Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 50, October 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
Prison Rules:timetable set
The European Committee on Crime Problems’ (CDPC)
Council for Penological Co-operation (PC-CP) has set the terms of reference for
the revision of the European Prison Rules (see PPRI #46). For the first
time, the issue of privately run prisons is to be addressed. On 18 September
2002 the Committee agreed that the work should be completed by 31 December
2005. The PC-CP will meet early in 2003 to discuss working methods.
The revision is necessary to
take into account developments since 1987 when the rules were last revised.
According to the terms of reference, “developments in society, crime policy,
sentencing practice, research and information technology, together with the
accession of new member States to the Council of Europe, have significantly
changed the context for prison management in Europe. These changed
circumstances give rise to a number of questions that the existing Prison Rules
do not address. Furthermore, the existing Rules need to be harmonised with the
provisions of the more recent Recommendations of relevance in this field and
should take account of the work undertaken by the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CPT), of developments
in the case-law of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as of the
outcome of the work undertaken by the Steering Committee for Human Rights
(CDDH) on a draft Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights to secure
certain additional rights to persons deprived of their liberty.”
“Attention should be paid to
contemporary trends and changes in the philosophy and practice of prison
treatment and management so as to promote the best of these developments. In
doing so, account should be taken of general problems arising from new forms of
criminality and specific problems encountered in new member States. A major aim
should be to uphold the requirements of human rights and dignity of prisoners
and lay down standards for humane and effective prison management that inter
alia seeks to enable prisoners to lead a law-abiding life after release while
ensuring the safety of prisoners, the prison staff and the community.”
It was also agreed that, among
the issues to be addressed, the following merit particular consideration:
n management problems concerning such matters as
sentence planning, maximum security units, prison overcrowding, staff, medical
and psycho social services, privatised prisons, violence among inmates, riots
and disturbances, the distinction between disciplinary and criminal offences
and the procedures to be followed for either type of offence;
nremand in custody: ways and means of providing
appropriate conditions of detention and safeguards against undue restrictions of
their rights, bearing in mind the principle of presumption of innocence as
enshrined in article 6.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights;
n the management of particular categories of
prisoners such as young prisoners, the elderly, women, mothers with babies,
cultural or ethnic minorities, foreigners, long-term prisoners and lifers, the
mentally disturbed, vulnerable prisoners, violent, disruptive and/or socially
dangerous prisoners, alcohol and drug misusing prisoners, HIV- positive
prisoners, prisoners detained in connection with sex offences, domestic
violence, organised crime and terrorist acts;
n guaranteeing prisoners’ fundamental rights
including civil, political and social rights, as well as their rights in
complaint and in disciplinary procedures;
n research on and evaluation of effective
methods of treatment, management and organisation.
With a view to ensuring
congruence between the Prison Rules and more recent Recommendations, the
revision will also have to take account of the following:
n Rec. R (89) 12 on education in prison;
n Rec. R (92) 16 on the European Rules on
community sanctions and measures;
n Rec. R (93) 6 concerning prison and
criminological aspects of the control of transmissible diseases including aids
and related health problems in prison;
n Rec. R (97) 12 on staff concerned with the
implementation of sanctions and measures;
n Rec. R (98) 7 concerning the ethical and
organisational aspects of health care in prison;
n Rec. R (99) 22 concerning prison overcrowding
and prison population inflation;
n Rec. R (2000) 22 improving the implementation
of the European rules on community sanctions and measures.
Account should also be taken
of previous work of the PC-CP on conditional release, the work of the Committee of Experts on the management of
life-sentenced and other long-term prisoners (PC-LT) as well as that of the
Committee of Experts on pre-trial detention and its implications for the
management of penal institutions (PC-DP). Consideration should also be given to
the substantive sections of the General Reports of the European Committee for
the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CPT). The work should lead to:
a) a report identifying: significant problems and new
possibilities for the management of prison systems; the results of recent research bearing on the management of
prisons and prisoners; the need for provisions on matters not covered by the
present Prison Rules; examples of good contemporary prison practice and b)a draft Recommendation with explanatory
memorandum updating the European Prison Rules.
Colorado should count the
costs
Serious questions about the true costs of running four
private prisons in the State of Colorado have been raised by a new report which
also calls for a legislative audit “to examine performance records and cost
data pertaining to Colorado’s use of private prisons in order to determine
whether or not this is a practice that we, as a state, wish to continue.”
Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA) operates three prisons and Dominion Correctional Services the other. All
are medium security prisons. In 2000 the state corrections department was
directed to use private prisons for 30 per cent of the total prisoner
population. The official comparative
costs are $68.99 for publicly run prisons while the prison operators receive
$54.66 per prisoner per day.
According to the report’s
author, Stephen Raher, “when the Colorado department of corrections discusses
privatisation cost savings, it does so by making a direct comparison between
the cost of housing a medium security prisoner in a state versus the
legislatively-mandated price that the state pays private prisons. This method
of cost comparison is problematic since it fails to take into account
administrative overhead costs borne by the state ... since indirect or hidden
costs are not factored in to the cost per inmate per day ... the supposed cost
savings may not exist.”
“B y factoring in possible indirect
costs for private prisons ... actual costs may be equal to or more than
state-run Level III [medium security] prisons,” he says. Categories of cost
identified for closer scrutiny include: the executive director’s office,
offender services, legal access, the parole board, transportation, business
operations, training, case management, medical services, mental health, special
operations and the private prison
monitoring unit (PPMU).
The author notes that,
although the department of corrections’ PPMU examines the performance of
contract prisons, he claims that “the
close relationship between contractors and the PPMU makes this office an
inappropriate candidate for an independent audit.” Since the beginning of 2001,
private prison companies have given a total of $21,950 to state candidates and
both the Republican and Democrat
parties.
The report also notes that
“data from Colorado and across the nation show that the performance of private
prisons has been troubled - poor inmate
programmes, security problems and fiscal woes have befallen all of the major
private prison companies.”
Private Prisons and Public Money, Hidden Costs Borne
by Colorado’s Taxpayers, Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, September
2002.
Email: stephen@epimethian.org Internet: www.ccjrc.org
Harvard Law Review:Reason to
believe?
The Association of Private Corrections and Treatment
Organisations (APCTO) represents the private prison industry (see PPRI #
46-44, 40 & 37). In July 2002 APCTO issued a statement referring to the Harvard
Law Review (HLR) as an “internationally respected source for sound legal
and policy analysis.” This accolade was
prompted by the inclusion of an article, Tale of Two Systems: Cost, Quality
and Accountability in Private Prisons by Alexander Volokh (see below) in
the May 2002 issue of HLR which was devoted to prison law. The issue was
written and edited by students.
The author of Two Systems
states that, for the purposes of his article, he takes prison privatisation as
“ethically neutral”. He asks whether political influence peddling “weakens or
strengthens the case for privatisation” and answers it with the assertion that
“it depends on whether corruption by corporations is worse than patronage of
public prison guard unions - a question that calls for further research.” On
the question of cost and quality comparisons he argues that “what imperfect
empirical evidence there is suggests that private prisons cost less than public
prisons and that their quality is no worse.. In short despite all their
possible faults, private prisons are a promising avenue for the future
development of the prison system.”
APCTO’s chief executive, Steve
Logan, stated in a media release that “we view the HLR article as a meaningful
report for this industry,” recommending it to US state and government officials
as a sound external study on the benefits of the public-private partnership in
corrections.
However, Michele Deitch, a
lawyer with the Centre for Criminal Justice Initiatives in Austin, Texas, offers
another view. Writing in the Correctional Law Reporter she says: “The
journal’s visibility means that prison law might appear on the radar screen of
many lawyers, judges and academics who previously had little or no knowledge
about the field. That’s the good news: the bad news is that they are relying on
inexperienced students to educate them about these issues.”
Ms Deitch reviews the whole
issue of HLR but has the “strongest reservations” about the private prisons
section, which, she argues “reads like a lobbying piece for the private prison
industry and which was explicitly influenced by the Reason Foundation, a free
market think tank that advocates privatisation in this area. Little law is
actually covered in the discussion ...
which cites extensively from industry-supported studies to argue that private
prisons are in fact more cost effective and accountable than public
institutions.”
She adds: “There is no
evidence that the author approached corrections officials for their points of
view, nor did the author discuss issues such as the frequent practice of
reducing costs by deliberately under staffing private facilities. Moreover, the
author ... misses a key policy point when reviewing case studies: because
private operators can pick and choose the ‘cream of the crop’ inmates, who are
necessarily less expensive to house, they effectively drive up the prices of
the comparison group of public institutions, which are left with
higher-security and more medically needy inmate population. Thus many of these
studies are comparing apples and oranges.”
In her review Ms Deitch also
counters the author’s argument that the market keeps private prisons accountable by allowing governments
to rescind contracts as necessary. “The author ignores the reality of the
crises that typically lead to contracts with private providers, leaving
corrections officials with little leverage in contract negotiations.” She
concludes: “one wishes that this part of the article could have been as
objective as the other sections.”
n The author of Tale of Two Systems: Cost,
Quality and Accountability in Private Prisons is Alexander Volokh. Mr Volokh is not a student but an assistant
policy analyst who specialises in environmental policy for the Reason Public
Policy Institute (RPPI). His qualifications for writing about prison
privatisation are listed on the RPPI website.
“Mr Volokh’s expertise includes hazardous waste policy, environmental
economics, regulation, risk assessment, solid waste management, and the tort
system.”
n The aim of Reason’s Competitive Corrections
Research Project is to “explore the role of the private sector in corrections, evaluate
the benefits of competition and privatisation, educate the public, government
officials and the media on private corrections issues and provide practical,
nuts-and-bolts policy advice to elected officials.”
n The Reason Foundation was formed in 1978 and
refers to itself as a national non-partisan research organisation. It develops ideas for increased private
sector involvement at the state and local levels. It is so non-partisan that
George W. Bush nominated Lynn Scarlett, Reason’s president, as secretary of
policy, management and budget of the US department of the interior.
According to NIRA’s World Directory of Think Tanks,
Reason’s funding in 1998 comprised: 27 per cent private donations; 25 per cent
publication sales; 20 per cent corporate donations; and 15 per cent from US
foundations. Its budget was $5.4
million. Media Transparency’s website reveals that this ‘conservative
libertarian think tank’ received 97 foundation grants with a value of $4.5
million between 1985 and 2000, the main donors being: the Linda and Harry
Bradley Foundation Inc; David H.Koch Charitable Foundation; Charles G. Koch
Charitable Foundation; Claude R.Lambe Charitable Foundation; Scaife Family
Foundation; Smith Richardson Foundation; John M. Olin Foundation and the
Carthage Foundation.
Harvard Law Review, May 2002. www.harvardlawreview.org
Correctional Law Reporter, August/September 2002,
www.civicresearchinstitute.com/co3
Reason Public Policy Institute, www.rppi.org
Grand Jury’s findings on death
at CCA’s Bay County Jail
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR BAY COUNTY SPRING TERM. TWO
THOUSAND TWO
IN RE: GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION
PRESENTMENT IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE OF
FLORIDA:
The Grand Jury of the
State of Florida and County of Bay, empanelled and sworn on February 25, 2002,
to inquire and true presentment make, in and for the Spring Term of Bay County,
respectfully reports and recommends as follows:
The Grand, Jury of
Bay County met in session on July11, 12, and 17, 2002, during which testimony
was taken, exhibits received, and deliberations were had regarding the death of
Justin Sturgis in the Bay County CCA Jail on February 15, 2002. In considering
the existing law and the testimony, the Grand Jury finds no indictment of any
person or entity shall issue. The Grand Jury does, however, feel that the
people of Bay County, Florida, and the County Commission should be aware of the
circumstances surrounding the death. In furtherance of that effort, the Grand Jury issues this
presentment. The Grand Jury received the testimony of eighteen (18) witnesses,
including two witnesses appearing at the behest of Correction Corporation of
America. Witnesses included CCA personnel, inmates confined on February 15,
2002, and expert medical testimony. While no indictments will issue, the Grand
Jury does find that serious deficiencies existed and errors occurred on
February 15, 2002, which led, or contributed to, the death of Justin Sturgis.
The testimony and
exhibits show the following:
1. Justin Sturgis
(hereinafter referred to as “Sturgis”) was stopped by the Panama City Police
Department Officer Richard McKenzie at approximately 1:03 a.m. on US Highway 98
near the entrance to Port Panama City.
2. Following the
administration of a battery of field sobriety tests, Sturgis was arrested for
Driving Under the Influence and taken to Bay County Corrections Corporation of
America Jail.
3. At the jail a
breath/alcohol test was administered at approximately 2:20 a.m. with results
of.101 and .105, which exceed the,00 breath/alcohol level of 0.08 in Florida.
4. Sturgis was booked
into the Bay County Jail at 2:30 a.m.
5. At the time of his
arrest and booking Sturgis was cooperative with officers and exhibited nothing
more than signs of alcohol intoxication.
6. After booking,
Sturgis was placed into Holding Cell No. 3 with one other inmate. Shortly after 3 a.m. Sturgis
apparently began to suffer some degree of distress and asked the other inmate
in the holding cell for help. Sturgis admitted to this inmate that he (Sturgis)
had swallowed a number of pills to avoid arrest on that charge and was
concerned he was experiencing an overdose.
7. This other inmate
alerted correctional officers as to the fact he had swallowed a quantity of
pills and this was included within the notes utilized by the LPN, William
Schwarz, Jr., who was attending to Sturgis.
8. In a call by Nurse
Schwarz to Bay Medical Center's Emergency Room at 3:21a.m., he was instructed
to take Sturgis' “vitals” and call Dr. George Tracy back with the information.
9. In medical
parlance “vitals” include blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and
temperature.
10. Dr. Tracy was not
furnished with Sturgis’ vitals as Dr. Tracy requested.
11. Nurse Schwarz
testified he received instructions from Dr. Tracy to take Sturgis’ vitals and
monitor Sturgis for two hours. (This testimony is at odds with Dr. Tracy’s
testimony.)
12. The process for
monitoring prisoners with medical issues is known as Constant Watch Observation
(COW) - and calls for an entry at least every 15 minutes by a correctional
officer. The forms used in this process are very limited in the descriptive terms
available to detail the patient’s conditions.
13. The “monitoring”
process is apparently the responsibility of correctional officers, not medical
personnel.
14. In the instant
case, the actual details of observations made by the various correctional officers
were not reflected on the COW form, nor did the “code numbers” used accurately
reflect their observations.
15. During the
observation period, which ran from 3:30 a.m. to 6:10 a.m.; with the exception
of the entry at 4:30 a.m., Sturgis is described as “mumbling incoherently”. The
4:30 a.m. entry additionally notes Sturgis is “crying”. (Descriptions are through utilization of a
code number only.)
16. Most witnesses
indicated that the description of “mumbling incoherently” is not an accurate
description of Sturgis’ actual, observed behaviour.
17. No correctional
officer made any notation beyond utilization of the codes provided on the COW
form.
18. Testimony
indicates that some correctional officers received information that Sturgis had
ingested as many as twelve ecstacy pills. There is conflicting testimony as to
whether this information was made known to the nurse.
19. The observation
of Sturgis was moved to at least three separate locations and the COW protocol
seemed to lack sufficient details to provide guidance to those charged with the
responsibility of monitoring him and communicating their observations to
medical personnel.
20. There is
conflicting testimony a to whether Sturgis' condition could be characterized as
“worsening” or “deteriorating” during the observation period.
21. There is
testimony that Sturgis:
(a) appeared to grasp/grab things that were not
there,
(b) acted as though he was smoking a cigarette
that he did not have,
(c) acted as or said he was cooking something,
(d) spoke to a correctional officer identifying
him (the CO) as someone he (Sturgis) worked with.
22. None of the above
observations were made known to the nurse or doctor, nor were they documented
in any contemporaneous observation record.
23. There were
repeated urgings from inmates, who were familiar with the effects of
MDMA/ecstacy, to transport Sturgis to the hospital.
24. Due to the onset
of symptoms before discovery of the problem and the quantity of MDMA apparently
ingested, it is unsure if Sturgis could have survived if then to the hospital
upon onset.
25. There is the
possibility that with adequate information as to the potential nature and
quantity of the substance ingested that adequate supportive therapy could have
prevented the death of Justin Sturgis.
26. Corrections
Corporation of America medical staff does not maintain a log of medical
services provided on each shift.
27. CCA Policy 13‑121
entitled “Suicide Management/Risk Reduction” deals with COW’s (Le‑Jel I
& II), but appears to be limited to issues related to suicide. This policy
as written has no provisions for unintentional overdoses. While a COW was
utilized in the instant case, the policy lacks specific protocol for events
such as this. Even with this policy in place, the Grand Jury finds it was not
followed.
28. Policy 3‑ALDF‑4E‑06
of the “ACA Standards for Adult Local Detention Facility” suggests that inmate
health complaints be “acted on by health‑training correctional
personnel”. Correctional Personnel failed to demonstrate adequate health training in responding to the level
of medical distress evidenced by Justin Sturgis. Additionally, ACA’s Policy 3‑ALDF‑4E‑19
deals with preliminary health screening of new inmates and recognizes the
importance of observations related to behaviour, including consciousness,
mental status, appearance, conduct, tremor and sweating. The comment section of
this policy recognizes this is a “system of STRUCTURED inquiry and
observation.” That structure was sorely lacking in the Sturgis case.
29. ACA's Policy 3‑ALDF‑4E‑24
on Emergency Care acknowledges the importance of training to recognize the
“signs and symptoms and knowledge of
action required in potential emergency situations.” The conduct of the correctional staff on February
15, 2002, suggests there is a deficiency in this area.
30. ACA's Policy 3‑ALDF‑4E‑39
and Florida Model Jail Standards 7.02(i) on “Detoxification” suggests this
process should be done under MEDICAL supervision. Testimony suggested that
while a COW was initiated by Medical Staff, it was the duty of correctional
staff to accomplish the task.
31. Florida Model
Jail Standards 7.17 suggests that inmates committed under the influence of
drugs or alcohol should be separated from the general population and kept under
close supervision for a reasonable period of time. Sturgis initially was
neither separated, nor closely supervised (observed). After the problem
surfaced, the supervision lacked any structure.
32. William Schwarz
was deficient in the performance of his duties as the facility’s sole health
care professional. Such deficiencies may have contributed to the death of
Justin Sturgis.
Based on the
foregoing findings of the Grand Jury, we recommend the following actions be
taken:
a. That Correction
Corporation of America install a camera system in this portion of the jail to
record the occurrences in this area.
b. That an area be
designated within the jail as a COW area and that such area be monitored with
closed circuit television that is recorded .
c. That a more
detailed COW protocol be implemented with specific responsibility designated to
specific persons.
d. That the COW form
be amended to require a narrative description of the observations rather than
the use solely of code number system.
e. That all personnel
handling inmates be additional training in recognizing and responding to
potential drug overdoses and other medical emergencies.
f. That medical
personnel follow to the letter, a physician’s order or be subject to
disciplinary action.
g. That non‑medical
personnel, if charged with the responsibility of monitoring an inmate for
medical issues, be trained in the importance of complete and accurate relay of
observations to medical and/or supervisory personnel.
h. To require specific,
periodic review of a COW by a supervisor to insure adequate detail in
recording. the observations and that medical personnel are apprized of the
inmate’s condition.
i. Corrections
Corporation of America should implement a policy requiring the maintenance of a
log in the medical services department detailing all medical services provided
to inmates on each shift. This log should be sufficiently detailed to identify
the inmate, his/her complaint, the treatment or services rendered, findings of
any examination or test, and the times related to the provision of services.
j. Corrections
Corporation of America should modify their Policy 13‑121,‑ “Suicide
Management/Risk Reduction” to include specific provisions requiring the
monitoring the medical aspects of inmates by qualified medical personnel.
k. Corrections
Corporation of America should create a new policy (or amend the existing policy on screening new inmates) to
establish detailed protocols for the
observation of new inmates to detect potential medical emergencies. The
factors listed in ACA’s Policy 3‑ADLF‑4E‑19 should be
specifically addressed. The protocols should also provide for inclusion of
times and descriptions of the observed behaviour.
l. Corrections
Corporation of America should amend their Policy 13‑121 on “Constant
Observation Watch” to REQUIRE active supervision and participation by qualified MEDICAL personnel. (This could
be accomplished by the creation of a Detox‑COW policy which requires
monitoring by qualified medical personnel.)
m . William Schwarz,
LPN, should be reported to the Division of Medical Quality Assurance within the
Florida Department of Health for deficient performance and the State Attorney
is hereby directed to send a copy of this Presentment to said Agency.
n. The Bay County
Commission should monitor the situation to insure the above policies and/or
changes are instituted.
o. The Bay County
Commission should review the contract with Corrections Corporation of America
to determine if the conduct in this matter constitutes a breach of that
contract meriting termination.
p. The Bay County
Commission should institute an inmate complaint procedure in which the contract
monitor is made an integral part of the process.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of July,
2002.
Harris Prothro, Foreperson, Dated this 17th day
of July, 2002
William A. Lewis, Assistant State Attorney,
Fourteenth Judicial Circuit,
Post Office Box 1040, Panama City, Florida
32402, (8501)872‑4473, FL Bar No. 339520
PRESENTED in Open Court by the Grand Jury and
filed this 17th day of July, 2002.
Harold Bazzel, Clerk
n CCA has defended its staff and stated that Mr
Sturgis caused his own death by swallowing illegal drugs in order to avoid
prosecution. The company has also stated that its policies comply with ACA
standards. The nurse - the only one on duty for 300 prisoners on the night in
question - left CCA’s employment soon after. The company has since implemented
some of the Grand Jury’s recommendations and has been found not to be in breach
of its contract with the state. Meanwhile, a lawyer representing Mr Sturgis’
family is preparing a lawsuit against the company.
Deaths in Victoria
The death of Chereen Vale in a Victoria hospital after
she attempted to hang herself at the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre
(MWCC) on 22 November 2000 has revealed the lack of preparedness of a
government faced with taking over a prison from the private sector. MWCC had been operated by Corrections
Corporation of Australia until the state used emergency powers to take over the
prison’s management on 3 October 2000. On 9 November 2000 the state took
complete control after buying out the company’s contracts (see PPRI
#37).
A report by the Office of the
Correctional Services Commissioner noted that: “At the time of the ‘Step In’
process, several interim measures were implemented in order to activate all
aspects of the process particularly around operational management of the prison
in the immediate future. The process was staged with each level requiring an
activation of essential requirements at that time given that the long term
outcome of the prison management was unknown. Mindful that the transition
period was critical for short and long term effective management of the
facility, the minimum changes necessary were implemented.”
After 9 November 2000,
training on correctional competencies were commenced for all staff who had
previously been employed by Corrections Corporation of Australia. However,
according to the state coroner “there appeared to be no real concern or
attention by the management of the prison to the unsatisfactory sleeping and
living conditions [of Ms Vale and the other prisoner sharing her cell] ... in
addition there were no documented procedures in the prison dealing with the
buddy system, when it was to be used and how it was to be monitored. There
appeared to be no audit procedure operating within the prison, otherwise the
failure to review the sleeping arrangements would have more likely to have been
identified...” Although the incident should be seen in the light of the
[management] changeover, many of the issues are those which required common
management procedures that were not all that difficult or complex.”
Jason Henry died at Group
4-run Port Phillip Prison on 29 March 2002. The state coroner noted that Mr
Henry was “a vulnerable, first time prisoner who had a number of complex issues
to manage. His death is not so much as a result of total failure of the system
but should be seen as a recognition of the difficulties for the correctional
and health authorities of managing any prisoner whose risk profile may, from
time to time, change as a result of many competing unknown or known stressors.”
An independent report
[Johnson-Barclay] dated May 2000 was directed at the state’s Correctional Services Commissioner as well
as the director of Port Phillip Prison. Their comments and recommendations -
which the coroner suggested should be implemented in full - included:
* “the [placement] system appears to operate somewhat
randomly, and prisoners are not necessarily placed in a cell according to need”
also making the point that there were similarities with an the suicide death of prisoner Adam Irwin in 1997
at the same prison “who hung himself when his cell mate was away from the cell
overnight,” (see PPRI # 16, etc).
* “the [on alert] system is in such non-use ... that
it should be either substantially upgraded in significance to make it a
meaningful form of observation or it should be abandoned altogether.
* Mr Henry “should have received more attention in
ongoing monitoring and assessment processes especially when certain alarm bells
started ringing ...”
* “there was no real case planning or integrated case
management at all..”
The coroner noted “there is
little doubt that there were a number of failures in information transfer
systems surrounding the management of Mr Henry during his time in custody.”
Inquest into the death of Chereen Vale, State Coroner Victoria, Case No.3935/00, 14 June
2002. Record of Investigation into the death of Jason Henry, State Coroner
Victoria, Case No.0962/00, 30 August 2002.
n Paula Richardson died after hanging herself at
CCAustralia’s
Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (MWCC) on 11 September 1998. The state coroner found
that she had died as a result of a simulated suicide attempt going wrong. Ms
Richardson’s family found the coroner’s finding “insulting and disgusting”. Record
of Investigation into the death of Paula Richardson, Case No: 2735/98, 9
September 2002.
State Coroner Victoria, 57-83 Kavanagh Street,
Southbank 3006, Victoria, Australia.
Victoria updates
The government of Victoria has announced that a 600
bed Metropolitan Remand Centre will be built near the publicly run Dame Phyllis
Frost Centre (formerly MWCC run by Corrections Corporation of Australia) west
of Melbourne. The facility will cost A$100 million. A new 300 bed Correctional
Programmes Centre costing A$40 million will also be built as part of an
expansion to the existing Barwon Correctional Centre near Geelong. Both
facilities will be privately financed and constructed but the state will
provide custodial services.
n The tighter performance measures that
Victoria’s two private prisons will have to comply with coincided with the renewal of operating
contracts for a further three years each from October 2002 (see PPRI
#49). Group 4 will continue to operate Port Phillip Prison and Australasian
Correctional Management (ACM) will continue to operate Fulham Correctional
Centre. The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) has criticised the
contract extensions, arguing that the public sector was not given the
opportunity to bid. But the original prison contracts signed by the previous
administration stipulated that, after the first five years, the operators had
first rights to negotiate new contracts with the government. The current
minister of corrections, Andre Haermeyer said that the companies would have
taken him to court “quicker than Jumping Jack Flash” if he had allowed an open
tendering process. The CPSU says that private prison staff are paid up to 30
per cent less than their public sector counterparts.
n Wackenhut Corrections Corporation subsidiary
Australasian Correctional Investment Ltd has signed a variation to the existing
prison services agreement for Fulham Correctional Centre to finance, design,
build and operate an additional 68 bed facility on the site (see PPRI
#35). The contract for this Community Transition Programme facility will run
from May 2003 until 2017 with reviews every three years. The facility will cost
US$6.2 million and will be built by Thiess Pty Ltd. Australasian Correctional
Management (ACM) will manage, earning
US$1.6 million in revenues per year.
n The State of Victoria has appointed a new
Correctional Services Commissioner. He is Kelvin Anderson, formerly employed by
Corrections Corporation of Australia in 1997 as the first manager of the
Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre. In 1999 he became director of Group
4's Port Phillip Prison (see PPRI #49, 45, 42, 37-34 & 28-15). Prior
to those appointments Mr Anderson worked for the government and was a member of
the evaluation team for the New Prisons Project that oversaw the development of
Victoria’s three private prisons.
Public-private for South
Australia
The government of South Australia is to commission a
privately financed women’s prison and a juvenile detention centre. At this
stage, the government is considering providing the correctional services with
staff employed by the state.
As with other Australian
jurisdictions, the government is looking to the UK for expertise in the use of
private finance for public infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Public Service
Association, which represents public employees, has condemned the use of
public-private partnerships. South Australia currently has one privately
managed prison, Mt Gambier (see PPRI #43, 41, 10 &7).
Private prisons cause budget
crisis
A team of officials from South Africa’s treasury and
departments of correctional services and public works are examining five issues
relating to the future of the government’s Asset Procurement of Privatisation
System (APOPS) through which the country’s two private prisons were
commissioned (see PPRI # 46,42, 38, 36, 34, 30, 23, 20, etc).
At a hearing of the
Correctional Services Portfolio Committee on 13 August 2002, the chairperson
asked the correctional services department whether, in the short experience
they had with the two private prisons, they thought that it would be appropriate
to continue with them, do without them or fund more privately financed,
designed, built and operated prisons. The acting commissioner , Mr Watson
Tshivhase, replied that the question could not be adequately answered until the
team of officials had completed a
report (deadline 13 September 2002) which would be presented to the committee.
Mr Tshivhase also said that there was no indication of cost savings generated
by the private prisons. Group 4, which operates the 2,928 bed Manguang Maximum
Security prison at Bloemfontein has been penalised by the supervisory committee
for non compliance on two occasions since the prison opened in January 2002.
There is now a crisis in the
department of corrections as the two private prisons are using up 75 per cent
of the entire prison budget as the treasury has not allocated separate funds to
cover the costs of the contracts. The department has had to freeze posts and
make other cutbacks.
n Two of the three controllers trained in the UK
by South Africa’s department of corrections have now gone to work for the
private sector.
Alberta courts PPP
The government of Alberta is considering responses to
an expression of interest in a public-private partnership for the development of
a new court complex to replace existing facilities in Calgary. Alberta is
currently considering privatisation as part of its review of the corrections
system (see PPRI #48 & 1).
Premier’s financial loss for
Ashfield failures
Premier Custodial Group is likely to be fined in
excess of £250,000 for the prison service’s use of emergency powers to take
over management of the Ashfield young offenders institution near Bristol, south
west England in May 2002 (see PPRI #49 & 47 ).
So far the company has been
penalised £50,000 for the government having to use S. 88 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1991 after the director general of the prison service deemed
operations at Ashfield to be a threat to the safety of prisoners and staff. Premier removed its prison director and a
public sector prison governor was brought in.
A spokesperson for the prison
service told PPRI that the figure of £50,000 is likely to rise “in
excess of £250,000” although the final figure has not been quantified and will
be subject to negotiation. However,
that penalty forms just one component of the financial loss the company will
incur. The prison service also has the right to recover the cost of installing
its own management and, as yet, this figure has not been quantified either. In
addition, from May 23 when the prison service took over, Premier will only
receive revenues for around 200 of the 400 prisoner places that are normally
paid for. The amount of this loss in revenues is also not yet quantifiable as it
is likely to be some time before the prison is allowed to return to full
capacity.
The prison service’s action
was planned to be a temporary measure and, on 14 October 2002, Premier resumed
control of the facility. However, on announcing his decision to hand management
back to Premier the director general of the prison service, Martin Narey, said:
“The prison service and Premier have worked in close partnership during the
past five months and Ashfield is now a safer establishment. But there is much
more to be done before Ashfield can be described as a good and decent
establishment.”
Premier has provided the
prison service with a comprehensive plan for improvement and has appointed a new director for Ashfield.
She is Ms Vicky O’Dea, who is currently the governor of HMP Swansea, a publicly
run prison. Ms O’Dea will commence her job on 28 October.
Exporting the PFI (continued)
International Financial Services London (IFSL) is a
British organisation that promotes the international activities of UK-based financial
institutions and professional business services. As The Economist ,14 September 2002, pointed out, IFSL’s
Stephen Harris has been busy“last week he was in Switzerland, this week he’s
hosting the Estonians, next week it’s the Mauritians and the Danes. In fact, Mr
Harris is talking to over 30 foreign governments. What is he talking about? The
private finance initiative (PFI), which he hopes will be Britain’s most eye
catching ‘invisible’ export since privatisation” (see PPRI # 42, 40, 38
& 7).
As a 2001 IFSL report pointed
out “the expertise of UK firms is crucial to the budding international market
for public private partnerships.” According to its website (www.ifsl.org.uk),
the IFSL board includes Lord Levene, vice chairman of Deutsche Bank AG, as well
as representatives from the Bank of England, Bank of Scotland, Credit Lyonnais,
Goldman Sachs International and KPMG. Membership includes some 100 financial
institutions, law firms and consultants
including Abbey National plc, Barclays
Bank, HSBC Holdings, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch International, Morgan Stanley,
Prudential plc, Reuters Ltd, NM Rothschild & Sons, Royal Bank of Scotland,
Standard Chartered Bank and UBS Warburg.
Global Solutions paying off
Will Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s existing
management buy the company from Group 4 Falck? Will Group4 Falck sell off its
Global Solutions business which includes corrections and immigrations services?
These are just two of the rumours circulating as the outcome is awaited of what
Group 4 calls its “systematic and structured sales process” to dispose of the
57 per cent of Wackenhut Corrections Corporation that it has owned since May
2002 (see PPRI #49 & 47). In its report to the Copenhagen Stock
Exchange for the half year to 30 June 2002, Group 4 stated that no definitive
deadline has been set for this process.
Group4 Falck’s Global
Solutions businesses include prison management, prisoner transportation,
immigration services, privately financed initiatives, education and
meter-reading services. Combined, they
contributed 10.1 per cent of overall revenues for the half year. In the
UK, Global Solutions recorded organic
growth significantly above the market average in the first half of 2002 which
was attributable to growth in immigration services. Meanwhile, in Africa, the
company’s operating margin increased from 8.7 per cent to 12.6 per cent which
was attributable to the recently opened maximum security prison at
Bloemfontein.
Boot Camp or Boot Hill, Troubled Teens Suffer From Too
Much Tough Love, by Roger Hummel, Prison Legal News, Vol.13, No.9, September
2002.
PLN, www.prisonlegalnews.org
An exposé of the use of boot camps in the US - “an
excellent example of the widening net of state repression” - where at least 31
youngsters have died since 1980. The article describes the particular problems
at facilities run by the private sector.
Privatisation and Flexibility:Legal and Practical
Aspects of Interjurisdictional Transfer of Prisoners, David Shichor and Dale K.
Sechrest, in the Prison Journal, Vol. 82, No.3, September 2002, Sage
Publications.
Private prison companies in the US transfer prisoners
between jurisdictions in order to maximise the use of bed space and profit.
This article reviews legal and practical issues involved and examines some of
the recent cases, the implications for
prisoners, their families, government authorities, monitors and host
communities.
Growth and Quality of US Private Prisons: Evidence
from a National Survey, Scott D. Camp and Gerald G. Gaes, Criminology and
Public Policy, Volume 1, No. 3, 2002, American Society of Criminology. Email
cpp@jjay.cuny.edu Internet www.asc414.com
“Privately operated prisons appear to have systemic
problems in maintaining secure facilities. The data on inmate escapes and
random urinalysis are important indicators that signal a host of issues.”The
authors admit caveats to their research but, nonetheless, raise issues which,
they say, require public sector agencies contracting for private prisons to
“develop incentives or other means to ensure that private sector operators
retain experienced custody staff.” The
authors also ask, “can the private find a way to maintain adequate skill levels
or at least skill levels supplemented by technology? To date, the overall
answer to this question is a qualified no.”They maintain that “very little data
are available that can be used by policy makers to assess whether privately
operated prisons achieve or surpass the level of performance of their public
counterparts, or whether they are in fact less costly.”
PFI: Failing our future, a UNISON audit of the Private
Finance Initiative, September 2002, UNISON,www.unison.org.uk
“The evidence not only supports UNISON’s concerns but
shows that new problems are emerging... there is a growing chorus of voices
expressing serious concerns about PFI.” This briefing does not discuss projects
in the criminal justice system but it does explode the mythology surrounding
the promotion of privately financed, designed, built and operated
infrastructure.
A Web of Private Interest: how the Big Five
accountancy firms influence and profit from privatisation policy, July 2002.
UNISON,www.unison.org.uk
UNISON examined PFI schemes including three prison
projects in the UK where PricewaterhouseCoopers, Anderson, KPMG, Ernst &
Young and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
acted as financial advisors. In at least 45 cases, the advisor to the
public sector was also the auditor to one or more of the consortium members or
project bidders.“The web of private interest that joins public policy,
management consultants , accountants and the privatisation industry extends
across the whole of PFI and PPP (public private partnerships).”
Racism and Discrimination in the South African Penal
System, Amanda Dissel and Jody Kollapen, Centre for the Study of Violence and
Reconciliation, Penal Reform International, 2002. www.csvr.org.za and
www.penalreform.org
“ ... If crime continues to increase, and if our
society continues to incarcerate ... at
the same rate, then we are likely to see even greater numbers of people sent to
prison. The link between poverty and crime has been well documented and, in the
South African context, given the disparities in wealth, opportunities and
skills that have existed for so long, the effect is that black people are more
prejudiced by poverty. The result ... is that people (particularly black
people) will continue to be imprisoned because they are poor ... a factor which
must inform both economic policy as well as policies within the criminal
justice system - particularly sentencing policy.”
Privatisation, Lessons from the war, Graeme A. Hodge,
Alternative Law Journal, (Australia)Vol. 27, No.4, August 2002.
“Despite the stated formal objectives of [public
sector] reforms, much of it has been undertaken on an ideological basis. The
ethos has often been one of ‘private good-public bad’, without explicit
economic and financial objectives in the public interest.” The author states;
“The one line lesson for governments around the globe is to ‘be careful’ with
privatisation policy...”
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