Prison Privatisation Report International

No. 49, August/September 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

LESOTHO

COSTA RICA

MEXICO

CANADA

UNITED KINGDOM

THE GROUP 4/WACKENHUT ACQUISITION

AUSTRALIA

UNITED STATES

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

 

LESOTHO

Group 4 proposals to go ahead

 

A proposal to replace Lesotho’s 12 prisons with one privately financed, designed, built and operated prison are due to go ahead (see PPRI #45, 43 & 41). A government spokesperson  would not divulge details but told PPRI that  preparations are “advanced” and a director of Group 4 is due to present a paper to cabinet “very soon”.

 

Once cabinet has discussed the proposal, parliament will have to approve it and also pass enabling legislation. However, since the Lesotho Congress for Democracy (LCD) has 79 of the 80 parliamentary seats, the proposal is expected to proceed smoothly.

 

Group 4's original proposal was to finance, design, build and operate a 3,500 bed private prison at Maseru. The government has not tendered for the prison, negotiating only with Group 4. If the original plan goes ahead, the facility will be the largest private prison in the world. Group 4's proposal was controversial as it by-passed local, low cost initiatives for penal reform and a solution to prisoner overcrowding. Lesotho currently has around 3,000 prisoners.

 

COSTA RICA

Mounting opposition to privatisation

 

There is mounting opposition to the proposed contract between the government of Cost Rica and Management & Training Corporation (MTC) for a privately financed, designed, built and operated prison (see PPRI #48,47,46 &42). It is still not clear whether the project will go ahead.

 

Costa Rica’s president and minister of justice are insisting that financial and legal issues agreed to by the previous administration need revising. Meanwhile, both the Association Nacional de Empleados Publicos y Privados (ANEP) and the Association Costaricense de la Defensa Publica are organising a campaign against the project on the grounds that it would be unconstitutional to contract out custodial services.

 

The president has stated publicly that the 15 year contract is not affordable. MTC is proposing to charge $29 per prisoner per day and would have to receive $27,840 per day, amounting to more than half of the government’s $16.6 million annual budget for the country’s entire prison system. Prisoners currently cost the government between $20 and $22 each per day.

 

The government has until 19 October to finalise terms with MTC, whose lawyer in Costa Rica believes that negotiations are continuing with a view to a contract going ahead. The Consejo Nacional de Concessiones, argues that cancelling the project would have a negative effect on foreign investment in Costa Rica.

 

MTC was chosen as preferred bidder by the previous administration over a Colombian consortium known as Corrections Corporation Latin America (CCLA). CCLA failed in its appeal to alter the government’s decision to negotiate with MTC.

nMonica Nagel, the former minister of justice who implemented Costa Rica’s prison privatisation plan, is now a consultant to the Central Bank for Economic Integration which is researching Central America’s prison systems with a view to possible privatisation.

 

MEXICO

UK influence and four private prisons

 

Four private prisons are being commissioned by the State of Mexico, the largest of the country’s 31states. The State is also tendering for a company to take over a new publicly built prison. According to the State’s director of prisons Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Corrections Corporation of America, Cornell Companies and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), all US companies, have all expressed an interest in bidding for the contracts. The new prison contracts will be for 18 years and are worth $87.1 million and will provide 4,500 new prison beds in Tenancingo, Tenango del Valle, Ixlahuaca and Zumpango.

 

Previously, the State’s director of prisons said that the authority will maintain prison security while the industry, maintenance and other non-custodial services will be privatised. Officials have visited semi-private prisons in France, examined developments with semi-private prisons in Chile and visited private prisons in the US.

 

Although the State of Mexico is the first to implement private prisons it was the federal government that called on the Organisation of American States in 2000 to look into the possible advantages of this strategy (see PPRI #34). The federal government is keen to use prisons as a ‘test bed’ for private infrastructure - it is also considering hospitals and schools - and has recently contracted with Partnerships UK, the British government’s privatised consultancy on public private partnerships (see PPRI #40).  Partnerships UK has been helping to set up a task force within the federal government’s treasury department to deal with such projects.

 

Mexico has 21 prisons with a capacity for 8,474 prisoners. As at April 2002 the population stood at 11,650. While some prisons are up to 50 per cent overcrowded others have spare capacity. Other firms involved in negotiations have included Infratec‑Interacciones, N.M.Rothschild, Bouygues Constructions, Precor Banobras, Adtec, Seapsa, and Corrections Corporation of America.


CANADA

Riot at MTC managed facility in Ontario

 

A riot at Central North Correctional Centre, the province of Ontario’s only privately managed prison, occurred on 19 September 2002 (see PPRI #44,40,38,37,35,34 & 32). Around 100 prisoners using a battering ram were prevented from escaping and a cordon of armed Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) including the tactical rescue and canine units had to be stationed around the perimeter.  The disturbance occurred in Pod 4, a 175 bed accommodation unit. The prison is managed by Management & Training Corporation (MTC) of Utah.

 

MTC stated that the riot started after prisoners refused to return to their cells. According to the police, prisoners were also armed with makeshift weapons and crude gas masks as they attempted to storm the facility. The 1,200‑bed facility was subsequently in lock down as OPP and corrections officials carried out an investigation into the incident.

n Staff at the Central North Correctional Centre have voted to join the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) in a bid to improve wages and working conditions. OPSEU currently represents the 5,000 correctional officers working in the province’s publicly run prisons.

 

Announcing the outcome of a vote by MTC staff on 18 September 2002, Dan Marshall of OPSEU said: “Workers at the jail approached OPSEU last year asking for help. Staff were extremely unhappy and concerned with working conditions and staff safety issues inside the facility. We will now be able to begin to address these problems through a structured collective bargaining process.”

OPSEU had hoped to sign the full complement of 258 correctional officers, clerical, maintenance and programming workers. On MTC’s insistence, however, the union will only represent the correctional officers.

Sid Brown, a correctional officer at the jail “For almost a year, we have tried to address with the employer issues such as staffing levels and workload to no avail. Our people do an excellent job, but the pressures are enormous. Now we can work to solve these problems as a united group, with the resources of a union familiar with the work we do.” OPSEU will eventually begin a collective bargaining process with MTC.

 

UNITED KINGDOM

Scottish prison figures reveal poor performance

 

Premier Prison Services-run Kilmarnock prison has the worst disciplinary record of all Scotland’s local prisons (see PPRI #48, 47,44,43,40,37 & 36). Official figures reveal that the number of disciplinary offences increased from 2,685 in 1999/2000 to 3,634 in 2001/02, a rise of 35 per cent over the three year period. Over the same period the prison had the most prisoners with unauthorised absences from, or presence in, any part of the establishment. The number rose from 172 in 1999/2000 to 1,745 in 2001/02. There were seven and a half times more such cases at Kilmarnock than at all the other local prisons combined.

 

In 2000/01 and 2001/02 /Kilmarnock outstripped other prisons in the number of prisoners caught in possession of unauthorised articles and had the most incidents of arson with 24 in 2001/02. Meanwhile, at 142, Kilmarnock also had the most incidents of property damage in 2001/02. However, the justice minister maintains that Kilmarnock sets a fine example to other prisons and his deputy argues that the data is being misinterpreted.


 

Disciplinary offences at Scotland’s prisons 1999‑2002

 

Total Offences

Prison   

1999‑2000

2000‑01  

2001‑02   

% increase 1999‑2002   

Barlinnie

1511

1509

1738

15%

Aberdeen

1020

1017

921

-10%

Edinburgh

1245

1154

1262

1%

Glenochil 1

2238

1381

1695

-32%

Glenochil 2

929

859

650

-42%

Greenock

410

741

524

28%

Inverness

322

328

316

-2%

Perth

1682

1669

2159

28%

Kilmarnock

2685

3499

3634

35%

 

The increase comes largely from the items set out in the tables below:

 

Unauthorised absence from or presence in any part of the establishment

Prison   

1999‑2000

2000‑01  

2001‑02   

Barlinnie

18

11

13

Aberdeen

30

32

22

Edinburgh

39

44

26

Glenochil 1

6

1

3

Glenochil 2

15

18

22

Greenock

4

2

7

Inverness

1

1

0

Perth

125

63

108

Kilmarnock

172

1370

1545

 

Possession of an unauthorised article or quantity of an article

Prison   

1999‑2000

2000‑01  

2001‑02   

Barlinnie

109

149

111

Aberdeen

111

86

66

Edinburgh

143

139

218

Glenochil 1

72

32

38

Glenochil 2

40

29

28

Greenock

162

162

121

Inverness

35

46

50

Perth

116

89

102

Kilmarnock

134

196

273

 

Arson

Prison   

1999‑2000

2000‑01  

2001‑02   

Barlinnie

3

5

10

Aberdeen

7

0

8

Edinburgh

7

5

8

Glenochil 1

6

6

3

Glenochil 2

12

6

4

Greenock

0

3

3

Inverness

1

1

1

Perth

13

3

11

Kilmarnock

12

7

24

 

Possession of an unauthorised article or quantity of an article

Prison   

1999‑2000

2000‑01  

2001‑02   

Barlinnie

109

149

111

Aberdeen

111

86

66

Edinburgh

143

139

218

Glenochil 1

72

32

38

Glenochil 2

40

29

28

Greenock

162

162

121

Inverness

35

46

50

Perth

116

89

102

Kilmarnock

134

196

273

 

Destroys or damages property

Prison   

1999‑2000

2000‑01  

2001‑02   

Barlinnie

77

78

50

Aberdeen

85

40

37

Edinburgh

164

134

107

Glenochil 1

86

69

45

Glenochil 2

128

65

78

Greenock

32

32

29

Inverness

44

40

49

Perth

95

69

62

Kilmarnock

118

82

142

Source: Scottish Parliamentary Reference Centre Document, bib. no. 23024.

Note: Glenlochil 2 denotes the Young Offenders Institution.

 

Scotland’s second private prison

 

A new private prison is to be commissioned for the central belt of Scotland to cope with the increasing number of remand prisoners. The decision by the justice minister flies in the face of the findings of the Justice 1 Committee and the record of Scotland’s first private prison, Kilmarnock (see PPRI #48,47,45-43,40,47 & 36).

 

However, the minister has challenged the Scottish Prison Service to compete for the contract for a second new prison. The minister said: “I want the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) and the trades unions to show that they have the chance to bridge the gap between the private and the public sector on competitiveness. If they can produce for me a robust and credible plan for the second new prison, one which is competitive, offers value for money and delivers the places we need on time, I am prepared to take that project forward in the public sector or as a privately‑built, publicly‑operated prison.”

 

He also announced a £110 million programme over the next three years to upgrade existing public prisons. Overall, the plans will create 1,100 new or refurbished prison places in the public sector,700 new places in the private sector and a further 700 at the second prison.

 

Private absences are secret

 

In a parliamentary question Andrew Turner MP asked the home secretary for the level of staff absence through short term and long term sickness in each prison in England and Wales, broken down by category, in the last 12 months for which information is available. While figures for the publicly run prisons were made available for financial year 2001-2002, prisons minister Hilary Benn replied that “information about privately managed prisons is not available as it is commercial in confidence” (Hansard, 23 July 2002).

 

Premier’s Ashfield criticised again

 

As the prison service continues to manage the privately financed, designed, built and - until 23 May 2002 - operated young offenders institution in south west England, the Howard League for Penal Reform has produced a critical report on the facility (see PPRI #47). Based on visits in October 2001 and May 2002 and interviews with ten boys who had recently been released from the facility, the organisation noted:

n the lack of staffing;

n high staff turnover;

n an unsafe environment;

n the lack of training and experience amongst staff group;

n there is no personal officer scheme;

n no offending behaviour courses;

n insufficient places in education and training;

n poor reception facilities.

In a statement accompanying publication of the report, the Howard League accused the operator, Premier Prisons, of “putting profit before the welfare and safety of young people”. The organisation claims that the inability to recruit and retain staff because of the poor pay and conditions is at the root of Ashfield’s problems.  Wing officers at Ashfield start on £15,250 rising to £16,250 whereas officers in public sector jails start on £17,129 increasing to a maximum of £24,497.

The Howard League also noted that the resources which local authority secure units have at their disposal vastly outstrip those available to the prison service and stated that the report was a criticism of “a system which allows such inequalities to exist.”

Children in Prison, provision and practice at Ashfield, Howard League for Penal Reform, August 2002.

n The number of assaults on staff, prisoners and others expressed as a proportion of the population at Ashfield was 74.1 per cent for the year 2001/2, according to the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts. The 279 assaults recorded meant that Ashfield had the worst record of the four male juvenile prisons. The prison service spent £14.43 million on Ashfield during the year at a cost per prisoner place of £35,447 and cost per prisoner of £38,318.

 

Sodexho’s accounting disaster

 

Shares in Sodexho Alliance, whose subsidiary UK Detention Services Ltd runs prisons and immigration detention centres in England, plunged 30 per cent on the Paris stock market on 19 September 2002. This was caused by what the company described as “serious errors of management as well as accounting anomalies” in the UK which will lead to £20 million less profit for the company’s financial year ended 31 August 2002.

Sodexho has dismissed senior executives from its UK food services and management businesses and criticised its UK auditors PriceWaterhouse Coopers alleging that they “haven’t been sufficiently vigilant.”  The accounting anomalies were discovered at another UK subsidiary, Sodexho Land Technology. “Fiscal year 2002 in the UK will be seen as an accident in Sodexho’s development. It has set our long term objectives back by one year,” stated the company. Sodexho’s financial results for 2002 will be released after the company’s board meeting on 13 November 2002.

 

Money go round

 

Accounts for eight months ended 31 August 2001 - the most recent published in the UK - show that UK Detention Services Ltd (UKDS) had revenues of £17.96 million (£23.1m for the full year 2000) and made a loss of £241,300 (profit of £1.28m for the year 2000). The directors noted that the company’s contracts for Blakenhurst and Forest Bank prisons performed satisfactorily although the contract for Blakenhurst ended on 18 August 2001 and was not renewed. UKDS also incurred start up costs associated with Harmondsworth immigration detention centre that opened after the accounting period on 27 September 2001. The company “continues to incur costs associated with the tendering for contracts to manage additional prisons and immigration centres.” The company had accrued a tax credit of £5,558.

 

Directors’ fees for the period amounted to £260,858 and, on average, the company employed 15 management staff, 671 prison/detention officers, 83 administrators and 27 maintenance staff. The company had made a provision of £170,000 relating to a claim brought by a former employee but the accounts noted that the case had been settled satisfactorily after the accounting period.

 

During the period the company had financial transactions with Agecroft Prison Management Ltd (in respect of Forest Bank) and Harmondsworth Detention Services Ltd. The company’s immediate parent, Sodexho Alliance SA, has a 50 per cent and 51 per cent equity share interest in the companies respectively. Under the detention centre contract for Forest Bank, UKDS received £7.98 million. UKDS also received £632,250 from Harmondsworth Detention Services Ltd for liquidated damages arising from the delay in completing the construction of the facility.

 

n Securicor Custodial Services Ltd delivered a £5 million dividend for its shareholders for the year ended 30 September 2001. The company, which provides prisoner escort, court custody and prison management services, had revenues of £39.13 million (£36.71 in 2000) and a pre-tax profit of £3.69 million (£238,484 in 2000). The company earned £3 million in investment income. After paying the dividend the company made a loss of £1.61 million.

 

During the year the average weekly number of people employed (including directors) was 55 office and management and 1,441 operational. Directors received a total of £602,273 including pension contributions and benefits in kind. The highest paid director earned £136,631. The company is ultimately owned by Securicor plc. Securicor Custodial Services Ltd owns 40 per cent of the shares of Bridgend Custodial Services Ltd, the operator of Parc prison.

 

GROUP 4 and WACKENHUT

More on the acquisition

 

Group 4 Falck will sell its 57 per cent stake in Wackenhut Corrections Corporation within the next six months as long as the price is right (see PPRI # 47). On 9 July 2002 Group 4 Falck’s chief executive officer told Reuters that a “sales process” for Wackenhut’s staffing and corrections subsidiaries had been started. An independent committee of WCC’s board of directors has hired financial advisors to work with the company with respect to Group 4's stated intentions.

 

In the UK, the government’s competition commission has extended the period for its investigation into Group 4's acquisition of the Wackenhut Corporation and the implications for both companies’ custodial services operations in the UK. The commission will now report to the Department of Trade & Industry by 27 September rather than 30 August 2002. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973 only one extension is allowed.

 

On 6 August 2002, the competition commission sent a statement of hypothetical remedies  to Group 4. Its two recommendations were categorised as structural or behavioural. The structural remedies included: disposal of those shares or interests which cause competition problems in the UK leading to the separation of Premier (ie, sale of share holding in WCC); (b) and/or the sale of Global Solutions Ltd [the Group 4 subsidiary that operates the custodial contracts]; and/or the sale of Wackenhut (UK) Ltd to a purchaser or purchasers approved by the Office of Fair Trading.

 

Behavioural measures were suggested in order to address any possible adverse effects on competition in the provision of custodial and transport services. Measures to be put in place might include: a public demonstration of the independence of, and the competition between, Premier and the remainder of Group 4 in bidding for contracts and the provision of written undertakings which will guarantee Group 4's disposal of assets to meet public interest concerns.

 

The commission noted that it had not yet reached any conclusions on the matter, in particular, as to whether Group 4's acquisition of Wackenhut operates, or might be expected to operate, against the public interest.

 <