Prison Privatisation Report International

No. 52, Dec 2002/Jan 2003

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

 

FRANCE        

AUSTRALIA  

ISRAEL

UNITED KINGDOM

SOUTH AFRICA

UNITED STATES

LESOTHO

COSTA RICA

ASIA & PACIFIC      

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

 

 

FRANCE

Private sector’s role extended

 

The government of France is commissioning a 1.4 billion Euros construction programme of 28 prisons with a total of around 13,200 beds. This is the largest new prison building programme in Europe. It also represents a significant boost for the private sector which, at the very least, will finance, design and build the facilities as well as operate non-custodial services under 30 year contracts. The government will lease back the facilities with ownership transferring at the end of the contracts. Consideration is also being given to the private operation of custodial services, an idea first mooted in the early 1980s but rejected in favour of an experiment with mixed management. Invitations to tender are expected to be issued at the end of 2003.

 

Most prisons will have a capacity of 400 or 600. However, eight will be designated for offenders between the ages of 13 and 18 and will have a capacity of 40 or 60.

 

The need for 30 new prisons was first announced by the previous administration prior to the last general election (see PPRI # 44, 25 & 11). Of France’s 185 prisons, some 102 are deemed to be outdated,  having been built before 1912. However, no statement has been made about the closure of any of these older facilities. There are currently 54,438 prisoners in space for 47,933.

 

France already has 28 semi-private prisons - in which the state employs the prison officers - but these were financed with public money. Sodexho’s subsidiary SIGES built and operates non-custodial services at eight; GEPSA, owned by Suez 15; and IDEX six. The government claims that by using  private finance and leasing the new facilities it will avoid increasing the budget deficit. However, no comparative figures for public versus private borrowing have been released.  The Opposition has criticised the move, arguing that the prison population should be kept to a minimum in favour of non-custodial sentences.

 

ISRAEL

First prison tender issued

 

The Israeli government has begun a tendering process for a semi-private prison in Be’er Shiva (see PPRI # 45, 43 & 34). The facility will be privately financed, designed, built and maintained. The prison service  will operate custodial services. Initially, 800 beds will be commissioned with possible expansion to 1,040. The 25 year contract is worth some NIS 1 billion and companies are due to register their interest in bidding by 2 April 2003. Israeli financiers and construction companies are currently trying to set up joint ventures with experienced prison operators. A second semi-private prison is also due to be commissioned although no details have been announced.

 

In June 2000, the Israeli prison service (IPS) held an international seminar on privatisation with delegates from France, the UK and the US. However, the then minister of public security did not approve of the policy. In February 2001 the government changed and by July discussions about privatisation were reopened. In October 2001, there was a new review of the policy and a ‘privatisation probability assessment’ carried out by consultants.

 

In a presentation to  the International Corrections and Prisons Association conference in October 2001(see PPRI #48) the IPS argued for privatisation on the grounds of existing prison overcrowding; the expected significant growth in the prison population in the coming decade; the ministry of finance only offering funding for a partial solution through to 2004; and the need to invest in infrastructure within a short time. The attorney general’s position was that a limited privatisation  model may be introduced as long as responsibility for security and powers of law enforcement remained with the IPS and that privatisation be limited to a facility’s construction, maintenance, living conditions, catering, medical care, inmate employment, social work, education and psychological care. The ministry of finance’s position was that it supported full privatisation and that limited privatisation should only be applied if it was financially worthwhile.

 

SOUTH AFRICA

The price of privatisation

 

In a recent financial statement Group 4 Global Solutions reported that its operating margins in Africa increased from 8.7 per cent in 2001 to 12.6 per cent in 2002 due to its newly opened prison in Bloemfontein (see PPRI #51,46,42, 38, 36, 34, 30, 23, 20, etc). Now a South African government task force has recommended that the contracts for the two prisons financed, designed, built and operated by Group 4 and Wackenhut-led consortia need to be renegotiated.

 

Reducing service levels, overcrowding the prisons, amending the fee payment structure and having the consortia refinance the debts have been suggested as ways to cut costs.

 

The task team was set up to investigate the prisons’  financing,  costs, outputs and risk allocation; to  establish a comparison with public sector prisons; and to identify features for renegotiation to address the department of correctional services’ affordability restraints.

 

Reporting to the correctional services portfolio committee in November, the task team noted that returns on investments in Group 4's prison could be up to 29.9 per cent while returns on the Wackenhut prison were up to 25 per cent. Construction and operating fees at Bloemfontein had increased from R154.41 per prisoner per day at the outset to R215.70.  At Louis Trichardt, Northern Province, the costs had increased from R139.31 to R160.36.

 

The report also stated that the contract specifications were imported from the UK and set at an ideal level;  specifications were based on inputs rather than outcomes; and that there had been no prior feasibility studies undertaken to ensure affordability limits, optimal value for money or optimal risk transfer.

 

Commercial confidentiality prevented full disclosure of the task team’s report. Nor was there any mention of the cost of the consultants used. However, in an article headlined ‘Private is Better’ the Financial Mail, 6 December 2002 reported that the task force had “debunked the myth that South Africa’s two privately run prisons are more expensive” than public prisons. But it failed to report that the task force identified a range of reasons why ‘like for like’ comparisons were difficult to make.

Review of the Public Private Partnership Prison Contracts, 8 November 2002.

n The Adam Smith Institute (ASI) has postponed its ‘high level international training course’ that was intended to encourage the privatisation of Africa’s prison services (see PPRI #51). The event was due to take place in South Africa in March 2003 but, according to the ASI, it was cancelled after South Africa’s department of correctional services lost interest.

 

LESOTHO

Prison negotiations continue

 

Progress is reported to be slow but the government of Lesotho and Group 4 are still negotiating over the company’s proposal to build and operate a 3,500 bed prison at Maseru replacing the country’s 12 existing prisons  (see PPRI # 49, 45, 43 & 41). The prison service is still opposed to privatisation and is due to submit a paper outlining its concerns to the cabinet.

 

ASIA & PACIFIC

ACM makes a pitch

 

Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) was invited to make a presentation at the 22nd Asian and Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators (APCCA) at Denpasar, Indonesia in October 2002.

 

Delegates from 20 countries in the region plus Canada attended the conference which included a discussion on outsourcing correctional services. The minutes of this agenda item recorded  that “it is apparent that nearly every nation and jurisdiction in the region engages in some level of outsourcing, or contracting out, of some correctional services but there are significant differences between nations as to the extent ... and the motivations for pursuing this course. The aspect of outsourcing that provoked most interest and lively discussion ... was that of private prison management, and this provided an appropriate background to a presentation ... by the managing director of Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd, the largest private supplier of correctional services in Australia and New Zealand.”

Some conference papers, including Agenda Item Two, Outsourcing of Correctional Services  - but not ACM’s presentation - are available on the APCCA website www.apcca.org

 

AUSTRALIA

Group 4 wins controversial contract

 

Group 4 Falck has been chosen as preferred bidder for the federal government’s A$100 million  contract to operate immigration detention centres for the department of multicultural and indigenous affairs (DIMA) (see PPRI #51,49,46-44 & 42-36 ).

 

Group 4 staved off competition from Management & Training Corporation (MTC) and Australasian Correctional Management (ACM), which currently runs the centres and is owned by Group 4 after it acquired ACM’s owners, the Wackenhut Corporation, in May 2002 (see PPRI # 51-49 & 47). Australia’s competition and consumer commission approved the acquisition on the basis that the companies operated as separate entities.

 

Although Group 4 was chosen on the basis of providing better value for money, ACM’s bid will be considered if negotiations with Group 4 break down. ACM has run the centres since 1998 but its 10 year contract was retendered last year as a result of a range of management problems.

 

The new four year contract includes a 51 page list of obligations which Group 4 will have to comply with in order to receive maximum payments. ACM has been operating under a four page general statement of detention principles. The Australian Labor Party described the contract award as “a sham transfer” arguing that it was inappropriate for an international corrections business to handle detention centres.

 

Acacia prison - AIMS’ first year

 

Western Australia’s department of justice withheld A$1.05 million from AIMS Corporation’s contract fee for the operation of Acacia Prison from May 2001 to May 2002 inclusive (see PPRI  #48, 37, 36 ,34, 32, 30, 28 & 26). The maximum payment due was A$21.09 million. Negotiations over the final amount payable to the Sodexho-owned company were still taking place when the department published its first year report on the prison’s operation. At the end of each year, AIMS is entitled to a percentage of the performance linked fee that has been withheld during the year, based on performance against the schedule of annual performance measures.

 

The prison, near Perth, opened on 16 May 2001 and  “the first full year of operation has been a rapid learning curve - for Australian Integration Management Services Corporation (AIMS) and, in many ways, for the department of justice too,” stated the department’s director general. The correctional culture was described as “positive” and consistent with the original concept and philosophy of Acacia.

 

He noted that there was a delay in achieving the agreed prisoner population of 700 due to “the limited availability of medium security prisoners, a marked downturn in the state’s prisoner population and shorter sentences resulting in a higher than predicted attrition rate.” But the prison was expected to reach full operating capacity “early in the new year of operation.” There were “no escapes, no major disturbances and no deaths in custody.”

 

There were three reported incidents of self harm or attempted suicide, six serious prisoner on prisoner assaults and two serious assaults by prisoners on contractor persons or visitors. These figures were below the benchmarks for incurring penalties. The rate of positive findings from random urine analysis was 9.09%. The benchmark was 8 per cent.

 

However, key areas in which AIMS’ performance did not reach the agreed benchmark and therefore did not qualify for its full performance fee included:

n prisoners employed or in programmes - benchmark achieved in only five out of 12 months;

n employment hours completed - benchmark achieved in only nine out of 12 months;

n vocational education and training hours provided;

n programme need in accordance with Individual Management Plan requirements.

 

The high use of the Ombudsman’s office by prisoners at Acacia was described as “disappointing and reflects a poor internal prisoner grievance process which requires considerable improvement in the year ahead.”

 

At the year end, some 23 per cent of the prisoner population was of Aboriginal descent. Yet  AIMS had “not established indigenous health services at Acacia and has yet to achieve the health services expressed in their initial proposal. Rehabilitation outcomes for 2001/2002 were below performance expectations and therefore AIMS will not receive their full performance fee for this measure.”

Annual Report Acacia Prison Services Agreement, 2001/2002, Department of Justice, Government of Western Australia, 30 September 2002.  See also the findings of The Acacia Prison Annual Performance Review Report, 2002, www.justice.wa.gov.au

 

New South Wales: report on ACM-run Junee

 

Australasian Correctional Management Ltd (ACM) has had more than A$100,000 withheld from its 2001/2002 performance linked fee for operating Junee Correctional Centre 2001/2002 (see PPRI #46, 41, 40, 38 & 35). ACM has run the prison since April 1993. The contract was renewed in March 2001 after a successful rebid and the government also agreed to ACM’s request for the prisoner population to be increased from 600 to 750. 

 

ACM’s re-bid included the post of unit counsellor for each accommodation area but the company failed to recruit appropriately qualified staff to these positions. The A$100,000 relates to that.  However, ACM will also be penalised for failing to deliver the base level performance related to behavioural programmes and individual counselling and the failure to appoint a throughcare specialist. The government also agreed to ACM’s request for the prisoner population to be increased from 600 to 750.

 

In the latest review, the department of corrective services’ monitor raised a number of other concerns about the prison’s operation. The 2001/2002 performance report concluded, once again, that “ACM continues to satisfactorily meet its contractual obligations under the management agreement.” However, as well as the issues mentioned above “continued attention was required”  in the following areas:

n core welfare services: the majority of welfare services have been provided by members of the chaplaincy service. ACM management have been advised to rectify;

n reception screening: the physical size of the area allocated to the screening process has raised concerns relating to privacy issues. Concerns have also been raised relating to the lack of special needs analysis of sex offenders on reception;

n case management: the area of case file management of inmate applications remains an area of concern. The concern relates to a failure to satisfactorily track inmate applications and requests.

 

A review by departmental branch heads responsible for inmate services and programming identified the following concerns:

* a lack of documentary evidence on inmate case management files relating to programmes and psychological services delivered to inmates;

* the composition of staff on case management teams, the full time staff allocated to the classification process and the physical size of the area;

* there was no evidence of programmes targeting the needs of females.

n alcohol and other drug services: there were concerns regarding the work load of the Alcohol and Other Drug Specialist due to the increase in inmate population;

n food services: a review identified deficiencies in the temperature control of of both hot and cold food, the storage of prepared food and the physical facilities available;

n industries: inmate employment has been reported on regularly in previous years. Actions taken by ACM to meet the national benchmark (65 per cent of the inmate population) has been affected by the decision to increase the population from 600 to 750;

n insurance: a review was undertaken of policies held by ACM. Negotiations and consultation  are ongoing to ensure appropriate indemnity is provided to the department.

Junee Correctional Centre 2001/2002, Performance Report, Appendix 31,New South Wales Corrective Services Annual Report 2001/2002

 

UNITED KINGDOM

Sodexho subsidary signs new prison contract

 

The prison service of England and Wales has signed a £231 million contract with Ashford Prison Services Ltd (APSL) for a new 450 bed prison for women at Ashford, west London. The prison, to be known as Shortwood,  is due to open in the summer of 2004.  APSL is owned by Sodexho of France. UK Detention Services Ltd (UKDS), also a Sodexho subsidiary, will be the operator. Interserve Project Services Ltd will construct the prison. Royal Bank Project Investments Ltd is the finance partner (see PPRI #47, 45, 44 & 37).

 

The contract is the eighth prison for adults and or young offenders in England and Wales under the private finance initiative (PFI). The contract signing  had been delayed due to problems with insuring the facility.  UKDS is also the preferred bidder for a contract to finance, design, build and operate an 840 bed (360 for women) prison at Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. This contract has also been held up due to insurance problems but, according to the prisons minister, the prison is expected to open in the summer of 2005.

 

Global executive on board

 

UK Detention Services Ltd’s international intentions have been signalled by the appointment of Tony Leech as director, global development. Mr Leech resigned his post as general manager of Western Australia’s public prisons in December 2002 and will start with UKDS in February 2003. His role will involve managing the tender process for all UKDS’s potential worldwide business. UKDS is owned by Sodexho the owner of AIMS Corporation which manages the Acacia prison and operates the prisoner escort service for the government of Western Australia.

n UKDS has been jointly sponsoring a research project aimed at “developing a generic framework for collecting Whole Life Cost Data”. The work is being carried out at the University of Dundee’s Construction Management Research Unit. The data will be used to explore the benefits of applying integrated logistics support at the design stage of construction projects. The results will be particularly relevant to “companies wishing to minimise costs in  ... public private partnerships and to clients who wish to maximise their returns on capital investment.”


Chief inspector reports on Forest Bank

 

The chief inspector of prisons noted 10 examples of good practice and made 67 recommendations for improvements at Forest Bank prison following a full announced inspection between 17 and 21 June 2002.

 

The prison near Salford, north west England, opened in January 2000 and is run by UK Detention Services Ltd (UKDS), now a subsidiary of Sodexho SA of France. Forest Bank had a population of men and young adults of 1,020 at the time of the inspection.

 

In a statement accompanying the report’s publication in December 2002, the chief inspector, Anne Owers, said: “Forest Bank was a very good local prison.  The relationships between staff and prisoners were extremely positive and we found many examples of staff dealing sensitively and appropriately with difficult prisoners.  We were concerned about the low staff‑prisoner ratios on the main wings, but we could find no examples of collusive or unsafe behaviour as a consequence. In view of these levels, and the relative inexperience of staff, we do however commend the director’s recent decision to strengthen the management structure and increase staffing levels on the young prisoners’ wing. The prison should continually review its staffing profiles, to ensure that staff have the time to engage proactively with prisoners, and build on the positive relationships that exist.”

 

The Inspectorate also found that association and exercise were regular and  prioritised so that, unlike in many local prisons, prisoners had daily access to showers and telephones; and there was a welcome emphasis on cleanliness in cells and communal areas.

 

However, a major weakness was that there was insufficient purposeful activity, with fewer than half the prisoners engaged in meaningful work or education. The Inspectorate was also concerned that the general atmosphere of respect did not extend to the visits room, where prisoners and their visitors were separated by dividers and there was excessive use of closed visits.

 

Concluding, the chief inspector, said: “Overall, Forest Bank was a prison that had avoided many of the pitfalls of newly‑opened private sector prisons with inexperienced staff and was succeeding in spite of the pressures of significant population increase. It was also a prison with a skilled Director and senior managers and staff who were involved and valued: from junior wing officers to the extremely impressive chaplaincy team, which was seen as an important resettlement and counselling resource.  The new Director has a great deal to build on.  We  would urge him to develop the prison’s education and training provision, and its resettlement strategy, as matters of priority.”

 

Details in the inspector’s report included:

n both the reception process and the induction programme were delivered in a mechanical way which did not always engage prisoners.  The medical detoxification programme did not comply with requirements of the relevant Prison Service Order and this was a significant deficit.  Those prisoners undergoing detoxification also needed increased support; this was not being offered as systematically as required because staff were diverted to achieve voluntary drug testing targets.  There was also a need for greater liaison between healthcare and drugs workers in the establishment.  Systems within the pharmacy were poor and in need of review and improvement;

n there was also an excessive use of closed visits following positive mandatory drug testing findings, and the standards of proof applied at adjudications were, in general, unacceptably low;

n nursing levels ... were low.  There was also an unacceptable lack of care plans for prisoners held in the healthcare unit.  Overall, managers were aware of the shortfalls of the service they were providing and had plans to tackle them;

n fewer than 50% of prisoners were involved in meaningful work in industries or in education, though there were plans to operate a system of split shifts in work areas to distribute available employment places more equitably.  There was some over-counting on regime monitoring returns which was distorting the actual amount of activity available in the prison;

n ... shortfalls in the number of teachers ... affected outcomes for prisoners and limited the external qualifications on offer. There were also some poor individual learning plans which did not address the individual needs of the learners concerned and were not linked to sentence plans.  Staff were keen to develop education and training opportunities but they were not always appropriately qualified to pursue these developments;

n the prison had grasped the resettlement agenda and was energetic and innovative in its approach.  This approach was not, however, systematic and as a result was failing to target resources as effectively as it could have. The prison lacked a strategy document and so lacked a clear vision and direction for the development of its resettlement work;

n for young prisoners, the wing was regarded as the primary area where they felt unsafe.  The unconvicted young prisoners who responded to our questionnaire were far and away the group who felt the most victimised, verbally and physically, by other prisoners and vulnerable to staff making insulting remarks;

n the prison was not complying with Prison Service Order 3550, The Clinical Needs of Substance Misusers, ... this had implications for both the humane treatment and the safety of prisoners;

n a clear and efficient request and complaint system was in place for those prisoners with the confidence and skills to use it.  It was less apparent how prisoners with special needs were enabled to use the system.  The low levels of prisoner satisfaction with the R&C system warranted further investigation;

n a major issue was that nine of the nurses had been recruited as ‘G’ grades but were, in fact, relatively newly qualified and did not possess the competences of ‘G’ grades. The health care manager was working with Salford primary care trust to establish clinical supervision. She was also joining a healthcare mentor scheme being set up by the nursing lead of the regional prison health team. Shift patterns were another inherited issue of concern. Most staff continued to work three long, 13-hour days per week. Only two were on the more usual early/late system. The EN had recently started on nights. Neither the senior medical officer nor the health care manager had undergone appraisal training;

n there were good resources for welding and furniture making, a high standard of practical work, effective support for learners, and good links with employers. But there were no courses leading to qualifications, no professional staff development for instructors, and no initial assessment for vocational training;

n [literacy and numeracy] ... insufficient teachers and instructors, poor individual learning plans, insufficient professional staff development, and insufficient externally accredited qualifications.

Individual learning plans were poor, and were not linked to sentence planning;

n most wings had only two or three staff on duty to supervise between 60 and 80 prisoners so, in most instances, it was prisoners who took the initiative and approached staff.  Staff-prisoner ratios did not allow for high levels of interaction or much pro-active work on the part of staff, but the atmosphere was relaxed and prisoners managed their own time and activities responsibly and with regard to others;

n resettlement needs were not sharply focused on accommodation - the initial contract for running the prison did not specify that accommodation issues should be addressed;

n the general environment supported the offending behaviour programme, but relatively low staff levels and the pressure of work on some prisoner custody officers meant there was realistically little opportunity for supportive work for prisoners on the wing who were attending enhanced thinking skills (ETS) course;

n as the result of the lack of an effective population needs assessment there had been no work on targeting interventions for short stay prisoners, and the overall approach was failing to distinguish the specific needs of young offenders;

Report on a Full Announced Inspection of HM Prison & Young Offender Institution Forest Bank, 17-21 June 2002, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Home Office, London, England. Available at www.homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk/hmipris/hmipris

 

Kilmarnock suicide inquiry

 

James Barclay, a remand prisoner,  hanged himself at Premier Prisons-run Kilmarnock prison on 10 January 2002 (see PPRI #51, 49-47, 44, 43, 40, 37 & 36). The incident occurred  within hours of the two prison officers on suicide watch - and who were responsible for 277 prisoners - being ordered by managers to redecorate a control room in preparation for forthcoming visits by Princess Anne and Scotland’s First Minister. Although the officers, Kevin Beck and Gordon Kelso, attempted to resuscitate Mr Barclay in his cell  he died in hospital four days later.

 

The two officers worked four more night shifts after the incident and both were commended by managers for their conduct. But after an internal inquiry Beck and Kelso were fired  by the company for gross misconduct relating to the incident. They claim that they were not offered trauma counselling by the company until after they were fired. The two are now giving evidence at a fatal accident inquiry (FAI) at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court.

 

The inquiry, which started in December,  has heard that Mr Barclay was put on a ‘low-risk watch’ - unlikely to self-harm - despite having tried to kill himself the previous day and despite having a ‘high-risk file’ from Strathclyde Police. It is alleged that this file was not passed to the prison officers.  Mr Beck has alleged that suicide watches were missed daily due to under-staffing, claiming that 90 per cent of ‘level three’ watches were not getting done every half hour as required.

 

Support for the former employees has come from within the prison in the form of leaked internal documents. For example, eight months after Mr Barclay’s death, Margaret Coyle, a senior prison counsellor alleged in a letter to the prison’s assistant director that there were still basic failures in suicide watch procedures. She concluded: “Having detailed the shortcomings ... I am sure I do not need to remind you of the seriousness of this. As you know, there is a fatal accident inquiry taking place this week - if these [assessment] books were a part of that inquiry we would be held responsible.”

 

The inquiry is expected to last until the end of January 2003 with the Sheriff’s findings to be published some time later. A spokesman for the company declined to comment on the case.

n Kilmarnock Prison Services Ltd (KPSL, part of Premier Custodial Group) made a pre-tax profit of £1.11million for the financial year ended 31 December 2001(£1.26 million in 2000). Turnover was £12.06 million (£12.22 million in 2000) which included finance charges of £4.23 million (£4.44 million in 2000). KPSL’s major activity is the design, construction, management and finance of HMP Kilmarnock. In their report the directors stated that they were “confident that 2002 will be another successful year.”

n Kilmarnock is due to receive a further 192 prisoners over the next 12 months in order to deal with overcrowding in Scotland’s prison system.

 

UNITED STATES

Arizona : education not incarceration!

 

A coalition of students and faculty at the University of Arizona, Tucson, are campaigning for the state to fund education rather than build two more private prisons with 5,400 beds. The Education not Incarceration Campaign claims that $33.4 million could be saved if offenders  - the majority convicted of non-violent crimes - destined for the new facilities were offered treatment and counselling programmes instead.

 

The coalition argues that the $33.4 million saved could be diverted to prevent the university eliminating 16 programmes.  It has called on the university president to take a stand against the governor’s plans.

 

The state’s prison budget is currently $600 million per year. Between 1980 and 2000 Arizona’s spending on education decreased by 11 per cent per resident while the prison budget rocketed 140 per cent with the building of nine prison complexes. Over the same period the state’s incarceration rate increased from 160 per 100,000 to 507 per 100,000. “Imprisonment does little to treat the root causes of drug abuse or drunk driving. There are alternatives that are not only more effective in rehabilitating substance abusers - which in turn decreases future crime rates - but actually cost less,” said Professor Andy Silverman, director of clinical studies.

Education not Incarceration, c/o Caroline Isaacs, American Friends Service Committee, Tucson. Tel: ++ 520 623 9141. Email: afscazcj@azstarnet.com Internet: www.afsc.org/az.htm

n A proposal to build and operate a private prison in Mexico so that the State of Arizona can cut its costs has been raised again. In 1997 Arizona wanted to transfer up to 1,600 Mexican prisoners across the border to a private prison to be built in Sonora (see PPRI #9).  However, the plan did not get off the ground due to legal and constitutional concerns on both sides of the border.

 

Until early November 2002 Terry Stewart was the state of Arizona’s corrections director. He left to set up his own consulting and prison management firm, Advanced Correctional Management.  On 31 October, while a group of Mexican  congressmen were touring the state’s private prisons (see PPRI # 49) Mr Stewart suggested to them that an Arizona prison built in Mexico would save about 50 per cent in construction and operation costs to hold some 3,145 Mexican nationals currently in its prisons. The legal and constitutional issues for both jurisdictions that existed in 1997 are still relevant. However, these issues will be studied again.

 

CSC corruption  probe

 

Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) is being investigated by the State of New York’s lobbying commission, board of elections and legislative ethics committee  as well as Manhattan’s district attorney’s office  over the company’s lobbying activities (see PPRI #45-42, 36, 30, 26, 24,21,14 &3).

 

            Former Brooklyn Assemblywoman Gloria Davis, a democrat, has admitted receiving free, chauffer-driven transport from CSC from 1998 to March 2002. The Manhattan district attorney’s office alleges that this was in exchange for her help with CSC’s attempts to win state contracts. Bronx Assemblyman Roger Green, also a democrat, has admitted receiving free transport from CSC but denies any wrongdoing.  The company’s three lobbying statements for 2000 and 2001- filing is a legal requirement - did not disclose the provision of transport o Assemblyman Davis.

 

The lobbying commission is investigating whether CSC provided services to other state lawmakers. Meanwhile, the ethics commission is in possession of a federal report alleging that CSC provided campaign workers and other help to New York politicians during the 1990s.

 

Since 1992 CSC has had corrections contracts worth $35.4 million with the state. The company also operates two half way houses in New York for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  In 1997 the company was found to have over-contributed to politicians. In 2001 it gave $10,650 to political campaigns in New York. Florida-based CSC operates 12 facilities with some 4,500 beds and has been selling property assets in order to reduce its debt. The company ownsYouth Services International which operates 23 facilities and is a leading  provider of juvenile programmes for adjudicated youths in the US.

 

High staff turnover at CCA facilities

 

Staff turnover at Corrections Corporation of America’s (CCA) facilities in Tennessee compares poorly with state run facilities (see PPRI #51-1). In the past three years, the average turnover at CCA’s Hardeman County Correctional Facility was 83 per cent; Silverdale Workhouse averaged 66 per cent; and the South Central Correctional Facility averaged  63 per cent. According to official figures, the average turnover for the same period at state run Brushy Mountain prison was seven per cent and 38 per cent at the Tennessee Prison for Women.

 

COSTA RICA

No decision yet

 

Costa Rica’s constitutional court has not yet made a decision in a case brought by the Omudsman (Defensor de los Habitantes) opposing a government  proposal to contract out custodial services in a new prison (see PPRI #51, 49-46 & 42). If the court decides that contracting out is unconstitutional, it is likely that the 1,200 bed prison, to be built at Pococi, will be operated on a semi-private basis. The government has been negotiating a contract with Utah-based Management & Training Corporation (MTC).

 

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

 

Capitalist Punishment: Prison Privatization & Human Rights, Eds: A.Coyle, A. Campbell & R. Neufeld, Clarity Press, Atlanta, www.claritypress.com and Zed Books, London, www.zedbooks.demon.co.uk

 

This book covers a range of issues relating to private prisons and includes chapters on the US, Australia, UK, Canada and Africa. “ As the authors ... so strongly argue, the profit motive of  privately operated prisons in the US and elsewhere has fostered a situation in which the rights and needs of prisoners and the direct responsibility of states for the treatment of those they deprive of freedom are diminished in the name of greater efficiency... the publication is a valuable contribution to the debate on this important subject.” Sir Nigel Rodley, former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

 

Using Inmate Data in Assessing Prison Performance: A Case Study Comparing Private and Public Prisons, Scott D. Camp, Gerald G. Gaes, Jody Klein-Saffran, Dawn M. Daggett and William G. Saylor, Criminal Justice Review, Volume 27, No. 1, Spring 2002, Georgia State University.

Comparing Taft Correctional Institution in California, run for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation with nine FBOP-run facilities the authors were “ not able to conclude that on the whole Taft did better or worse than the BOP comparison prisons. Instead the most general conclusion is that Taft did worse in some areas but not in others ...” and that “... given the relative ease and convenience of data collection, the low expense ... and the favourable measurement properties associated with inmate survey data, we ... argue for using performance measures generated from inmate survey data as part of a more comprehensive strategy for comparing prisons.”

 

What the privateers won’t tell you, 8th Edition, January - June 2002, Corrections USA, www.cusa.org

A collection of predominantly US media coverage of the private prison industry.

 

The At-Risk Youth Industry by Eyal Press and Jennifer Washburn, Atlantic Monthly, December 2002, www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/12/press.htm

The article focuses on the US companies which, claim the authors, neither rehabilitate juveniles nor make money.

 

Not With Our Money! www.notwithourmoney.org/index.html

The new website of NWOM!, a network of student and community activists campaigning against private prisons. The site includes campaign information, resources and links.

 

Record of Investigation Into Death of Frank Weston at Port Phillip Prison, Case No. 2075/00, State Coroner Victoria, Australia, 28 November 2002

Mr Weston died from the toxic effects of methadone at this Group 4-run prison in July 2000. The evidence “ ... does not enable one to say who provided such methadone. Preventative safeguards have now been implemented to prevent a recurrence of any death in circumstances akin to those set out in this finding.”

 

Partners in Public Service, Fall/Winter 2002, APCTO, www.apcto.org

The current newsletter from the Association of Private Correctional & Treatment Organizations includes a snapshot of its lobbying activities on behalf of the private prison industry.

 

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