Prison Privatisation Report
International
No. 57, Aug/Sept 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
| UNITED STATES | AUSTRALIA |
| ITALY | UNITED KINGDOM |
| HUNGARY | ZAMBIA |
| JAPAN | RECENT PUBLICATIONS |
Tennessee audit critical of
state and CCA
Despite
“numerous instances of non-compliance” with contracts at Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA)-run facilities in Tennessee, the department of
corrections “failed to assess liquidated damages against CCA” a state audit has
found.
In an audit by the comptroller of
the treasury, the largest private prison operator in the US failed to comply
with provisions dealing with the number of staff on duty, staff training and
qualifications, and medical treatment provided to prisoners. The audit covered
1997-2002
The auditors stated: “By allowing the contractor to fail to comply with agreed-upon terms without negative consequences, the department [of corrections] has not ensured that the state is getting the level of service it has paid for and that the citizens of the state, including the inmates and facility employees, are receiving the level and types of services deemed necessary by the state.” Although the auditors said that the department should have assessed liquidated damages against CCA they do not stipulate a figure.
CCA operates the South Central
Correctional Facility and Hardeman County Correctional Facility. At South
Central, the auditors found CCA was slow in filling vacancies. When it did, the
company hired some employees without the required amount of experience. The
company also used licensed professional nurses for shifts that required
registered nurses.
At Hardeman County CCA had
“employees ranging from correctional officers to food service workers who have
not received the required number of training hours, ” the auditors stated. Other
staffing problems at Hardeman County included: “not having job descriptions,
hiring staff not meeting job qualifications and not following established
staffing patterns for its operations.” CCA also violated its contract by not
buying uniforms from Tricor, the state’s prison industry programme.
The auditors recommended that
“before the contracts are renewed, department [of corrections] management
should review the contracts to identify areas that need to be strengthened or
clarified to ensure that the contractor maintains sufficient, qualified staff
at all times.” They also found cause for concern with state oversight and
performance of other contractors. Performance Audit, Department of
Correction, September 2003, Comptroller of the Treasury, State of Tennessee. www.comptroller.state.tn.us/sa/reports/pa02018.pdf
Florida constitution campaign
The
Florida Police Benevolent Association (FPBA) has launched a campaign to amend
Florida’s constitution so that state penitentiaries, county jails, juvenile facilities
and probation services cannot be run by private companies.
The FPBA represents around 30,000 public sector corrections, police and probation officers. The state already provides substantial business for Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation with the latter earning 14 % of its 2002 revenues in Florida. The FPBA’s campaign is timed to coincide with the renewal of the companies’ existing contracts and to counter the influence of industry lobbyists.
Damon Smith, a lobbyist for
Wackenhut, called the FPBA’s amendment “short sighted”, arguing that the
union’s reason for opposing privatisation is that private prisons aren’t
unionised. However, Ken Kopczynski of the FPBA says that it is the government’s
role to rehabilitate prisoners and that privatisation “abdicates that
responsibility by giving it to a for-profit corporation that profits off the
mistakes of human beings.” In 2002 three companies, CCA, Wackenhut and Cornell
donated more than $274,000 to Florida candidates and political parties.
Citizens
Against Private Prisons (CAPP) continues to help resist private prison
proposals in a number of US states. CAPP cites recent involvement with
campaigns in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Texas and Hawaii.
For
more details see: www.flpba.org/private/index_private.html
22 prisons: 11 semi-private?
In
Italy the government is planning to build 22 new prisons. The first 11 will be
financed, procured and operated in the traditional way. However, for the second
tranche of 11 the government is considering the semi-private model, using
private finance and construction as well as contracting out non-custodial
services.
A government spokesperson told PPRI
that he “didn’t know when the feasibility study would finish.” Italy’s 215
prisons are around 36% over capacity while some are former monasteries and
convents and unfit for current purposes. The government is also considering
legislation to reduce the prisoner population by 10%.
Seeking approval for PPP
prison
Hungary’s justice ministry is planning a privately financed and constructed 700 bed prison in which non-custodial services will be contracted out. The project is expected to cost Euros 39 million. The government’s Economic Committee has yet to approve the plan.
Private partnership prison
planned
The
government of Japan is extending its use of private finance for new
infrastructure to a new 1,000 bed prison for men and women (see PPRI
#9). A government spokesperson told PPRI that the new prison will be for
first time offenders and that custodial services will not be contracted out. He
said “the recession, budget cuts and increasing crime” are all contributing to
the rising prisoner population that is expected to reach 80,000 by 2005. Construction on the new prison is also
expected to start in 2005. At the end of April 2003 Japan had 70,844 prisoners.
Capacity in its prisons was 66,988.
Throughout
various inquiries and investigations, the Australian government kept secret the
extent of Australasian Correctional Management’s (ACM) problems in running
immigration detention centres (see PPRI # 56, 55, 52, 51, 49, 46-44
& 42-36).
As a result of a lengthy freedom of
information (FOI) application Business Review Weekly (BRW) 25
September 2003, obtained sections of a 66 page report commissioned by the
department of immigration, multicultural and indigenous affairs (DIMIA), under
its former minister, Philip Ruddock. The report, by the Knowledge Enterprises consultancy, was
commissioned by DIMIA on 18 October 2000.
The report contains eight
recommendations, regarded by the authors as “critical to the ongoing
effectiveness and efficiency of the functioning of the detention facilities.”
These recommendations and findings against ACM’s operations have remained
confidential and DIMIA has never gone public about problems in its relationship
with ACM.
The report also reveals the
seriousness of the problems at detention centres under ACM’s management at the
time, warning of the risk of injuries to staff and detainees if practices were
not improved. It adds to continuing revelations about ACM’s poor performance
under a contract that ran from February 1998 and is due to end.
In
a covering letter to the then first assistant secretary of DIMIA, Philippa
Godwin, dated 23 February 2001, the report’s authors warned: “The importance of
early commencement on implementation of the recommendations cannot be
over-stressed. Should another serious incident occur while the issues covered
by the recommendations remain unresolved, the safety of detainees and staff may
be at risk and the Department may face serious embarrassment.”
According to BRW, access to
the body of the report, requested under the Freedom of Information Act, was
denied by DIMIA on the grounds that its release would adversely affect DIMIA’s
operations of detention centres.
Knowledge Enterprises’ terms of
reference were to:
*Review
the circumstances leading to the breakout of 848 detainees from Woomera, Port
Hedland and Curtin detention centres in June 2000.
*Review
the circumstances leading to a riot at Woomera in August 2000, which resulted
in six buildings being destroyed and 30 ACM staff being injured.
*
Critically assess ACM’s performance in management of those incidents and
determine whether action was warranted under the contract.
The report critically assesses ACM’s
performance in the management of the incidents, makes recommendations for the
future management of critical incidents and recommends improvements in security
practices and operations.
BRW
notes that on 30 May 2001, three months after the report was sent to the
department, DIMIA secretary Bill Farmer told a parliamentary committee that
DIMIA had not completed its assessment of the incidents. The Labor senator Jim
McKiernan, who has since retired, asked: “Could the committee be supplied with
a copy of the assessment of the events in Woomera in August of last year
[2000]?” Mr Farmer replied: “I will
take that on notice. We do not have the report. I do not know the details. I am
not sure what conclusions are in there.”
DIMIA refuses to disclose what, if
any, action was taken by the department in response to the eight
recommendations in the report. Mr Farmer would not speak to BRW. A
spokesperson said that: “The department does not wish to comment on the actions
it took in respect of the recommendations.”
The
default notice
BRW also discovered under the
Freedom of Information Act that the DIMIA issued ACM with a default notice
between 1 March 2001 and 5 September 2002. However, neither the contents nor
the date of the notice have been disclosed. A letter on 5 September 2003 from
DIMIA’s secretary of unauthorised arrivals and detention services, Mr Jim
Williams, to BRW states:
“I have taken into account ACM’s written objections to release of the document based on its belief that information in this document could be used adversely by another competitor to diminish ACM’s business reputation in order to gain an unfair business advantage.
“It also believes that disclosure of
the document by itself, and without further explanation, could adversely impact
on its business reputation generally as it believes that disclosure would
potentially mislead its customers (past and present) and the public as to its
ability to adequately perform its contractual obligations thereby diminishing
its potential to successfully compete in this industry.
“As ACM is still an ongoing business
enterprise, I believe its objections are still currently relevant. I do not
believe that these objections are diminished by the fact that the document you
are seeking is now over a year old or by the fact that ACM will no longer
provide detention services at government facilities.”
ACM
loses out to Group 4
In May 2001 after a series of
problems at the ACM-run centres the DIMIA decided to re-tender the contract on
the basis of “value for money”. In December 2002, the minister announced that
negotiations had begun with ACM’s then owner, Group 4, to take over. A new
contract to run five immigration detention centres was signed in August 2003.
Group 4 will start in October.
Report on Acacia’s vulnerable
and predatory prisoners
A
review of protection prisoners at AIMS Corporation-run Acacia prison was
carried out in April 2002 by the inspector of custodial services for Western
Australia. At the time of the inspection Acacia held 640 prisoners of whom 21%
were protection prisoners, the highest percentage of prisoners in protection in
Western Australia’s prison system. AIMS
Corporation is owned by Sodexho (see PPRI # 55, 52, 48, 37, 36, 34, 32,
30, 28 & 26).
When the contract was awarded it was
not intended that such prisoners should be sent there. However, as the
inspector noted, “that arrangement quickly changed.”
The inspector found that, although
prisoners’ files were “up to date and contained well ordered material” there
was “ ... little evidence of staff
patrolling inside the living accommodation on a regular basis ... some
prisoners did not venture outside their units, for although this area is under
surveillance by CCTV cameras, there are still numerous blind spots and thus
opportunities for stand-overs and bullying, ie, by other protection prisoners.”
The inspector also noted:
*
Staff should not rely solely on modern technology at the expense of personal
interaction. Case management officers were generally found inside the control
room or inside one of the offices interviewing prisoners. Although they were
occupied with other important responsibilities, patrolling of the unit was at
best spasmodic or at worse rare. The officers would not generally enter any of
the accommodation blocks on their own, because of perceived safety issues...”
*
Whilst officers were not seen patrolling, the survey results show a different
picture - over 70% of the staff respondents stated that ‘staff worked directly
with the prisoners on the wing.’
*Although
there appeared to be a “reasonably healthy relationship between staff and
prisoners” there was no prison-wide [anti-bullying] strategy in force.
“Prisoners in Block K said that bullying, assaults and stand-overs were rife in
mainstream.”
*
Acacia has “not operated an effective anti-bullying strategy, even though the
contract is explicit that prisoner safety is one of its main requirements. On
balance, however, it can be said that prisoners do not feel positively unsafe.”
*
The healthy prison test for staff working in Block K shows that “case
management officers are stretched, sometimes to their limits, and certainly
have high expectations made of them within their work environment. With only
two case management officers working inside the unit and up to 124 protection
prisoners, they face acute pressure both administratively and practically.”
*
prisoners in Block F “do not fare as well as prisoners in Block K. The block
has no yard and prisoners do not receive proper and regular access to the
outside of the unit.”
Overall, the inspector found that “Acacia measures up reasonably well ... if accreditation were an issue then ... it would pass the test. However, the arrangements seem rather fragile in that they are unsupported by formal arrangements and not fortified by adequate training. Staff and prisoners could lose the good rapport that has been established if those areas are not addressed effectively.”
Footnote
- K Block deteriorates
In a footnote to the report on
Acacia, the inspector stated: “Acacia prison was the subject of a full
inspection by the Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services in March 2003.
The position with regard to protection prisoners had deteriorated in that there
was now clear evidence of intimidation within K Block, ie, by protection
prisoners upon other protection prisoners. There was insufficient interaction between
staff and prisoners to prevent this occurring. The situation had also
deteriorated with regard to the availability of work. The previously identified
weaknesses, with regard to case management and record keeping, had not
improved. An evaluation as at March 2003 instead of March 2002 would conclude
that the conditions were not satisfactory. The earlier comment that the
arrangements were fragile unfortunately was prescient. A full report of this
inspection will be tabled in Parliament in October 2003.”
Vulnerable
and Predatory Prisoners in Western Australia: A Review of Policy and Practice,
Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services, Western Australia, May 2003.
www.custodialinspector.wa.gov.au
AIMS transport contract ends
AIMS Corporation’s contract to operate prisoner transportation services for the government of Victoria ended on 1 July 2003. The contract was awarded to Corrections Corporation of Australia (CC Australia) in 1994. CC Australia became known as AIMS after Sodexho bought out Corrections Corporation of America’s 50% stake in CC Australia.
Fulham staff win wage rises
Prison
officers at ACM - run Fulham Correctional Centre at Sale, Victoria, have
accepted a 10.35% wage increase bringing them more into line with their public
sector counterparts (see PPRI # 51- 48, 32, etc). The agreement
included: 3.8% increase paid on 2 February 2003 back paid as a lump sum
(calculated on substantive salary back to 1 July 2002); 4% increase to
substantive salary from the first pay period following 1 July 2003; a further
4% increase to substantive salary from the first pay period following 1 July
2004; and an extension of the existing enterprise bargaining agreement by eight
months to March 2005.
David
Carey of the Community & Public Sector Union said the win was the result of
a long running case in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. “If the
CPSU hadn’t taken this action they [Fulham staff] would have fallen further
behind and it would have been almost impossible to catch up.”
* A
prisoner at Fulham was stabbed four times by another prisoner on 22 July 2003
according to ACM’s public relations firm Clifton Consulting Services Pty Ltd.
Port Phillip guards stop work
Prisoners
at Group 4's Port Phillip Prison in Melbourne were locked down briefly on 2
September 2003 after staff held a stop-work meeting to discuss pay bargaining
with the company. The Community and Public Sector union (CPSU) which represents
staff is asking for a 12 % pay increase. The company has offered between three
and four per cent (see PPRI # 56, 51-49, 45, 42, 37-34, etc)
Meanwhile, two prison guards
employed by Group 4 at Port Phillip are awaiting trial for allegedly selling
ecstasy and amphetamines in nightclubs. Mr Martin Warry and his partner Kara
Boyd have been charged with trafficking and possessing ecstasy and
amphetamines. Both are on bail.
Victoria tenders for
electronic monitoring
Victoria’s home detention programme is due to start in January 2004 and the government has issued requests for tenders for a three year contract. The contractor will supply an “end to end solution” comprising all hardware, software and related services, including installation training, support and maintenance.
Strike at ACM-run Junee
Within
months of government celebrations commemorating ten years of private management
at Junee Correctional Centre, prison guards were on strike (see PPRI
#55, 52, 46, 41, etc). Some 110 staff represented by the Liquor, Hospitality
and Miscellaneous Workers Union took action in September in protest at an
attempt by Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) to impose a non-union pay
structure. In June, New South Wales’ minister for justice attended a ceremony
at the prison where 48 Junee staff received recognition for ten years of
service.
Wackenhut didn’t respond
When
Premier Custodial Group was still under Wackenhut Corrections and Serco’s joint
ownership and operation, Ashfield prison in south west England was described by
the former director general of the prison service as “the worst” prison in
England and Wales and the chief inspector of prisons said it was “the most
disappointing” she had visited (see PPRI # 53 & 47).
At a hearing of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts on 30 June 2003, Martin Narey, Correctional Services Commissioner, said: “I thought with particular instance of Ashfield, which caused me so much anxiety, that if we had not been able to make very severe financial penalties, the other part of the Premier partnership - because until Wednesday Premier is part owned by Serco ... and part by Wackenhut - I do not think we would have got the other part of that partnership to respond seriously. I did find with Wackenhut that it was very important to make very significant financial reductions and take away places before I felt I was getting them to take the nature of Ashfield’s inadequacies seriously.”
UK
Parliament, Oral evidence to the Committee of Public Accounts, 30 June 2003,
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/ccmpububacc/uc
Wackenhut Corrections back to
the UK?
Wackenhut
Corrections Corporation (WCC) - owned by Group 4 Falck for the last year but
now a completely separate company again (see PPRI # 56, 55, 50, 49, 47
& 44) - completed the sale of its 50 per cent interest in Premier Custodial
Group Ltd to Serco for £48.6 million in July 2003. Although WCC’s UK operations
were sold the company still operates in Australia, South Africa, Canada and New
Zealand.
However, WCC could be re-entering
the UK correctional services market. Stock analyst Jim Macdonald of Chicago
based First Analysis Securities told the Palm Beach Post 24 August 2003
that: “They plan to acquire something. We know they want to go back to the UK.”
But under the terms of the deal with Group 4 the company will have to drop the
Wackenhut name and come up with something new within a year.
Riddle over mystery investor
Writing
in The Post, Lusaka, 11 June 2003, Owen Sichone said: “Prisons are
overcrowded yet no one dares think that prisoners could make the bricks and
build the new prisons themselves. Oh no, we need a foreign investor to think
such thoughts.” Who could that foreign investor be?
Overview
of Policy Developments in South African Correctional Services 1994-2002, Prof.
Julia Sloth-Neilsen, Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative Research Paper
Series No.1, July 2003, www.nicro.org.za
Includes
a chapter on South Africa’s private prison programme. “Prisons privatisation is
an emotive and controversial matter, both here and abroad. Because the contracts
were negotiated and concluded in an atmosphere of secrecy, suspicions about the
rectitude of the process linger. This is a matter on which proper public debate
should take place. It is one that should be at the forefront of civil society
advocacy and debate.”
Private
Versus Public Juvenile Correctional Facilities: Do Differences in Environmental
Quality Exist? By Gaylene Styve Armstrong and Doris Layton MacKenzie, Crime
& Delinquency, Oct. 2003, Vol. 49, No.4, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi.
“We
must remain apprehensive about economic viability due to cost-savings measures
that may be employed by private correctional facilities until further studies
are completed.”
Problems
in Creating Boundaryless Treatment Regimens in Secure Correctional
Environments: Private Sector-Public Agency Infrastructure Compatability, Ernest
L. Cowles and Laura Dorman, The Prison Journal, Vol. 83, No. 3, September 2003,
Sage Publications.
“The
results of this project reinforced our belief that the initiation of partial
mission privatisation, particularly as it relates to the provision of treatment
services in the form of a therapeutic community, is dubious at best.”
Comparing
the Quality of Confinement and Cost Effectiveness of Public Versus Private Prisons:
What We Know, Why We Do Not Know More, and Where To Go From Here, Dina Perrone,
Travis C. Pratt, The Prison Journal, Vol. 83, No. 3, September 2003, Sage
Publications.
“...how
should correctional policy makers determine which side is right when both
advocates and opponents of prison privatisation claim that the weight of the
empirical evidence is on their side? Accordingly, based on the present review,
the volume of methodological inconsistencies across studies indicates that the
confusion surrounding the demonstrated advantages and disadvantages of prison
privatisation is warranted. To advance this portion of the debate to the point
where evidence based correctional policy making can actually take place,
certain changes in the way scholars go about studying these issues would be
helpful.”
Private
prisons: A European Perspective, S. Nathan, Justice Review International, Issue
2, August 2003, Hove House Publishing Ltd, UK. Publisher Andrew
Stell: Email: andrew@justicereview.co.uk
This article provides an overview of recent developments in Europe.
Southern
Africa Human Rights Review, Issue 11, May 2003, Afronet, www afronet.org.za
Includes
articles on: Prison Privatisation: the International Experience and
Implications for Africa; the African Commission and Penal Reform; and The
Impact of Globalisation on the Protection and Promotion of Women’s Rights in
Zambia.
National
Audit Office, “The Operational Performance of PFI Prisons”, Report by the
Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 700, Session 2002-3: 18 June 2003. www.nao.gov.uk
“The
experience of the prison sector shows that the use of the PFI is neither a
guarantee of success nor the cause of inevitable failure. Like other methods of
providing public services, there are successes and failures and they cannot be
ascribed to a single factor. PFI has brought some results which are encouraging
and some which are disappointing. But what is clear is that competition has
helped to drive up standards and improve efficiency across the prison system as
a whole.” The National Audit Office (NAO) report found:
*
the performance of PFI prisons against contract has been mixed;
*
PFI prisons span the range of prison performance;
*
the private sector has brought benefits to the prison service.
The report also raised concerns
about controllers, low staffing levels, lack of safety, performance against
unsuitable contracts and the failure of the prison service to maintain a clear
audit trail of performance penalties. PFI prisons tend to perform much better
than public prisons in areas related to decency and the activities of prisoners
but less well in areas such as safety and security.” The PFI prisons were part
of a study of just 21 prisons in England and Wales - not the whole prison
estate.
Competition:
a catalyst for change in the prison service, CBI, July 2003. Price £25 for CBI
members, £50 non-members. www.cbi.org.uk
The
Confederation of British Industry (CBI, ‘The Voice of Business’) in a
publication to coincide with the release of National Audit Office report, calls
on the UK government to “assist the custodial services sector in establishing
domestic policy settings favourable to the export of these services.” The CBI
claims not to defend the privately managed prisons on the basis that they are
superior to the public sector, but chooses instead to state the case on the
grounds of competition versus monopoly.
The CBI acknowledges that the author
is the executive director of the Serco Institute but not that the Institute is,
according to its website, “an arms
length virtual organisation that carries out research on behalf of Serco” or
that from 1992 Serco was the joint owner, along with Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation, of Premier Prisons and that in July 2003, Serco became the sole
owner of Premier, the largest prisons and correctional services contractor in
the UK.
Update
on Educational provision, Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre, South
Lanarkshire, HM Inspectorate of Education, August 2003.
The Inspectorate
of Education inspected Premier-run Dungavel in July 2003 and concluded that, despite
some improvements, “... the centre did
not offer satisfactory educational provision for children detained for
prolonged periods, certainly to those who were detained for more than six weeks
… the detained children’s personal, social and learning experiences were
impoverished by their lack of contact with the outside world and very
restricted social interaction.”
American
Friends Service Committee RAP Sheets on Management & Training Corporation,
Cornell Companies Inc and Correctional Services Corporation and Facts &
Questions about the Proposed Women’s ‘Super Prison’. www.afsc.org/az
Information
on the three US prison corporations vying for a contract to operate a private
‘super prison’ for women in Arizona and arguments against building such a
prison.
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