reliance operates in South West England and South Wales; Premier is in South and South East England, West Midlands and mid-Wales; Group 4 operates the service in East Anglia, East Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and North Wales and Northern England

 

Securicor preferred for child jail contract

 

Securicor STC Ltd, a subsidiary of Securicor Custodial Services,  has been chosen as preferred bidder for a new 80 bed secure training centre at Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire. The facility will hold persistent offenders - both girls and boys -  aged 12 to 17. If contract negotiations are completed the facility is due to open in December 2003. The centre will be financed, designed, built and operated under the private finance initiative (PFI). Securicor’s partners are construction firm MJ Gleeson and Noble Fund PFI.

 

Announcing the decision on 18 July 2002 to appoint Securicor as the preferred bidder, Mark Perfect, chief executive of the Youth Justice Board, stated: “We are confident from Securicor’s proposals that we will be able to achieve a value for money deal which will ensure even better regimes for those young people for whom custody is the only option.”

 


Securicor  runs one prison and operates prisoner escort and electronic monitoring services in England. A US subsidiary operates juvenile facilities in the US.

nRainsbrook secure training centre, operated by Group 4 subsidiary Rebound, has expanded from 40 to 76 beds. Medway, also run by Rebound, is expanding from 40 to 72 beds and the 32 bed unit is due to open in November 2002. The Youth Justice Board is also looking for a site in Nottingham for a 48 bed secure training centre which they would like open by the end of 2004. Other sites are being investigated for a 60-80 bed facility in North West England and 40-60 beds in Wales, both to open by early 2005.

 

Scotland’s Justice 1 Committee reports

 

The Scottish Parliament’s Justice 1 Committee has dismissed the Executive’s proposals for three private prisons (see PPRI # 47, 45-43, 40, 37& 36). Christine Grahame MSP, the convenor of the Committee said: “We recognise that, for many, the question of private versus public provision of prisons is an ethical matter. Our task, however, has been to consider the prison estates review in its own terms, looking simply at the cost and quality of provision. Our investigation found that the Executive’s review was based on inadequate financial and performance information, making accurate comparisons between private and public provision almost impossible. We believe they need to look again at the evidence before making any significant changes to the way in which prisons are run in Scotland.”

 

The Committee found that there had been a “paucity of research” into the option of semi-private prisons and called on the Executive to commission further research. As for Kilmarnock, Scotland’s only private prison, the Committee expressed “serious concerns” about low staffing levels and also that “the specification of HMP Kilmarnock is being used as a point of comparison, despite evidence that there is inadequate space for staff in that building.”

 

The Committee also regretted that the review “was undertaken in a vacuum and not in the context of  wider penal reform. The committee urges the Executive to implement improved penal policies by providing adequate resources and leadership to schemes aimed at reducing offending and reoffending where appropriate and to establish a full range of effective community disposals across the country. The Committee would need more evidence before being convinced of the need for three new prisons.”

 

The issue of the Scottish Prison Service’s (SPS) monopoly “over decades” was also discussed. The Committee called into question the quality of operational leadership and management of public sector prisons and whether there is an appropriate accountability mechanism.” The Committee called for the Executive “to inform it [the Committee] of what steps the management of the SPS is taking to improve efficiency.”

The Scottish Parliament, Justice 1 Committee, 6th Report, 2002, Report on the Prison Estates Review, Volume 1: Report and Volume 2: Evidence, SP Paper 612, Session 1 (2002).www.scottish.parliament.uk/official_report/cttee/just1-02/j1r02-06-vol01-02.htm

 

 

Kilmarnock: hidden costs?

 


Almost 70 percent of the profits made by Kilmarnock Prison Services Ltd (KPSL), a subsidiary of Premier Custodial Group - the operator of Kilmarnock Prison, allegedly came from hidden subsidies handed out by the Scottish Executive, according to John Swinney, leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP).

 

In the last two years (2000-2001, 2001-2002) the Scottish Executive has paid £413,689 in non-domestic rates (municipal taxes) for the prison and £277,000 for the cost of the prison service controller and two other staff. Over the same period HMP Kilmarnock's profits - which were detailed in a letter from Elaine Bailey, managing director of Premier Custodial Group Ltd.  to the Justice 1 Committee - were £321,000 in 2000 and an estimated £700,000 in 2001.

 

Neither of the costs appeared in figures previously quoted by the Executive as the annual payment made for the use of Kilmarnock. Nor was the payment of rates included in a recent parliamentary answer given by minister of justice Jim Wallace when asked to detail any additional costs borne by the Executive.

 

Mr Swinney said: Kilmarnock is the Executive’s flagship private prison and is the model for their plans to privatise more of our jails. They are so obsessed with privatisation that they have been subsidising a private company’s profits to the tune of nearly three‑quarters of a million pounds simply to make it look more economic. The truth is that we cannot trust a word the Executive says. The costings  for their privatisation plan have been exposed as fantasy and now we have  the clearest example yet of profit being put before people.”  The SNP has called for an inquiry.

 

Kilmarnock’s penalties

 

Kilmarnock Prison Services Ltd has been fined £455,757 for contract failures in 1999-2000 and a further £178,671 for 2001-2002, according to the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service.

The figures were revealed in an answer to a parliamentary question on 1 May 2002.

 

 

CANADA

Alberta next?

 

Prison privatisation could be on the agenda again in Alberta. A review committee is examining the province’s corrections programmes for cost and efficiency and comparing them to other jurisdictions, particularly Ontario which has contracted out the management of one prison so far.

 

The comparison with Ontario is described in the review’s terms of reference as “an important element” as it “shares with Alberta a similar correctional philosophy and many of the same challenges.” A spokesperson for Alberta’s solicitor general told the Calgary Herald, 2 June 2002, that if the province does not include privatisation in the review “people will want to know why we didn’t.” The review committee is due to report to the solicitor general by 31 October 2002. In 1993 the then government of Alberta first considered prison privatisation but, subsequently, the trade unions agreed to cost cutting measures to stave it off (see PPRI #1).

 

 

ICPA PROVIDES PLATFORM FOR INDUSTRY

Wackenhut’s tip for emerging economies

 


Countries deemed ‘emerging markets’ and classified by the financial community as ‘speculative grade’ for investment can still attract world class private prison management companies and investors as long as these countries implement “a series of acts designed to mitigate risks,” according to Ron Champion of Wackenhut Corrections Corporation.

 

Mr Champion also suggested that “for prison projects, governments may consider earmarking a percentage of the proceeds from a national commodity that is exported for sale as a loan security.”

 

He was speaking last year at a conference where private prison companies were given another international platform from which to argue their case. The concept of public/private partnerships was a key  topic at the annual conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association for the Advancement of Professional Corrections (ICPA) between 28 October and 2 November 2001 in Perth, Western Australia (see PPRI # 42). The event, designed to expand the profession’s ‘networks and horizons’, dealt with a variety of partnerships and attracted representatives from 32 countries.

 

Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Group 4 Falck, UK Detention Services Ltd and Carter Goble Associates (see PPRI #34) made the main presentations on behalf of the private sector. A workshop on partnerships with and for developing countries was co-presented by Technikon of South Africa while the director of Israel’s prison service explained how it had explored prison privatisation (see PPRI #45, 43 & 34). Despite there being no formal presentations from NGOs or trade unions, a spokesperson for ICPA told PPRI that “other perspectives were explored throughout the conference relating to various partnerships within criminal justice systems.”

 

The keynote address on privatisation was given by Dr Ole Ingstrup, formerly commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada and now president of the ICPA as well as being a consultant whose clients include Group 4 Falck. He tried to summarise “a few of the arguments” for both sides of the debate and concluded that “we also need to seriously examine how the private and public sector can develop a thriving partnership, so that together we work towards the overarching goal of public safety through the safe integration of offenders into society.”

 

A panel-led discussion entitled ‘prison privatisation - what do we know thus far: a chance for some answers’ dealt with just ‘six questions ... identified as commonly raised issues in relation to private prisons’. One highlight of the discussion was that “it is argued that monopolies generally perform poorly and enable significant enhancement of union power. There is a desire to reduce the effect of monopolies...”.

 

On the role of the private sector in lobbying (see, for example, PPRI # 46 & 38) it was reported “while lobbyists are often engaged to lobby for particular issues the private sector has never been seen to lobby government for tougher legislation. It is particularly unlikely because increased imprisonment results in greater costs for government which is not favoured by legislators.”

 

ICPA board member Robert Goble of Carter Goble Associates opened a workshop dealing with ‘agreement-assessment methodology’ by arguing that “government must retain certain absolute powers and functions of law, policy setting, planning and quality control ... but that ... competition should decide whether the government or private sector should do the job and a continuing monopoly should not be allowed ... and there should be strong accountability ... to decide if the job is being done in the best public interest.”


In this workshop co-presented by UK Detention Services and Group 4, the question was asked ‘why do private sector services cost less than the public sector’. The reply was “a combination of factors” including “there is a culture of improvement in the private sector”. Asked what happens to prisoners if contract workers strike, it was stated that “employee agreements have a no-strike clause. It has not been an issue to date.”

 

Mike McCarthy of Group 4 Correctional Services Pty Ltd, Australia, stated that in contracts with private prison operators “there is an absence of positive incentives for improvements and innovation.” According to ICPA’s summary, “the objectives of the technical workshop had been fully met in that the relevant issues were raised and an interactive presentation provided opportunities to debate the means and impediments to successful contract outcomes.”

 

Private finance

 

Ronald Champion of Wackenhut Corrections Corporation was one of the speakers dealing with financing methodology of private prisons. His advice was “governments considering private finance initiatives (PFI, see PPRI #42) should consult with a qualified financial advisor experienced in PFIs to design a structure that meets the need of the country. This will save valuable time and money,” he said.

 

He added: “when securing funds from outside a nation, sovereign credit ratings become an important factor in both the availability of financing and the cost of the funds. Long term credit ratings (investments of greater than 12 months) are either classified as Investment Grade (low expectation of credit risk) to Speculative Grade (possibility of credit risk). Countries whose credit rating is classified as Speculative Grade would find fewer potential investors, higher interest rates and upfront fees and greater securitisation of the loan.”

 

Mr Champion also described prison life cycle costs as: correction/capital six per cent; financing cost nine per cent; and operations 85 per cent. It was during this workshop that he also suggested an investment strategy for emerging economies.

 

Little hostility

 

During his workshop on partnering, Charles Erickson of Group 4 stated that, in the UK, there was “little concerted hostility” and “public indifference” towards prison privatisation.

 

Private sector’s wish list

 

The private sector professional group meeting discussed its role with ICPA and reported that

its objectives were:

* promoting and demonstrating the link between justifiable profit making and the delivery of quality services and products;

* moving the debate beyond ‘profiting from the misfortune of others’;

* presenting our capabilities without being seen as soliciting contracts.

 

Under the heading ‘trends from the private sector’ the group also reported:

* the issue of privatisation will continue to be raised at all levels of government and objective information will be required for decision-making;


* a greater use of internet technology will alter business practices and enhance linkages to roles and services from the private sector;

* more balanced approached to community control will be available using innovative technologies such as voice recognition, electronic monitoring, distant learning, remote diagnostics, etc.

 

Its desired involvement from ICPA included:

* include private sector workshops to continue the process of promoting ‘win-win’ situations for government and the private sector;

* promote discussions, exhibits, workshops through case studies of successful and failed partnering experiences of both sectors;

* work with ICPA staff to develop well-conceived website links from ICPA to information regarding private sector services and experiences.

 

Ideas for further research included:

*develop at least 12 ‘best practice’ examples from the private sector;

*share available research from the private sector on management practices, design concepts, financing methods and other areas that promote better corrections;

* support and research initiatives identified by ICPA that would promote best practice.

 

As for future ICPA conferences, the group’s wish list included:

* a conference focussed on ‘best practices’ from all components of corrections that will include private sector examples;

* permit a ‘private sector track’ at each conference that presents issues and results that highlight partnering;

*establish an award that would be funded by the private sector to promote independent research.

 

PPRI recently asked the ICPA what, if any, of the above had been implemented since the conference. A spokesperson replied: “the ICPA is not an advocacy group.  The ICPA is a not‑for‑profit organisation dedicated to providing a forum for criminal justice professionals to join in a dialogue and to share ideas and practices aimed at advancing professional corrections.  The ICPA conferences provide a venue to create ongoing opportunities for dialogue, mutual support, and assistance through a strengthened international professional network.”

n The ICPA conference was sponsored by the American Correctional Association (see below), Carter Goble Associates, CM Security Group Inc, ElmoTech Ltd, Group 4 Correction Services Pty Ltd, JFE Security, Roche Diagnostics and T³ Associates Ltd (see below) as well as Western Australia’s  department of justice and office of the inspector of custodial services and the Israel Prison Service. The ICPA is funded in part by Canadian taxpayers through financial support from Correctional Services Canada. Other government subscribers pay a membership fee of $15,000 per annum.

The full minutes of the ICPA conference are available from the ICPA, 340 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P9, Canada.

n The ICPA has decided to hold a series of Charles Erickson Lectures to take place at future ICPA conferences. Charles Erickson, who died recently, was managing director of Group 4 Correction Services in South Africa. In 1992 he courted controversy when he moved from his job at the remand contract unit - the forerunner to the contracts and competition group - in the prison service in England and Wales to become director of projects for Group 4 Remand Service Holdings. At the time, he was working on contracting with Group 4. A civil service inquiry found no impropriety but his was one of the first high profile public to private sector senior staff transfers.


n In March 2001, Ottawa based T³ Associates Ltd produced an evaluation report of Camp Turnaround, a privately operated boot camp in Ontario. The report was based on figures supplied by the ministry of corrections who later published it, heralding the boot camp a success. However, according to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union bulletin Locktalk, Anthony Doob, a University of Toronto criminologist, called T³’s report flawed and inaccurate.  He claimed that the evaluation only compared young offenders who completed the Project Turnaround programme with those who completed publicly run programmes. Those who dropped out from Project Turnaround’s programme were excluded from the study. Mr Doob was quoted as saying: “It is nonsense when the minister says it is clear Project Turnaround is turning lives around. What they compared are two barrels of apples. Except they took the bad apples out of one barrel and, lo and behold, they found more bad apples in the other barrel.”

Locktalk, www.opseu.org/ops/ministry/locktalk/locktalkfeb0802.htm

 

 

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