Prison Privatisation Report International

No. 66, January 2005

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.

AUSTRALIA
Acacia Prison: AIMS Corporation fined $211,598

At AIMS Corporation-run Acacia Prison there are “still deficits in service delivery that require immediate attention. There are still many challenges to be met in the year ahead,” according to the director general of Western Australia’s department of justice, Alan Piper.

Writing in the department’s 2003/2004 annual report of the Acacia prison services agreement, Mr Piper also noted that the AIMS Corporation (Sodexho)-run prison “showed signs of stabilising under the leadership of a new general manager,” (see PPRI # 64, 62, 59, 57, 55, 52, 48, 37, 36, etc).

However, in 2003/004 the department commissioned a number of reviews of Acacia that “… have given rise to recommendations across virtually every aspect of the prison’s operation. Prison management and staff must act upon these in the year ahead if it is to properly fulfil its contract - and its commitment to Government.”

The company is to be penalised A$211,598 of its performance-linked fee for problems relating to the detection of drugs in the prison, and the lack of meaningful work, education and training opportunities for prisoners.

Although there have been improvements in intelligence systems “security also continues to be an area of concern…”

Also for the first time, the department commissioned professional services consultants SAI Global to review the prison against the Australian business excellence framework addressing, for example, human resources and information technology issues. Both the operational and SAI Global reviews “raised concerns about the financial viability of AIMS Corporation, as has the inspector of custodial services. In the context of contract renewal negotiations, the department will complete a financial due diligence review in the year ahead which will properly examine the financial viability of AIMS Corporation and any risks faced by the department.”

The department “has held concerns regarding the financial stability of AIMS Corporation for more than two years and last year implemented more thorough risk-management and more closely monitored its financial position in relation to Acacia Prison.”

The contract, the only one between the state and a private prison operator, was awarded on 21 December 1999 and AIMS started service delivery on 16 May 2001. The prison is operating at capacity with around 730 prisoners, more than 230 of whom are aboriginal.

The annual report’s other findings included:

• Total custodial staff increased to 178 from 168 in 2003. The total non-custodial staff decreased to 67 from 104 in 2003. This fall “is due mainly to the employment of permanent rather than casual nursing staff.”
• The department was concerned about the low level of custodial staff during the year. “An intake of 19 new custodial staff in July 2004 and another group planned for October 2004 should alleviate the problem.” AIMS Corporation has not conducted a full review of staffing during the year, however “the department will require such a review as part of the preparation for contract renewal negotiation.”
• In November 2003 a new Acacia Prison Enterprise Bargaining Agreement was registered. In the months following “there was an ongoing campaign of industrial action ... over issues relating to sick leave, holidays, health, safety, and staffing levels. The action escalated from March 2004 and took a variety of forms including stop-work meetings and work-to-rule action in relation to prisoner unlocks. The stop-work meetings and the possibility of a staff walk-out, in particular, have had some impact on the prisoner regimes. At year end, the issues had not been resolved and industrial unrest was still a threat.”

A three-tier annual review process was used to monitor performance. This included a peer review by another state jurisdiction. The review by Corrections Victoria found several areas where improvements are required to meet the contractual requirements of the Service Level Agreement and to achieve the stated philosophical outcomes of Acacia Prison. It also found more serious issues “to the extent they pose a risk to the department of justice and AIMS Corporation in terms of the longer term viability of the contract.”

The review teams raised concerns about the following matters:

• the financial strength of AIMS Corporation and the risks that may present, particularly in terms of the five-year leases taken out on the smart card system and IT hardware;

• the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the Secure Transaction Environment Prison System which is not working as intended. It is not reliable in that it does not give an accurate record of where prisoners, staff or visitors are at any given time and is also frequently out of order and needs repairs;

• the prison is not meeting its intended operating philosophy. Purposeful interactions between staff and prisoners are inhibited by limitations in the design of the prison. In particular, officers frequently operate from behind glass enclosures and prisoners are not free to move around the prison as they wish;

• there are inadequate strategies or penalties to address issues arising from non-compliance
with the service agreement;

• the role of onsite monitors should be reviewed so that it includes an obligation to ensure issues of under performance and non-compliance with contractual requirements are dealt with promptly between the Department and AIMS Corporation;

•the response to Aboriginal prisoners needs improvement, including addressing:
* the low number of Aboriginal staff employed relative to the number of Aboriginal prisoners;
* the under-utilisation of facilities dedicated to use by Aboriginal prisoners;
* difficulties experienced by the Wongi in the custodial environment;
* under-representation of Aboriginal prisoners in work and in the higher levels of accommodation; and
* the Nyoongah Alcohol Substance Abuse Program occurring too infrequently to meet demand.

• the process of releasing prisoners into the community with little or no money, heightening the risk of re-offending. In May 2004, 25% of prisoners discharged had no money at all and a further 23% were released with less than A$20.

• the poor results of the Healthy Prisons survey which provides a useful insight into how staff and prisoners feel about the prison environment and prison management.

Management review
A management review by SAI Global was formally contracted in July 2004 to undertake the review which establishes a benchmark for assessing improvement in the years ahead. SAI Global reported that the relationship between Acacia Prison and the department of justice had “improved considerably during the year but noted that the relationship could again come under pressure if some of the key issues highlighted by it were not addressed soon.”

The report detailed Acacia Prison’s strengths and opportunities across a range of management areas. In particular, SAI Global found:

• Acacia Prison was in “stabilisation” mode, with a top-down approach to planning and decision-making;
• Acacia Prison needs to develop a more strategic approach to secure the long term
  future of its contract;
• decision-making on operational matters was seen as slow by many staff; and
• there were inherent problems in the technology and human resources areas,
  with impacts on morale and staff’s ability to do their jobs.

The three key strategic issues identified were:

• the need for all parties to the contract to make their expectations clear;
• define the strategic direction and investment criteria for Acacia Prison; and
• enable management to develop a new culture of prison management.

Maintenance review
A review of prison maintenance was conducted in May 2004. Areas such as the kitchen, roads, environment, security and fire services, buildings and infrastructure, electrical and mechanical systems were all examined and assessed.

The major issue raised by the review was the lack of planned maintenance programs for the assets. Unplanned maintenance items were usually undertaken within acceptable timeframes.

In particular, the review found:

• the security and safety systems are not generally being maintained in an acceptable condition;
• general and closed-circuit television monitors are in poor condition;
• cells and general intercom systems are in poor condition; and
• kitchen equipment is not maintained in an acceptable manner.

Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (TSAPL) provided maintenance services at Acacia under contract to AIMS Corporation during the year. However, AIMS was working towards replacing TSAPL with Altys Multi-Services Pty Ltd a company owned by AIMS’ parent corporation Sodexho Alliance.

Services
AIMS Corporation achieved the required performance linked measure relating to assaults and substantiated prisoner complaints to the Ombudsman. However, “the level of illicit drug use ... is a significant concern.”

Security
As reported in 2003, a key feature of Acacia Prison was to be the integration of static and dynamic security systems to provide security and safety and support an internal environment that enforces the minimum restrictions necessary.

The peer review conducted in 2004 confirmed the performance reviews of the previous two years which found that the full integration of Acacia’s security framework and innovative technology with management systems and practices - in line with the concept and philosophy of the prison - had not been fully realised.

In particular, the review highlighted an inability to track prisoner movements and location and showed periodic system failure. This means there was reduced accountability for the whereabouts of prisoners and the potential for prisoner frustration to manifest into incidents.
Software improvements are required to increase the functionality of the smart card system and preventative and breakdown maintenance regimes are needed as a matter of priority. At year end, the Department was waiting on further information on what was required from AIMS Corporation in order to assess the financial implications of the improvements.

The review further found that security was not optimised because prison intelligence and management information is not gathered, analysed or deployed from a strategic planning perspective and a number of other operational issues needed to be addressed to bring security management into line with the expected performance of a medium security facility.

In what was a significant response to a major issue, AIMS Corporation made changes to its intelligence, risk management and incident management systems in early 2004. This included the appointment of a new security manager and intelligence manager. A new multi-disciplinary security committee including the Department’s monitors was formed in February 2004 and met monthly to examine all areas of security and risk management.

Prisoner charges
There were a total of 656 internal charges laid against 581 prisoners during the year, compared with 536 internal charges laid against 449 prisoners last year. This represents an increase of 22% mitigated by a population increase of 7% during the period. All these charges need to be heard by either a visiting magistrate or superintendent. At year end, 24 or 3.6% of charges were not finalised.

Prisoner movement
Acacia Prison uses an automated system initially designed to track prisoner movements within the prison. The system, which incorporates smartcard technology, has not yet been used to its full potential because it is not capable of controlling movement - it merely acknowledges recorded movement.

The system needs to be incorporated with barrier management processes, which would enable a prisoner to open doors with the card, enabling movement and, at the same time, recording movement.

Care and well being
The Corrections Victoria review team carried out a survey and, obtained results from 92 prisoners, 47 staff and 20 visitors which, it is considered, “may not be sufficient for statistical validity but provide an indicator of how the prison environment is measured against the healthy prisons model.” Key results:

• 27% of staff indicated they did not feel safe, citing occupational safety and health issues, staff shortages and training;
• 95% of visitors feel safe;
• 62% of prisoners didn’t feel the meals were balanced or nutritious;
• 95% of visitors said staff treat them with respect and dignity;
• 35% of prisoners felt programs and services met their needs;
• 71% of prisoners agreed regular phone calls helped them maintain contact with family and significant others; and
• 85% of visitors indicated Acacia Prison’s facilities met their needs.

The review found that a strict interpretation of the results would say Acacia is not a
healthy prison. In the year ahead, Acacia Prison will develop an action plan designed
to address the issues and an assessment of their budget implications will be made.

Support for Aboriginal prisoners - Wongi prisoners
Aboriginal prisoners make up almost 30% of Acacia Prison’s prisoner population. It holds more Aboriginal prisoners than any other prison in the State, including a number of Wongi prisoners from the Ngaanyatjarra community, transferred from [state run] Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison.

Despite a number of improvements, Acacia Prison’s performance in relation to Wongi
prisoners was still not at a high enough level and a specialist monitor was engaged to undertake a review in May 2004.

The peer review also monitored the prison’s performance in relation to Wongi prisoners and found there was insufficient attention given to their particular induction and orientation needs and they were too far from their normal environment to benefit from the visit program.

It also found the Wongi prisoners had problems communicating with non-Wongis and were reluctant, or unable, to approach custodial staff for information. This was due in part to officers being located behind glass barriers. These are difficult issues to address, but other efforts to make Wongi prisoners more comfortable in the prison setting may go some way to alleviating these problems.

Specialist review
A specialist review of Acacia Prison Aboriginal Services relating particularly to Wongi prisoners was conducted in April 2004 by independent consultant, Charlie Staples, and Ngaanyatjarra elder, Gerald Porter, from Warburton. His report was received in May 2004. It followed the March 2003 report of the Inspector of Custodial Services, which found “systemic discrimination faced by Indigenous prisoners at Acacia”.

The specialist review found there had been improvement in some areas but there was still work to be done. Some 54 recommendations addressed issues including:

• strong feelings of isolation from family and community;
• difficulties with communication between prisoners and family and community;
• homesickness, depression and self-harm have been identified by the prisoners themselves as areas of concern;
• resentment over placement at Acacia Prison rather than Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison;
• apparent limited understanding of aspects of the Department of Justice and Acacia Prison processes;
• induction information is often misunderstood;
• a perception that Acacia Prison staff lack adequate understanding of Ngaanyatjarra culture;
• the cultural area is considered inappropriate;
• tensions exist between Ngaanyatjarra prisoners and Nyoongah prisoners;
• the base levels of literacy and numeracy are extremely low and current education options are too challenging; and
• access to appropriate, culturally-relevant therapeutic programs is too restricted.

While the appointment of an Aboriginal health worker in May 2004 was a positive
step forward, AIMS Corporation has not yet established Aboriginal health services at Acacia prison and has yet to achieve the Aboriginal health services expressed in their initial proposal.

Contract payments
Contract payments to AIMS Corporation have been made in accordance with the amounts specified in the agreement. A total of $24,294,137 was payable to AIMS Corporation for the year 2003/2004, compared with $23,393,556 for the previous year. This was made up of the base contract fee and the payable performance-linked fee.

Under the agreement, 5% of the total possible fee payable to AIMS Corporation is withheld and payment of the full amount is linked to performance. In 2001/2002, AIMS was paid 87.5% of the performance-linked fee funds withheld; in the 2002/2003 operational year, 69.5% of the monies were paid. In 2003/2004, 83% of the retained funds were paid.

Penalties

Areas in which AIMS Corporation was penalised for poor performance during the year, including the amount of the performance-linked fee payment lost (A$).

Other payments
Other payments made to AIMS Corporation during the operational year related to the
performance-linked fee payment for 2003/2004, adjustments to the performance-linked fee and services provided over or below the contract’s minimum requirements including:
* June 2003 A$819,924 payment of performance-linked fee for previous operational year;
* November 2003 A$2,150 Psychiatric services;
* December 2003 A$123,258 Counselling services.

Contract extension
The department started work on the renewal of the contract for the management of Acacia Prison during the year. The department will need to advise AIMS Corporation on the extension of the existing contract, or otherwise, by May 2005. The department “expects to be in a position to provide Government with the appropriate contract extension advice for consideration by March 2005.” The contract is due to expire in May 2006.
Government of Western Australia, Department of Justice, Annual Report 2003/2004 Acacia Prison Services Agreement, 30 September 2004. The full report is available at www.justice.wa.gov.au

Suicide and contempt of court

AIMS escort officers overlooked a police document indicating that prisoner Charles Raymond Gamble was a suicide risk, according to Western Australia’s state coroner. Mr Gamble was found hanging by his shoelaces in the back of an AIMS van after being escorted to a court hearing in Perth in May 2003. The coroner raised concerns that AIMS staff did not consider it risky to give Mr Gamble his shoelaces after police had previously confiscated them. The coroner also criticised AIMS for removing the van’s hanging point only after two more prisoners attempted suicide in this way. The department of justice has increased its monitoring of AIMS’ contract since Mr Gamble’s death. The justice minister is examining the coroner’s October 2004 findings.

Western Australia District Court Chief Judge Antoinette Kennedy criticised AIMS staff after they brought two prisoners to the dock shackled in leg irons and handcuffs despite her orders not to do so. On 11 January 2005 the judge summoned an AIMS security supervisor Christopher Blottin on a contempt of court charge. A lawyer representing Mr Blottin apologised to the court, arguing that his client had not acted in defiance of the judge but out of concern for a possible escape. According to the Courier-Mail, Judge Kennedy said: “If this was just a one-off incident then I would not have taken such drastic action. But this is not a one-off; it has been going on for three years”.

Western Australia’s PPP court contract

The government of Western Australia has signed the state’s first public private partnership deal for a new court complex at Perth. Western Liberty Group comprising ABN Ambro, Multiplex and John Holland won a 27 year contract worth A$195 million to build, own and operate 22 maximum security courts, holding cells and hearing rooms. This means that for the first time in the state the private sector will operate custodial services, booking services, user management, court security, transcription and recording. The failed bidder was a consortium comprising Leighton Holdings and Macquarie Bank.

Meanwhile, the government could save A$21 million if it built the court complex itself rather than through a public-private partnership, according to a report commissioned by the department of housing and works. However, the attorney general Mr Jim McGinty told the West Australian, 22 December 2004: “Running the building is a lot cheaper to the government (under the partnership) but the construction cost is higher.” The project is scheduled for completion in 2008/9.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Government of Western Australia, Department of Justice, Annual Report, Contract for the Provision of Court Security and Custodial Services, 30 September 2004, www.justice.wa.gov.au
The report provides an overview of services provided under the contract by Australian Integration Management Services Corporation (AIMS Corporation), (See PPRI # 64, 62, 59, 57, 55, 52, 48, 37, 36, etc). “This year AIMS delivered the basic services in accordance with the contract…however a training and recruitment shortage throughout the year has meant AIMS Corporation was unable to keep up with rising demand and service standards remain a concern.” The department “focused its energy for a considerable part of the year on negotiating with AIMS Corporation a reduction in the cost of the contract which was more than A$18.5m this year-well in excess of the price originally anticipated when the contract was established four years ago. In this context, services were being re-scoped and annual savings of A$1.5m had been identified by year end.”

AIMS Corporation “could have earned A$809,113 in performance - linked fees for the year, but instead current assessments result in penalties of more than A$420,000.” As AIMS Corporation and the department move into the fifth operational year, there are serious issues to be resolved in the structure and management of the CS &CS contract. Despite some basic services being delivered well, the report … tabled in Parliament in August 2004 [see PPRI #64], confirms issues of concern and reinforced the imperative that the department carefully considers the options for managing court security and custodial services in the future.”

Inspection of the Interim Arrangements At the Supreme Court Following The Escape of Nine Prisoners from the Custody Area on 10 June 2004, Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services, Report No.25, December 2004, www.custodialinspector.wa.gov.au
At approximately 10.45am on Thursday 10 June 2004 a group of nine prisoners escaped from the main holding cell at the Supreme Court Custody Centre (see PPRI # 64, 62, 59, 57, 55, 52, 48, 37, 36, etc). The group “easily overpowered” officers employed by Australian Integration Management Services (AIMS) took the custody centre keys from one of them and escaped through a side door into the Supreme Court Gardens.” The Inspector’s report - minus three passages “deliberately shaded out for security reasons” included 10 recommendations.

Managerialism in Australian Criminal Justice: RIP for KPIs? Arie Frieberg, Dean, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Inaugural Lecture 17 November 2004, Melbourne.
“Because it has been embedded in the modernising process of government and has transcended party politics, managerialism has been relatively unremarked in the general Australian criminal justice literature, though not completely unnoticed.” This paper “argues that the influence of managerialism has been pervasive, powerful and, in some cases, pernicious. On the other hand, where it has been allied with good management, it has brought efficiency, effectiveness, economy and clarity of purpose which was lacking from many parts of a system which was very far from perfect. Finally, it argues that a post-managerialist system can potentially take the best of reforms of the last few decades to create a hybrid combining good governance with humanity and justice.”

Regulatory independence, public accountability and the Victorian Prison System, Valarie J. Sands, Centre for the Study of Privatisation and Public Accountability, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(4) December 2004.
“One of the most frequently used arguments supporting the introduction of privatisation into a prison system is that it will strengthen accountability … this article examines the claims made by the Victorian Minister for Corrections that the Seamless Systems model would provide more independent monitoring and review of Victoria’s prisons.” It concluded that: “the latest restructuring in 2003 of Victoria’s part-privatised prison poses a significant risk for public accountability and requires attention to ensure both the private and the public prisons are held to account.”

The risky business of public-private partnerships, Professor Graeme A Hodge, Director, Centre for the Study of Privatisation and Public Accountability, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(4) December 2004.
“This paper aims to investigate, on an empirical basis, the realities and risk transfers in PPPs and compare this experience against both the rhetoric of project proponents and the formal contract conditions.”

Immigration Detention vs Imprisonment: Differences explored, Matthew Groves, Alternative Law Journal, Vol 29:5, October 2004.
With all of Australia’s immigration detention centres contracted out to the private sector, this article “examines the laws governing both criminal imprisonment and immigration detention and the principles that distinguish them.”

The Raggedness of Prison Privatisation: Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States Compared, Kim Richard Nossal and Phillip J. Wood, Queen’s University, paper prepared for the Prisons 2004 conference on Prisons and Penal Policy: International Perspectives, City University, London 23-25 June 2004.
“The purpose of this paper is to explain the uneven pattern of prison privatisation.” It examines “the push for prison privatisation in five countries that have roughly comparable legal and penal systems and share a common liberal bourgeois ideology…” The authors conclude that: “no generalised explanation of the pattern of prison privatisation emerges beyond the rather obvious observation that the election of a party with a commitment to trying out the putative benefits of privatisation is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the introduction of private prisons.”

ENDS

Prison Privatisation Report International
Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU)
Business School, University of Greenwich
Park Row, London SE10 9LS, England
Internet: www.psiru.org/justice
Email: ppri@dsl.pipex.com