Prison
Privatisation Report International
No. 56, June
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
Weapons and
drugs at Group 4's Port Phillip Prison
The discovery of a pistol, ammunition, drugs and
syringes in a prisoner’s cell at Group 4's maximum security Port Phillip Prison
in Victoria has led to department of corrections, police, and company
investigations into security breaches. It has also raised concerns about the
imbalance of power in the contracts between the government and Victoria’s two
private prison operators (see PPRI #
51-49, 45, 42, 37-34 & 28-15).
The
weapons find occurred during a lock down on 7 May 2003. The following day
another prisoner was found with three mobile phones and a digital camera in his
cell. According to the Herald Sun, 17
May 2003, a subsequent sweep of Port Phillip filled several laundry bags with
banned material, including weapons and drugs. The newspaper also reported that
the prison has “generated more than one third of the 300 reportable prison incidents
referred to the police this year.”
On
8 May 2003, in an interview with ABC radio, minister for corrections Andre
Haermeyer said: “...the contracts … have been written, I think, very much in favour
of the operators, and whilst we have renegotiated some of the service delivery
outcomes with the new operators and that’s costing us some more, we can’t
simply step in and take over the prison. We have contractual obligations and it
is only where there are serious and repeated material defaults against the
contract that we can actually step in.” The interview continued:
ABC presenter: How many times do you have
to find a loaded gun in a prison for you to say this is a serious fault with
the system and we are going to have to review the contract? Isn’t once enough?
Minister: Well, no, it isn’t, under
the contract, no, because you have to understand that the contracts that were
entered into by the previous government actually allowed things like one escape
before you could default the prison on escapes. So these are the sort of things
that are just totally unacceptable.
ABC presenter: They’re something you’ve
inherited from the previous government?
Minister: It is. And it leaves us
with a great lack of flexibility in terms of how we can manage the system. To give
the prison operators some credit, they have lifted their game considerably and
I think -
ABC presenter: Because they needed to.
Minister: Oh, they very much needed
to. And I think we sent that message very clearly when we stepped in and took
over the women’s prison. But ... and they have also been quite cooperative in
trying ... what we are trying to do with them at the moment ... is to more
closely integrate them into a single corrections system, whereas what we’ve had
is effectively three systems, with each of the privates operating a sort of
completely different set of rules within their own walls.
The Community and Public
Sector Union (CPSU), which represents Port Phillip staff, would prefer the
government to take a tougher stance. Speaking on ABC radio on 22 May 2003
Julian Kennelly of the CPSU said: “One of the major complaints of our members
is that the management just do not manage, and effectively they’re left to
their own devices to try and run the prison and manage extremely difficult
circumstances with the huge number of prisoners that effectively reside in that
facility.” He also said that the company’s
behaviour
probably warranted the government taking control of the prison but he was “well
aware of the restrictions that exist, or the limitations with the way that the
contracts have been structured with their operation and the difficulties that
face the government in being able to move straight in.”
n The death of prisoner Glenn
Whelan from heroin toxicity at Port Phillip Prison on or about 5 September 2000
has led Victoria state coroner, Iain West, to comment that “ … whilst the
strategies involving detection, deterrence and treatment are commendable, the
evidence is clear that drugs remain endemic in the prison system. The
implementation of detailed procedures for searching cells, staff, prisons,
vehicles, visitors, buildings and grounds has not prevented the carriage and
trafficking of drugs at Port Phillip Prison. The court acknowledges that the
problem is not unique to Port Phillip and that it occurs in both public and
private prison systems.”
However, in his findings
published on 27 May 2003, the coroner also noted that “a review of the
deceased’s management highlights two issues of concern: his placement in … an
adjacent cell to a known drug user and the failure to carry out a direction
that his cell be searched on 4 September … the prison operations manager’s
response when challenged as to the appropriateness of the placement was ‘They’re
in the same unit so any dealing with drugs that was going to occur would have
occurred anyway, as once they’re in the unit they’ve got all day to do it and
once they’re locked up at night it really doesn’t make that much difference
that they’re in adjacent cells.’ The coroner’s view was that “ … it proved
that adjacent cell placement was imprudent. Nevertheless, it cannot be said
that had the deceased been placed elsewhere he outcome would have been
prevented.”
He also commented that: “ …
the prisons operations manager on the evening of 4 September [2000] directed
that the Prison Tactical Operations Group search the deceased’s cell …
curiously, cells of other prisoners were searched but not that of the deceased …
this failure to carry out the direction was said to have occurred by reason of
human error, that the direction from the operations manager had been
misunderstood. It was submitted on behalf of Group 4 that had these searches
been conducted, they would not necessarily have resulted in drugs being found,
with the point being made that the deceased’s door was jammed, which would
result in delayed entry and provide the opportunity for disposal. While this
submission has merit, so does the submission put on behalf of the family. While
conceding that the search may or may not have located drugs, had they been
found or disposed of the deceased might still be alive. Speculation as to the
outcome however, is unhelpful. What is important is that mechanisms be put in place
that includes staff accountability to ensure managerial directions are
implemented.”
State Coroner of
Victoria, Record of Investigation into Death, Case No: 2878/00, 27 May 2003
n Port Phillip opened in 1997
and was the third of Victoria’s private prisons. The first, the Metropolitan
Women’s Correctional Centre, was taken over by the government in 2000 after
four years of persistent operational problems. The government spent A$22m on
buying the contracts from Corrections Corporation of Australia (see PPRI # 37 & 35).
Nurses file
lawsuit against ACM
Fifteen nurses formerly employed by Australasian
Correctional Management (ACM) at the Woomera immigration detention centre in
South Australia have launched a class action lawsuit against the company. The
nurses are seeking damages for pain and suffering and loss of pay. They allege
that ACM was negligent and in breach of its statutory duty. One of the
claimants alleges she suffered psychiatric injury as a result of being exposed
to intimidation, verbal abuse and victimisation. The lawsuit was filed in the
South Australian District Court on 20 May 2003.
Woomera
closed in April 2003 after three years characterised by riots, breakouts, vandalism,
suicide attempts by detainees and staff shortages. In June 2003 ACM is due to
be replaced as the operator of Australia’s detention centres by Group 4.
However, if the federal government’s negotiations with Group 4 are not
completed by then, ACM’s contract might be extended. Further, if negotiations
with Group 4 are not successful then ACM can still be considered as the only
other qualified tenderer. In the year ended 31 December 2002, ACM’s contract
for the immigration detention centres generated approximately 10% of ACM owner
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s revenue.
n The federal government’s
department of immigration has launched an internal inquiry into alleged
contract breaches by ACM at Woomera. This follows ABC television’s Four Corners programme on 19 May 2003
that included secretly filmed footage at Woomera as well as former employees
alleging that ACM misled the government about staffing levels and contract
performance. The company has denied any impropriety. The immigration minister
has admitted that ACM has been financially penalised for failing to meet contract
obligations but he has provided no further details. The Commonwealth
Ombudsman’s office is finalising a report after initiating its own inquiry into
conditions at ACM-run immigration detention centers. ACM also runs Fulham
Correctional Centre in Melbourne, Victoria. In response to the allegations
about the company’s operations at Woomera, Victoria’s minister for corrections
issued a statement on 26 May saying that ACM would be subject to probity checks
by the department of justice. The minister has also written to the federal
immigration minister asking to be kept fully informed about his department’s
investigations into ACM.
Staff at Australasian Correctional Management (ACM)
- run Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre in Brisbane, Queensland have won pay
increases of up to 14.25%. (see PPRI #55). The Australian Liquor
Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU), which represents some 300
prison staff, has finalised a three year agreement with ACM that includes: pay
rises of between 9.5% and 14.25% over three years; 48 hours extra annual leave
or pay in kind; and an increase in the minimum call in time from two to four
hours. ACM only agreed the increases after the union took industrial action.
Public/private
pay differences
Wages and benefits for most staff in private prisons
in England and Wales lag behind their public sector counterparts. However,
private sector managers are better off. A confidential survey carried out by
consultants for the prison service for use in recent negotiations over public
sector pay awards found that:
n starting pay for operational
support grades and prison officers in the private sector is around 15% and 22%
less than the public sector;
n average pay for operational
support grades is more than 20 per cent less than the public sector;
n average pay for prison
officers and senior officers is over 50 per cent less than the public sector;
n at both principal
officer/middle manager and head of function levels private sector pay is around
10% higher than the public sector;
n at governor/director level,
private sector pay is significantly higher;
n the value of the prison
service pension and holiday benefits significantly increases the already
considerable lead over private sector salaries at senior officer level and
below.
The survey also found that,
at private prisons opened since 1998, staff turnover is around 35%. In the year
ended 30 June 2002, turnover in the public sector was just 5.3% with
resignation rates at only 2.6%. Average weekly contracted hours in the private
sector are 41 compared with 39 in the public sector.
Premier Prisons, the operator of the 800 bed
Dovegate prison was fined £426,597 for accruing penalty points in the first
nine months of 2002. The Staffordshire, central England facility opened in July
2001and is Premier’s most recently opened prison.
n Dovegate is the only
privately operated prison in the UK that has a performance bonus linked to
reducing reoffending rates. Premier can be paid a bonus if prisoners in its 200
bed therapeutic community undertake 15 months therapy and do not reoffend
within 12 months of release. This unit opened in November 2001 and, according
to a statement by the prisons minister on 17 March 2003, “there has been
insufficient time for a bonus to become payable …”
n “One consequence of the
priority accorded to fiscal interests by both the State ... and the private
sector is that the line between the public interest and private interests
becomes blurred. Though security dangers are endemic to prisons, cost cutting
aimed at reducing public expenditure and maximising profits can exacerbate
these problems. So, fundamental decisions concerning public safety get made
with an eye to the bottom line ... as long as fiscal interests predominate,
instead of being realised, opportunities for innovation will be lost.” Privatisation and Innovation-Rhetoric and
Reality:The Development of a Therapeutic Community Prison, Elaine Genders, The
Howard Journal Vol. 42 No. 2, May 2003, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, UK. Since 1997 the author has been an advisor to
the prison service on the therapeutic community element of the privately
financed, designed, built and operated Dovegate prison.
Chief
inspector reports on Securicor’s Parc prison
The chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales
has made 165 recommendations for improvements and noted 16 examples of good
practice at Securicor-run Parc prison at Bridgend in Wales (see PPRI # 48, 44 - 42, 38, 34, 30, 29, 23
& 21-18).
Parc opened in November 1997
and was the UK’s first privately financed, designed, built and operated prison
to open. It is still the company’s only prison contract in the UK. The
unannounced inspection by the chief inspector of prisons was carried out in
September 2002. However, Parc’s new juvenile unit was not inspected. In her
report published in May 2003, the chief inspector “ …found a number of areas
that needed to be addressed.” These included:
n “active engagement with
prisoners needed to be evident on the prison’s main residential units ... staff
need to motivate and work with prisoners. This was not apparent throughout the
prisons: for example in resolving prisoners’ problems or in managing the small
numbers of prisoners on the basic regime.
Crucially, there was no effective personal officer scheme;
n ...we did not believe that there
was sufficient staff engagement with prisoners in the important early stages of
custody: reception, first night and induction. ... there was little personal
intervention and risk assessments for cell sharing for adult and young adult
prisoners could be carried out up to a week after they had entered the prison,
and after they had been sharing cells;
n this raises questions about
the management, support and number of staff. Staffing levels at Parc are low;
but this was not assisted by profiles which did not properly reflect the work
now being undertaken. During the inspection, we found that at times a single
officer was unlocking a number of prisoners for movement to work or exercise.
On a positive note, this emphasises the relaxed and unthreatened approach of
staff to prisoners. However, it is an unsafe practice, both for prisoners and
staff. The Director had instructed that this should not happen; but staff told
us that they believed they were unable to operate the regime without it;
n new profiles and, if
necessary, additional staff, are urgently needed to ensure that levels of
safety are maintained at Parc, and that staff have sufficient time to engage
positively with prisoners;
n prisoners at Parc had much
greater access to association and activity than in most other local prisons,
and the Prison Service Controller and Director were working to ensure that the
regime met contractual standards. However, there were areas where the contract
requirements lagged behind, or did not fully reflect, current thinking about
the purpose of activity and work. The contract essentially focused on the
quantity of time out of cell and activity, rather than its quality;
n increasingly, we and our
Adult Learning Inspectorate colleagues focus on the quality and relevance of
what is provided: whether work increases employability and qualifications, and
whether association without purpose is necessary if prisoners are fully engaged
throughout the working day. This report notes the absence of NVQs and key
skills in workshops, and industries that do not necessarily provide useful
employment skills;
n it appeared that the
contractual requirements were seen as an inflexible framework that stifled new
developments;
n there had been ongoing
problems with the retention of prison custody officers and, at the time of this
inspection, there was a shortfall of seven;
n additionally, extra work had
been taken on without adjustment to the officers’ working patterns, with the
result that staff were frequently being required to work through their breaks,
were often redeployed to other areas of the prison and it was not unusual for
prisoners to be unlocked by a lone officer. Management had been aware of these
problems and of the need to re-profile the work of the prison for some time.
The contract with the Prison Service was in need of review and, if necessary,
amendment to ensure that it could accommodate additional work or revised
requirements. Staff were reasonably understanding of the situation but there
were indications that their patience would soon be exhausted if remedial action
was not taken. Any loss of goodwill on the part of staff would inevitably have
an impact on outcomes for prisoners;
n Parc was fundamentally a safe and respectful prison, although the level
of engagement between staff and prisoners on the main wings was not as high as
in the smaller units. There were some unresolved staffing issues within both
the main prison and the healthcare centre that had the potential to impact
adversely on the quality of delivery to prisoners. There was evidence of some
excellent and progressive work in some areas but there were insufficient
activity places, inadequate use of sentence planning to direct prisoners’
progress and the resettlement function was not properly integrated across the
work of the whole establishment;
n the initial holding cells
were small and darkly painted; only two benefited from natural light. Every
prisoner was locked into one on arrival. They contained only a wooden bench and
were totally bare of anything else. With only a small viewing ‘flap’ in the
cell doors, prisoners held there were not visible unless admissions staff
purposefully looked through the ‘flap’. There was no direct access to toilet
facilities from the cells. We believe that these cells could contribute to a
feeling of alienation, claustrophobia and increased anxiety levels for some
prisoners, especially those who are young or ‘first timers’. We do not believe
that they were conducive to a welcoming environment;
n risk assessments of trainees
were carried out on the juvenile unit within two hours of their arrival. This
was commendable, although we were concerned that ASSET forms rarely arrived
with the young person, making accurate risk assessment difficult or impossible;
n both the large holding rooms
were clean and well maintained, containing bench seating around the walls and a
central fixed table and chairs. The windows and doors of the rooms, which faced
into the admissions area, were fitted with glass. Although this should have allowed staff to view those inside
easily, it appeared to be only partially successful. Ligature points were
available and easily accessed in the rooms and there was no access to toilet
facilities. We noted prisoners smoking in these rooms despite clearly-displayed
‘no smoking’ signs;
n neither room contained
information in any form or anything to help a prisoner pass the time. There was
no literature or television. A television can be used for entertainment but can
also be used to show video information about the prison routines and activities
and the support services available. This is particularly useful to prisoners
with reading difficulties. A display of information was mounted on a notice
board within the admissions area but we did not see prisoners directed to, or
reading, its contents;
n we saw little evidence of
officers proactively helping prisoners to pursue their legal rights ... current
practice was, we felt, a poor substitute for prompt and efficient legal
services support;
n unemployed prisoners [in the
young prisoner wings] were not provided with any activity and often spent their
days in bed. Staff had adopted the practice of unlocking groups of prisoners by
a single officer in order to deliver the regime on time;
n the prison had two
counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare (CARAT) workers, one
for the adult population and the other for young offenders. These staff were
contracted in from two separate community-based agencies, which had struggled
to provide a consistent service to the prison, particularly in covering for
staff absences. We were told that, when the contracts were re-tendered at the
start of April 2003, it was hoped to use one large organisation that could
provide adequate cover and support arrangements. The CARAT staff were unable to
see all those referred to them and had to prioritise according to need and
length of sentence remaining. This was unsatisfactory as many prisoners who
needed the service were missed, particularly those on remand or serving short
sentences;
n the prison employed a number
of counsellors who offered one-to-one sessions with prisoners dealing with a
variety of problems, including sexual abuse, bereavement and other personal
issues. These counsellors, while not specifically targeting those with
substance use problems, saw many prisoners whose use of drugs and alcohol were
intrinsic to their personal problems. It was difficult, however, to determine
the impact of their service on drug use and related offending or to quantify
their contribution to the drug strategy;
n the inputs into the
[substance-related offending] programme were impressive and it was well
supported by the prison management. This gave it an excellent environment from
which to work and, if its theoretical basis was sound, would be reflected in
its outcome targets of substantially reducing offending and substance use among
participants. This had yet to be demonstrated;
n various practical
shortcomings were identified about the visits area itself and the operation of
the telephone system needed to be improved. Despite the Director’s
reservations, it is unacceptable for an establishment the size of Parc not to
have a visitors’ centre and there appeared to be a lack of clarity about which
agency should lead on this matter;
n at the time of our
inspection, the senior medical officer was suspended and the medical officer
was on long-term sick leave. Three doctors worked on a rota basis, with locum
doctors filling other sessions mainly at the weekends. This arrangement ensured
that there should be a doctor available from 8am until 9pm. One of these
doctors was on call over-night. The doctors were generally inexperienced in
working with prisoners. One of the regular doctors did not have a qualification
in general practice. He only spent four mornings in the prison.
HM
Inspectorate of Prisons, Report on a Full Unannounced Inspection of HMP Parc,
9-13 September 2002, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmipris/hmipris.htm
Securicor accrued penalties to the value of £1,020,144 between Parc’s opening in 1997
and the three months ended January 2001. This included a penalty of £750,000
imposed on the company in November 1998. Neither fact is news (see PPRI
#30). But according to the prisons minister, the £750,000 penalty was waived by
the prison service “to take account of early problems with contract
monitoring.”
The waiving of this and
other operators’ penalties was revealed on 6 May 2003 when the minister
answered a parliamentary question. Other penalties waived were £11,865 in
February 2000 at Premier’s Lowdham Grange prison in central England (see PPRI
#36); and £303,039 in November 1998 at Group 4's Altcourse prison in north west
England (see PPRI #42, 36, 29 & 26). As at Parc, Altcourse’s
penalties were waived because of problems with contract monitoring while
Lowdham Grange’s penalty was waived “in return for a commitment from the
contractor to provide additional services beyond the requirements in the
contract.”
Serco to buy
Group 4's stake in Premier
British facilities management company Serco is due
to become the owner of Premier Prisons’ UK operations comprising Premier
Custodial Group Ltd and subsidiaries (see PPRI #55, 50, 49, 47 &
44).
Until 6 May 2002 Premier was
owned 50-50 by Serco and a British subsidiary of US firm Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation (WCC). Then Group 4 Falck bought WCC’s parent company, The
Wackenhut Corporation, becoming the majority shareholder in WCC and,
consequently, a 50 per cent owner of Premier. Serco took legal action against
Wackenhut arguing that the company should have sold its interest in Premier to
Serco rather than a third party. Wackenhut then started legal action against
Serco. That case was settled on 7 May 2003 after it was announced that WCC is
to buy out Group 4's 57 per cent stake. Now there will be an independent
evaluation of Premier’s UK operations as Serco will pay 90 per cent of the fair
market value to WCC.
Let’s
transform the private sector
The prison service for England and Wales has
restructured in order to separate out responsibility for the public and private
sectors. The former director general, Mr Martin Narey, is now Correctional
Services Commissioner and he has overall charge of the newly created Office for
Contracted Prisons that is responsible for private prisons. Under the headline ‘help
us transform the running of private prisons’ a recent newspaper advertisement
invited applicants for the new post of deputy assistant director, correctional
services, office for contracted prisons.
“In addition to contributing to our strategic policy, you will supervise
operational advisors, play a lead role in investigations and occasionally
manage incidents in place of the assistant director...” The salary range of
£42,486-£59,387 is offered for “the chance to shape this exciting new area for
the UK’s prisons.”
“... if you
passed you passed: if you failed you passed ...
"Specifically there was evidence from a prison officer who passed the tests set and from a prison officer who did not. The prison officer who did not pass gave evidence (that was not contradicted by other evidence) that he was then told the answers to the questions. He then passed with a mark of 100%. In effect, if you passed you passed: if you failed you passed (because you would be given the answers).”
This
description of how new staff were allegedly examined is an extract from legal
submissions behalf of the family of prisoner James Barclay to a Fatal Accident
Inquiry. Mr Barclay was found hanging at Premier Prisons - run Bowhouse Prison,
Kilmarnock in January 2002 (see PPRI
#55, 52, 51, 49-47, 44, 43, 40, 37 & 36). The Inquiry concluded in May and
the Sheriff is due publish his findings.
These
submissions - based largely on evidence heard at the Inquiry - summarise
alleged practices at Scotland’s only privately financed, designed, built and
operated prison. Mr Barclay’s family alleged that failures on the part of the
prison had a material part to play in their son’s death. Although he had hanged himself the legal
submissions note that:
n the deceased was in a
vulnerable state in difficult circumstances. He was given to understand that he
would receive a certain standard of care: in particular that he could expect to
be observed, with a view to ensuring his well being, at about intervals of half
an hour during the night. This did not happen;
n there was evidence to the
effect that the deceased ‘was told that he required to be viewed very half
hour’ and medical evidence that ‘the fact that he was not viewed every half
hour’ would have a negative effect upon him;
n this negative effect was a
material factor in the events leading to the death of the deceased;
n the deceased was told he
would be ‘checked’: he was not checked. The deceased took steps that led to his
death - unchecked;
n … the failure on the part of
Bowhouse Prison to keep adequate records and given the fact that records were
altered after the event (specifically the time when the deceased was found) it
is difficult to say exactly what happened and when;
n prior to his discovery in
distress the deceased had not been observed for two hours and 29 minutes.
The
family also alleged that defects in the prison's system of working contributed
to the death and the accident resulting in his death:
n no ‘management mind’ was
applied to follow-up once forms were drawn up and procedures created;
n there was an overemphasis in
the prison on appearance at the expense of prisoner care. One example of this
was the evidence of two prison officers in charge of the prisoners, including
the deceased, on the night the deceased died, that they had been ordered to
take time away from their duties ... to decorate part of the prison because of
an impending visit by VIPs;
n the Pegging System (whereby
an officer on his or her rounds ‘clocked in’ as they went by stations)
automatically produced a record of stations missed. Those whose job it was to
do the rounds missed pegging stations regularly. The prison officers did not make
their rounds as they were bound to do on the night in questions. This was the
norm. Such omissions were common practice. Officers knew that no one would
follow up if they missed a station. It may reasonably be inferred that officers
missed stations because they knew there would be no follow up;
n there was a CCTV camera
system in operation that produced clear evidence of whether prisoners (such as the deceased) were observed as the
Watch Levels required. The officers on duty knew they were being observed and
that there was a record of their activity (and inactivity). They knew too, from
experience, that there would be no come back if they failed to carry out their
duties, no follow up from management. It may reasonably be inferred that
officers did not observe prisoners, such as the deceased, because they knew
there would be no follow up;
n record keeping was
inadequate. There are two main items of paperwork that provide a safety record
and framework for the care of a prisoner ...the evidence from the officers on
duty the night in question was that the systems purportedly in place were not adhered
to and that no one senior to them ever took issue with them or others in this
connection ...;
n the nurse who assessed the
deceased gave conflicting evidence ... (Q.
Why did you give clear answers and then change your evidence? A: I was confused...Q:Why did you so readily agree and now
- more or less - change your evidence completely? A: I don’t know.)
n ... the bottom line is that
the staff that assessed the deceased just didn’t know enough - there was
substantial confusion ...;
n the director’s rules provided
that the deceased be seen by a qualified mental health nurse. There was no such
nurse available to assess the deceased. This was the norm.
Counsel
for the family also argued that the death and the events leading to the death
of Mr Barclay might have been avoided if Bowhouse Prison had taken reasonable
precautions contained in the rules laid down for the running of the prison and
if the prison encouraged staff to adhere to the rules. He summed up thus: the
one big fact that is evident when the whole smaller facts are added up is that
there was an evident disregard for prisoners ... it would be going too far to
say that there was a ‘callous’ disregard for the welfare of the prisoners on
the part of the staff, they worked within a system that left them with
responsibility untrammeled by accountability, but there was a calculated
disregard on the part of those who ran Bowhouse Prison. They either knew about
the standard of care that was being provided and decided to do nothing or they
did not and decided not to find out ... standards which were low to begin with
(following the training) deteriorated (in practice).
Texas
privatisation plans stymied
Radical proposals for expanding prison privatisation
in Texas have been stymied both by intense opposition and lack of legislative
time (see PPRI #55).
Attempts
to extend privatisation to the entire state jail division - which would have
expanded the prison system by 5,000 beds (all private) and virtually eliminated
monitoring of private facilities - were defeated during a debate in May about a
wider bill aimed at restructuring state services. Other proposals included:
eliminating the minimum/maximum terms for length of contracts with private
vendors; cutting the required cost savings to the state for a private prison
contract from 10% to only 5%; lifting the cap on the total number of private
prison (as opposed to state jail or county jail) beds in Texas from 4,580 to
unlimited; eliminating any cap on the size of individual private facilities (currently
set at 1,000); allowing the state to negotiate away to private vendors up to
99.9% of profits from revenue-generating programmes; and setting up a new
Commission on Private Initiative which would be able to cherry-pick which units
it wanted to privatise in the future.
After
a coalition of criminal justice reform groups and trade unions lobbied against
the proposals legislators were due to vote in early June on a compromise, to
hold a state-wide independent inquiry into privatisation at a cost to taxpayers
of $250,000. But this - and the entire restructuring bill - fell by the
wayside. There is, however, a possibility that the prison privatisation
proposals could reappear in the January 2005 legislative session or in special
session before then. Contact: Michele
Deitch, Center for Criminal Justice Initiatives, Austin, Texas.
Email:MYDeitch@aol.com
Presbyterian
Church acts to abolish private prisons
The 215th General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church USA on 30 May 2003 passed a resolution calling for the
abolition of all for-profit private prisons. “We have ... trusted the oversight
of this responsibility to our governmental leaders. This must continue to be
their responsibility; it cannot be delegated from the public to the private
sector. However, the shortage of funds that many governments are experiencing
makes them receptive to offers from the private sector to build and/or operate
their prisons. Since the goal of
for-profit prisons is earning a profit for their shareholders, there is a basic
and fundamental conflict with the concept of rehabilitation as the ultimate
goal of the prison system. We believe that this is a glaring and significant
flaw in our justice system and that for-profit prisons should be abolished,”
noted the rationale for the resolution.
Not
only did the Assembly approve a comprehensive report detailing the rationale
for opposing private prisons, it also agreed to a series of far reaching
actions including:
n working towards
comprehensive federal legislation to completely and permanently ban all
for-profit private prisons, jails and detention centres from the US;
n intervening to prevent the
renewal of current federal government contracts with for-profit private prison
corporations;
n consulting and coordinating
with other denominations, as well as with ecumenical and interfaith groups, to
advocate for the permanent abolition of for-profit prisons;
n providing information to
other levels of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to educate them on the issue and
to encourage their participation in the campaign;
n urging middle governing
bodies and members of local congregations to work for state, county and/or
municipal legislation and administrative actions that eliminate particular
elements of the for profit private prison system pending its ultimate abolition
by federal law.
As
well as numerous other activities, the resolution also called on the Mission
Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MIRTI) to explore with the General
Assembly investing strategies to lead Lehman Brothers to discontinue the
practice of providing investment capital for building of for-profit private
prisons (see PPRI #44).
The full text
of the ‘Rationale for the Resolution Calling for the Abolition of For Profit
Private Prisons’ is on the internet at www.pcusa.org/generalassembly
In April 2003, Southern Catholic Bishops called for
an end to for profit prisons in the US. Set out below is an extract from their
statement.
We note with apprehension
the rise of for-profit private prisons in the South and in the nation. The
focus of this statement is the private prison industry. Recent reports by the
U.S. Department of Justice indicate that prisons operated by private
corporations house over 100,000 prisoners in our country.
Private prisons have become
more prevalent because our nation is putting growing numbers of people behind
bars, governments are facing the rising costs of incarceration as with all
public services, and there is increasing political pressure to privatise many
government services.
We are concerned about the
rise in for-profit private prisons because previous attempts to introduce the
profit motive into prisons have failed to respect the fundamental human dignity
of every prisoner.
We recognise the fundamental
human dignity of prisoners and are troubled by the documented level of violence
against prisoners in private prisons.
We recognise the inherent
dignity of labor and are troubled by the working conditions and wages of those
entrusted with the care of prisoners in private facilities.
In order to reduce costs and
maximise profits, private prisons redistribute their operational costs, with
less money going to those employees who work directly with prisoners and more
to executives and shareholders. We do not agree that paying private prison
staff lower wages than public employees receive, or cutting their numbers,
advances the common good or just treatment of prisoners.
We note that some state and
local governments have canceled private prison contracts because of
insufficient staff and mismanagement.
We question whether private
prisons have the incentive to assist people not to return to prison. In
addition to removing people from the community for the safety of the community,
one of the stated purposes of prison is to prepare the people who are in prison
for reintegration into the community once their sentences have been served.
Almost everyone in prison is
re-entering our communities at some point. We are concerned that cutting staff
and reducing wages in order to protect profit margins is in conflict with the
need to respect and rehabilitate prisoners. We are even more deeply troubled
that the private prison industry has actively supported institutions that lobby
for harsher sentencing laws, which increase the prison population.
Since it appears that
private prisons are not consistent with the need for our prisons to respect the
human dignity of each and every person, we call for an end to all for-profit
private prisons.
The trend towards more and
more people being held in private prisons should be reversed immediately. We
call on all levels of government to refuse to sign new contracts or to renew
expiring ones with private prison corporations.
As long as private prisons
continue to exist, they need to be held fully accountable. While private
prisons continue, there needs to be independent, thorough, and systematic
oversight of their operation by government.
Our region and our nation
must change the policies that are putting so many of our people in prison.
Imprisonment for profit would not have arisen again if our nation's prison
population had not been expanded so radically. While the U.S. now leads the
entire world in rate of incarceration, our southern states lead the nation. The
seven states with the highest incarceration rates are in the South. Sentencing
must be reformed and alternative sentences employed so that justice rather than
profit is served.
MTC
executive’s six month stint
Utah-based Management & Training Corporation’s
(MTC) director of corrections business development, Mr Lane McCotter, has
joined a criminal justice reconstruction team in Iraq (see PPRI #54). Mr McCotter will work with the team, which is under the
direction of the US department of justice, for six months during which time he
is on a leave of absence from MTC.
MTC
refers to itself as the third largest privatised corrections operator in the
world with 14 facilities in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas in the
US as well as management contracts in Canada and Australia. The company has
also been negotiating with the government of Costa Rica for a new prison
contract (see PPRI #52, 51, 49-46
& 42). MTC is also a leading member of the private prison industry lobby
group the Association of Private Correctional & Treatment Organisations
(APCTO, see PPRI # 54, 50, 46-44, 40
& 37).
n MTC has recently advertised
for a new director, international marketing to “develop marketing resources and
new international business opportunities in future contracts”. MTC wants the
potential post holder to be “bilingual in Spanish in related field ...”
Officially, the tendering process for a semi-private prison at Be'er Sheva is continuing and the names of approved pre-qualification bidders are due to be announced on 18 June 2003 (see PPRI # 52, 45, 43 & 34). But Israeli human rights organisations are concerned that a combination of government austerity measures and the private sector's preference for full privatisation will lead to custodial services also being contracted out.
Four new
prisons
Four ‘new generation’ prisons are to be commissioned
in South Africa (see PPRI # 54, 52,
51, 46, 42, 38, 36, 34, 30, 23, 20, etc). However, any decision about any
extent of private sector involvement in these projects is some way off. The
department of correctional services is appointing advisors to carry out a
feasibility study into comparative costs. This study is expected to take
between three and six months, after which a decision will be made.
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