Prison Privatisation Report International
No. 67, March 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.
NEW ZEALAND
GEO contract to end
GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd’s contract to operate the Auckland Central Remand Prison will end this year. As a result of New Zealand’s Corrections Act 2004 which prohibits private prison management, the remand centre will transfer to the prison service on 13 July 2005. GEO, formerly ACM, began operating the prison in July 2000 (see PPRI # 63, 62, 54, 51, 46, 38, 34, etc).
Meanwhile, Chubb New Zealand Ltd
continues to operate prisoner escort, court custody and home detention services
for the government. Chubb’s prisoner escort and custody contract expired on
30 June 2004 but the company won a re-bidding exercise and was awarded a further
five year contract commencing 1 July 2004. The company has provided electronic
monitoring services in New Zealand since August 1999.
CANADA
Opposition in Quebec
The Quebec government’s proposal to develop a new 300 cell prison in the Montérégie region through a public-private partnership has been met with fierce opposition from human rights and labour organisations in the province.
The Ombudsman told a National Assembly
hearing on legislation promoting public-private partnerships that it is not
clear that the rights of citizens will be protected.
The Quebec Federation of Labour wants the government to scrap the legislation.
On 9 March 2005 correctional officers demonstrated outside the Montreal courthouse, demanding that the public security minister, Jacques Dupuis, assure the public that there are no plans to privatise prison services. The Syndicat des agents de la paix en services correctionels du Quebec also took out newspaper advertisements denouncing privatisation. “We are completely against the idea of a public private partnership for the building of a private detention centre. We are against the ideology that we can incarcerate human beings for profit,” said Michel Hubert, the union’s president.
The government has been considering three options: private finance, design construction and maintenance; including some privatised support services; or private finance, design, construction and operation.
However, Mr Dupuis told the Montreal Gazette, 10 March 2005, that, following his viewing of a recent CBS 60 Minutes programme on private prisons, he was now “asking questions” about the treatment of prisoners in US private prisons.
Last year the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec (ASRSQ) published a report detailing international evidence of the failures of private prisons. The organisation also raised the fundamental issue of whether it was necessary to build a new prison at all. It found that: “over and above the obsolescence of certain detention centres, the data that were reviewed confirmed that nothing leads to the conclusion that the province has an increasing need for additional prison cells.”
According to the ASRSQ’s research there are a several significant elements emerging from the various experiments in prison privatisation:
As a result of its findings, the Association issued a position statement. “Given all that is at stake in relation to privatisation the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec:
1. is opposed to the building of a new detention centre;
2. is opposed to a detention centre being built and managed by the private sector;
3. is opposed to the privatisation of services linked to sentence management, except for particular support services such as maintenance and upkeep, food services, and training services;
4. wishes to encourage the Quebec Government to conclude an agreement with the Federal Government to meet its needs in terms of modern facilities;
5. wishes to encourage the current Government to reinvest in corrections so as to control the level of the prison population more effectively. The Association is calling on the Government to implement the Loi sur le système correctionnel du Québec (An Act Respecting the Québec Correctional System) which was enacted two years ago now. This Act set out mechanisms for the assessment and control of offenders for the purpose of ensuring public safety;
6. wishes to encourage the Government to strengthen alternative-to-incarceration programmes;
7. invites the Government to abide by the Mission Statement of the Correctional Services which favours the social reintegration of offenders;
8. calls upon the Government of
Quebec to impose a two-year moratorium that would allow for a more in-depth
study of the issues and a true public debate.”
The position of the Association des services de réhabilitation
sociale du Québec (ASRSQ) November 15, 2004. See also Document d’analyse
sur: La Privatisation des prisons, Juliette Jarvis, ASRSQ, Montreal, November
2004, www.asrsq.ca
ISRAEL
Court asked to annul prison legislation
Israel’s High Court
of Justice has been petitioned to issue an injunction to stop the tendering
process for the 800 bed private prison in Beersheba pending a judicial review
of the process by which the government passed legislation enabling the contracting
out of prison management (see PPRI # 64-62,
60, 59, 56,
52, etc).
On 15 March 2005 human rights lawyers from the Academic College of Law at Ramat
Gan and Shlomo Teuzer, a former head of the prison service, filed an application
seeking the government to show cause as to why the legislation - changed via
an amendment in 2004 - should not be annulled.
They claim that legislation should be annulled because the Knesset did not have the required majority of votes in favour of the amendment at all three stages.
They argue that the enabling legislation violates executive authority principles enshrined in Israel’s ‘Basic Law: Government’ and ‘Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom’ and that complete privatisation is non-constitutional. Further, they claim that the decision to privatise was taken solely on the basis of financial savings and that social, cultural and criminological considerations were ignored.
They say that their case is “doubly poignant” as the tender process has been kept secret and they have no legal means to ascertain either the criteria for a contract to be awarded or the future obligations on any contractor to protect prisoners’ rights. Standards required from staff in private prisons are lower than those required from state employees.
In January 2005 the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) submitted a petition to the Tel-Aviv District Court (sitting as the Court for Administrative Matters) demanding that full details of the tender for the prison be made public.
The petition was submitted after unsuccessful attempts by ACRI to obtain the information from the ministries of finance and internal security and the prison service.
ACRI stated that: “it appears that the state agencies are trying to avoid both public scrutiny and monitoring of their work and are trying to create facts on the ground by choosing a bidder and signing an agreement with them before the public is able to examine any of the details of the tender…” and that “… the intended privatisation of the prison service raises a series of complex legal and constitutional questions.”
ACRI had been allowed access to
sections of the documents but “answers to central questions had been deleted,
such as: the minimal requirements for a prisoner’s living space; the requirements
relating to space to be used by all the prisoners; prison medical services;
occupational and rehabilitation services; the ethical code that would be applicable
to all the staff, details regarding a system for governmental monitoring of
the prison management and a system to deal with breaches of contract…”
AUSTRALIA
Northern Territory says “no”
There are no plans to privatise Northern Territory prisons or contract out custodial services, according to department of justice. The Northern Territory News, 2 December 2004 reported the department’s head Richard Coates as saying that “it has not been considered ...”
New South Wales investigates private costs
New South Wales’ public accounts committee has launched an inquiry to establish the cost effectiveness of the state’s only private prison, the medium security 750 bed Junee Correctional Centre (see PPRI # 64, 61, 57, 55, 52, 46, 41, 40, 38 & 35). The government pays GEO Group A$21.5 million per year to run Junee. Meanwhile, the state’s newest prison at Wellington is publicly financed, built and operated.
Victoria Police tendering
Victoria Police are re-tendering for the provision of custodial services for the Melbourne Custody Centre (MCC, see PPRI #46). The contract is for three years with two one-year options to extend. Since March 1999 the Centre has been run by ACM, subsequently The GEO Group. GEO has a one year contract that expires in March 2005. The company undertakes custodial duties at the MCC as well as providing court escort duties. Another GEO company, Pacific Shores Health Care provides 24-hour on site nursing service.
Five women custody officers are on long term stress leave from the Melbourne Custody centre because of alleged intolerable working conditions at the MCC. Their complaints include sexual harassment, discrimination, bullying, victimisation, intimidation and poor treatment of prisoners. They allege the centre is understaffed. Their claims are to be heard by Victoria’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
One of the five, Bruna Moressi, told the Herald Sun, 18 November 2004, “Melbourne Custody Centre is mismanaged through and through … problems are covered up.” It is the only police jail with padded cells for psychotic inmates and others with serious psychiatric illnesses. She added: “None of the staff have training with psych patients and the centre is not properly equipped to deal with these people … it’s the Bronx of prisons.” A GEO spokesperson said staffing levels were above minimum requirements and, last year, the centre was given high marks for management, safety and care of inmates.
South Australia negotiating with GSL
The government of South Australia and GSL Custodial Services Pty Ltd are negotiating the renewal of the company’s contract to run Mount Gambier Prison (see PPRI # 64, 50, 48, 43, 41, 10 & 7). The prison opened under Group 4’s operation in December 1995 and is the state’s only privately run prison.
The government has commissioned a A$1 million control room for the prison. It will allow staff instant multi-camera visual coverage of the prison and its perimeter.
Queensland: industrial action at GEO prison
Staff at the GEO Group-run Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre took industrial action in January 2005 over wages and safety issues. Cleaners, maintenance workers, psychologists and others stopped work after the company refused to negotiate with the the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneuous Workers Union. The union alleges that GEO has failed to meet its obligations under the Queensland Industrial Relations Act. No award conditions, certified agreement or enterprise bargaining conditions cover the workers’ employment. The facility’s 700 prisoners were locked down during the industrial action which took place over two days.
At the January 2005 trial of a prisoner
who attacked and beat another in a day room at the Arthur Gorrie Correctional
Centre in July 2003 the court was told that no video recording of the incident
was available despite there being two cameras in the day room. At the time of
the incident the attacker should have been locked in his cell. However, no explanation
was offered to the judge at Brisbane District Court as to how the attacker was
able to leave his cell.
HUNGARY
One prison being built, another on the way
A 700 bed prison is being constructed at Szombathely in western Hungary and a tendering process for a second at Tiszalok in the east is due to commence (see PPRI #57). The Szombathely prison is due to be completed at the end of 2006 and Tiszalok by July 2007. Construction firm Fober has been chosen to supervise the building at Tiszalok. Once the prison is open the service fee is expected to be €76 million per year. Public-private partnership contracts will last for 15 years. At the end of 2004 Hungary’s prisons were overcrowded by 40%.
CZECH REPUBLIC
PPP prison planned
The justice ministry is due to consider the state’s first public-private partnership prison. Ministry spokesperson Petr Dimun told Pravo, 9 March 2005, that the prison, to be financed and built privately, “will cost more but it will finally pay.” Current legislation prohibits the private sector from operating prisons.
GERMANY
Serco wins first contract: minister “not concerned” about research
Serco Group has been awarded a five year contract by the Hesse ministry of justice to operate non-custodial services at a new prison being built by the state at Hünfeld (see PPRI # 60, 55, 47, 37 & 30). The company beat competing bids by Sodexho and two undisclosed other companies.
German law requires that the state retains control of custodial services. Serco will be providing the psychological, medical and educational care of prisoners as well as video surveillance, kitchens, workshops and facility management services. The company will also provide industrial work for 300 prisoners (the population of the prison will be 502) in conjunction with other companies.
The government will pay Serco €5.7 million per year and the state’s justice minister has claimed that the arrangement will reduce operating costs by 15% (€55,000 or approximately $77,000) per month.
However, speaking on Hessischer Rundfunk’s defacto television programme on 5 December 2004, justice minister Christian Wagner said that experiences from other countries and research studies are of “little concern” to him. “I am not familiar with these studies as such, nor do I need to be.”
Elsewhere in Germany semi-private
prisons are being developed in Saxony-Anhalt and North Rhine-Westphalia while
states such as Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Baden-Württemberg are considering
public-private partnerships for new prisons.
Germany’s public and private banking groups BDB and VOEB have urged the government
to devise rules that spread financial risks in public-private partnerships.
RUSSIA
Privatisation under consideration
The possibility of constructing private prisons in Russia is being considered by the economy ministry. Overall, Russia’s penitentiary system is said to require an investment of some $9 billion for modernisation. However, the justice minister Yury Chalka has expressed his opposition to private prisons.
FRANCE
Protesters greet PPP scheme
France’s much heralded €1.3 billion programme of 30 public-private partnership prisons made it into the US Commercial Service’s Best Prospect 2005 list of business opportunities in the security and safety equipment sector (www.buyusa.gov).
But when justice minister Dominique
Perben visited Lavaur, near Toulouse on 31 January 2005 to announce that work
on building a new 60 bed detention centre for young people would start in 2006
some 200 demonstrators protested the planned facility. The facility is one of
seven youth detention centres the government wants to build (see PPRI
#44).
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
A prison, nine courts, electronic tagging
Nine court projects are to be developed using public-private partnerships. Announcing the €50 million programme on 8 March 2005, the minister of justice said that the projects will be “bundled” allowing “flexibility to the marketplace to bid for group or individual schemes, generating best value for the tax payer and early delivery.”
This follows the government’s recent
decision to develop a new prison under a public-private partnership. The prison,
to be located in rural north County Dublin, will hold men and women and will
replace the 150 year old Mountjoy prison. Electronic tagging operated by the
private sector is also being introduced.
THAILAND
Researching prison privatisation
Thailand’s department of corrections has commissioned the Social Research Institute at Chulalongkorn University to conduct a feasibility study into setting up private prisons. The department of corrections would like to see a prison developed in Bangkok by 2008. The prison would hold those sentenced to not more than three years as well as prisoners awaiting sentencing. The University is expected to complete its research, which includes the impact on prisoners’ rights, by September 2005.
UNITED STATES
Kentucky Republican rejects privatisation
The Republican-led state administration in Kentucky has rejected privatisation for a new prison at Sandy Hook, Elliott County. After what Kentucky.Com 10 March 2005 described as “months of wrangling” the governor concluded that local residents and their legislators were “correct” to call for the prison to be publicly run. “It is in the best interests of Kentucky and the best interest of the taxpayers to operate this facility with the prison guards being state employees,” said Governor Ernie Fletcher.
GEO’s financial efficiency?
The GEO Group Inc has had to restate its financial statements for financial years 2003 and 2002 to correct an accounting error related to its accruals for vacation expenses.
According to the company’s Form 8-K filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission on 14 February 2005, “…the restatement will bring GEO’s accounting treatment for vacation expenses into compliance with generally accepted accounting principles … GEO also estimates that the restatement will cause adjustments to its 2003 balance sheet in order to reflect an increase in its deferred tax assets and accrued expenses of $1.3 million and $3.2 million respectively and a reduction in shareholders’ equity of $1.9 million. GEO has determined that the internal control deficiency that gave rise to this restatement constitutes a material weakness … consequently GEO’s management will be unable to conclude in its Form 10-K for fiscal year 2004 that GEO’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of January 2, 2005 …”
It continues: “While GEO is not aware of any other accounting issues requiring adjustment to any prior financial statements, there can be no assurances that there will be no further adjustments to GEO’s historical financial statements as the process of completing the audits of GEO’s financial statements for the year ended January 2, 2005 is still ongoing at this time. GEO is presently unaware of any evidence that the restatement is due to any material non-compliance by GEO, as a result of misconduct, with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws.”
Wyoming: where the money goes
Private prison and correctional services companies generally like to keep financial details and contract payments a closely guarded secret. However, Wyoming Statute 9-4-103 dictates that “When an appropriation is made by law for any purpose, to be expended for the state, the officer or board having charge of the appropriation shall keep an account herewith, showing when, to whom and for what purpose any portion of the appropriation has been expended. The account shall always be open for public inspection…” Accordingly, the State Auditor’s office has a website (www.sao.state.wy.us/eft_c.htm) with the details. Examples of recent payments to prison companies include:
Corrections Corporation
of America (CCA)
24 January 2005 - $231,677.47 (Crowley (December 04)
14 February 2005 - $187,592.29 (Kit Carson January 05)
22 February 2005 - $10,265.09 (Crowley medical January 05)
9 March 2005 - $41,877.56 (Bent February 05)
(PPRI Note: Crowley County CF is in Wyoming. Bent County and
Kit Carson are CCA facilities in Colorado.)
Securicor EMS
12 January 2005 - $4,686.30 (ISP Monitoring Oct)
18 January 2005 - $400.00 (ISP Monitoring)
28 February 2005 - $4,503.42 (ISP Monitoring Dec)
7 February 2005 - $2,852.97 (Part of Invoice)
7 February 2005 - $2,778.43 (Part of Invoice)
Correctional Medical Services
10 January 2005 - $2,306.72 (Medical Aggregate CAP)
31 January 2005 - $686,147.00 (January 2005 Health CAP)
28 February 2005 - $83,230.31 (Medical Aggregate CAP)
28 February 2005 - $686,147.00 (February 2005 Health CAP)
UNITED KINGDOM
Premier’s Kimarnock prison exposed by undercover reporter
Allegations that Premier Prisons-run Kilmarnock Prison is understaffed, suicide watches go ignored, cell searches are not carried out, officers turn a blind eye to hard drugs and prisoners push staff to the limit have been made in a BBC television programme (see PPRI #60, 56, 55, 52, 51, 49-47, 44, 43, 40, 37 & 36).
“The primary focus of running the prison was the financial outcomes. My view is that when I was there I never had enough officers to run it properly … my estimate would be, you would probably require another 30% of resource,” said the prison’s former assistant director, Stewart Yates.
A former prison officer who worked at Kilmarnock for five years and who did not want to be identified said: “To me, it’s on the brink of failure. They’re hanging on by their fingernails to keep it open, keep it running. A lot of it’s down to the turnover of staff. They’re struggling to get staff in, they’re struggling to keep staff and it’s ready to break. It’s falling apart at the seams. And they’re just holding it together, no more.”
A BBC researcher, Steve Allen, applied for a job with Premier and the vetting procedure failed to detect his true employed record. After 10 weeks training he was sometimes the only officer in charge of a wing accommodating 80 prisoners “with no radio, no keys and no experience.” He described his experience as “very scary.”
Over a period of 16 weeks the prison’s “airport style” security system failed to detect Mr Allen’s hidden camera, despite its metal components. The findings of his undercover report were shown on 9 March 2005. Set out below are extracts from the programme which also included interviews with relatives of three prisoners who committed suicide at Kilmarnock, James Barclay, Darren Bertellotti and Gordon Mulholland. Premier claims, however, that Fatal Accident Inquiries did not attribute blame to the company. The company also claims that it has increased staffing levels.
PAUL KENYON (PK) BBC REPORTER - In this leaked internal memo from November 2002 it says the number of prison officers leaving had peaked at 40%, that’s around three times more than any other Scottish prison. Out of the 11 who started at the same time as Steve [Allen] only five remained when he left. And that’s just four months into the job.
NURSE GARY COOK - “I wouldn’t advise anyone to work here, nursing-wise. They’re possibly running a third of the nurses they should be and the company will not take on any more.”
PK - The warning
signs have been there for years. In May 2002 the prison’s clinical manager warned
the prison’s directors about understaffing. She told them: “If things don’t
change it’s only a matter of time before a critical mistake will happen, at
worst, a mis-read emergency causing death to a prisoner.”
Again, a year later, the prison doctor told managers: “With this problem there
is a Russian roulette factor and the gun will go off in someone else’s face.”
Asked by Steve Allen how many nurses there should be, one replied:
PRISON NURSE - “Loads of us. There’s only about five permanent now - they’ve all left because they hate the working conditions and we’re so short staffed and they just get shit all the time. It’s really bad.”
PK - It’s not just the health centre that has problems with understaffing. Prison officers are often in short supply too. Privately, one jail manager recognised the problem in a document leaked to the BBC. It was sent to the prison director Nick Cameron in 2002. It says: “We’re coming perilously close to corporate neglect by leaving house blocks with dangerously low staffing levels.”
In the same year Cameron himself recognised the problem in an email to his superiors in which he pleaded for more staff.
“Low staffing levels have left a high risk situation. I do not wish to be dramatic. But a combination of factors coming together could lead to a failure of control or major incident.”
An email dated 1 November 2002 from Nick Cameron stated: “Recently we advertised and were only able to attract seven candidates, some of dubious quality. Many of our existing staff lack the ability to be good PCOs [prison custody officers] but we accept them as little alternative exists.”
Interviewed by Paul Kenyon, Kilmarnock’s former assistant director said:
STEWART YATES (ASSISTANT DIRECTOR KILMARNOCK PRISON 1999-2003) - “The primary focus of running the prison was the financial outcomes. My view is that when I was there I never had enough officers to run it properly … my estimate would be, you would probably require another 30% of resource.”
STEVE ALLEN (UNDERCOVER REPORTER/PCO) - “Horrific attacks are quite common … there’s a lot of prisoner on prisoner violence … We were told that on House block 2, people will talk about stabbing you but they’re just full of rubbish, they speak nonsense. But on House block 1 they don’t say anything but they would do it.”
PK - Inmates are able to roam freely between the wings … it is a clear breach of security procedures … some inmates on House block 1 appear to have the run of the wings. It appears that some officers are too afraid to intervene.
PRISON OFFICER - “You can’t even get a conversation going with the prisoners over there. They just f… walk about each other’s wings and everything. There’s that many officers over there who just let them. They actually open the sliders [doors] for them and let them out and let them on to another wing. If we were down on House block 1 we’d get our f… heads kicked in…”
PK - If an inmate is tested positive for a class ‘A’ drug like heroin the jail receives 10 penalty points. Steve [Allen] has been told that can translate into a fine for Premier Prisons of more than £3,000. And if a member of staff or an inmate is assaulted the prison can be fined up to £16,000. On his training course Steve was told by one instructor that if things like drug taking and assaults were all reported it would cost so much in fines the prison would have to close down.
STEVE ALLEN - “He was telling us about how we shouldn’t always report infringements of the rules because that would lead to Premier Prisons being fined and it would make the prison financially unviable if everything that happened was reported. So he was kind of saying that we should maybe mention it to our supervisors but don’t be surprised if we didn’t hear anything and not to worry about it.”
PK - However, on another day new recruits were told they should report every breach of the rules.
STEVE ALLEN - “The compliance officer played it straight down middle and said we should report all instances.”
PK - Leaked documents show that the issue of whether to report or not had troubled the prison for at least three years. This leaked memo shows the dilemma facing the prison when it comes to penalty points. It is from one of the managers to director Nick Cameron. Some of the prisoners have been caught using mobile phones. It’s a big security problem … if prison officers look for more mobile phones and find them, as the memo points out, it could mean fines to the prison of up to £8,500 per phone.
PK - Inmates have been making illegal home-brew known as hooch. It’s a common problem in most prisons … Steve has been told that prisoners found with hooch in their cells should be reported. So he asked his wing supervisor what he should do.
WING SUPERVISOR - “As long as you don’t tell anybody, you find it, you pour it away … technically it should be reported. If it is reported it costs penalty points. It’s all f… politics and money.”
PK - Prisoners caught using drugs should be disciplined. So you would think that any blatant drug use would be reported immediately. But that’s not the case when Steve and another new recruit smelled heroin coming from a cell. They tell an experienced officer.
STEVE ALLEN - “The officer didn’t attempt to take any action, didn’t attempt to take the heroin from these two kids, didn’t attempt to place them on report, didn’t search the cell.”
STEWART YATES - “There was no direct instruction to staff but there was a culture created that was put in such a way that penalty points were to be reduced because if penalty points were reduced the opportunity was there for more staff for pay rises.”
PK – So are you saying that some staff there felt that if they didn’t report these findings they might actually get a pay rise?
STEWART YATES - “Potentially, yes, that was the culture.”
PK - Brian Gorman trains new recruits. He tells Steve [Allen] how he can use his discretion if he finds banned items in the cells.
BRIAN GORMAN - “… discretion-wise, it depends on what you’re talking about. What you’ve got to remember is that you’ve got to cover your own arse. You can pass it up the chain - supervisor on to heads ops and then it’s up to head ops whether they want to report it. What are you talking about, finding a weapon or something … it’s dodgy … if it’s just something you can throw in the bin or whatever or just get rid of it or whatever, that’s entirely up to you.”
Paul Kenyon asked Stewart Yates, former assistant director at Kilmarnock: So what was the incentive at Kilmarnock to actually report the findings of drugs, weapons, alcohol in the cells?
STEWART YATES - “There’s no incentive. I mean I realise it was a business, you know, people have put money up behind the private company who run the prison and, you know, it is a business, it runs on business principles. There is a whole human side to running a prison but it’s difficult to consider within that specific remit but that was the reality.”
PRISON OFFICER DAVE LORIMER - “I earn favours off the prisoners. If I find a bit of tin foil in their cell on a cell search … I know that if it’s f… all, only a wee bit of … mack (heroin) on it, I’ll scrunch it up… and say you owe me a favour now. I’ve got a f…dictionary of favours that I can cash in.”
PK - Lorimer is teaching the new recruits control and restraint techniques … the prison says it doesn’t tolerate unlawful use of force on prisoners. But Lorimer has a different attitude to long term prisoners.
DAVE LORIMER - “I don’t like them. I f… detest the bastards. Be nice to them … about half and half … they need a good f… pasting. You know and that’s plain and simple. At the end of the day, I’ve got the keys and I’m f… in charge here so it’s my way or the highway.”
PK - Steve never witnessed any officer on prisoner violence. In fact despite Lorimer’s views, even in trying circumstances most guards treated prisoners with respect.
PK - Since it opened six years ago seven prisoners have taken their own lives. The prison has been criticised for its care of vulnerable prisoners. One Fatal Accident Inquiry even heard that suicide watches designed to protect prisoners had been ignored and the paperwork had been falsified.
PK - Steve has been left in sole charge of a wing. He’s discovered that some suicide watches have already been missed. Three prisoners haven’t been checked for nearly an hour and a half. They should be done every half hour.
STEVE ALLEN - “Well that’s me on G Wing, with remand prisoners, young offenders, very vulnerable prisoners. As you can see, the forms I’ve got are suicide watch forms. They should be filled out every half hour. The last entry was 2.30 and it’s now 10 [minutes] to four. So, I’m on my own, I can’t do them myself because I’m supervising all the prisoners.”
Steve shows the forms to a colleague prison officer.
PK - Instead of going to check on the prisoners immediately he falsifies the forms to suggest that the checks have been done.
STEVE ALLEN - “Right, well as you can see, I’ve just had the officer fill in the suicide watch forms without going to see them [the prisoners]. It wasn’t until I mention it that he’s actually gone off to check.
PRISON OFFICER - “If you miss one go and check on them as soon as you can and fill it up to date.
PK - Other officers told Steve that they rarely do checks and one even claimed he never bothered.
PK - The Fatal Accident Inquiry into Gordon [Mulholland]’s death at 43 heard that the paperwork detailing his suicide watch had been falsified and the watch had not been observed.
PK - Has Kilmarnock prison learned from its past mistakes? Some of Steve’s colleagues say that because of staff shortages they haven’t got time to follow correct procedures.
PRISON OFFICER - “Sometimes they haven’t got time Steve, it’s physically impossible to do it… because there is that much f…going on especially on the back shift. You see between one o’clock and two, you cannae [cannot] check them, unless they walk by you, you cannae check them, because one’s here and one’s doing something else, visits are going on, medication, it’s physically impossible. Until some … dies they’ll no change it.”
BRIAN GORMAN - “First of all, I can tell you straight, they’re not checked all the time.”
PK - Now she’s [a prison officer] filling in the forms retrospectively.
PRISON OFFICER - “You see yourself that things happen on the wing are a hell of a lot different to what you do in your training.”
PK - On another day Steve discovers that these suicide forms have been filled out in advance.
PRISON OFFICER - “It’s the weekend, do you know what I mean … during the week early shifts especially, just kind of bring them up to date, if you ken [understand] what I mean. Don’t put them forward if you ken what I mean, keep bringing them up to date. Don’t see the way I’m doing it now, bringing them forward and all that, but if you bring them forward then that’s you, you’re alright, you’re sorted, ken?”
MYRA MULHOLLAND, sister of prisoner Gary Mulholland who committed suicide at Kilmarnock: “Well I think that’s disgusting because it’s not just a record you’re falsifying. It’s peoples’ lives you’re playing with. People could die as a result. My brother did.”
PK - Steve’s learned that it’s not juts the odd officer who’s to blame or the odd occasion that the watches aren’t done. The problem is systemic. Now he has evidence that lives are being put at risk he has no choice but to abort his undercover operation and alert the prison director Nick Cameron. Steve has been working undercover behind bars for 16 weeks. Steve discusses the issue with the prison’s director Nick Cameron.
STEVE ALLEN - “One thing that’s kind of been playing on my mind and that is the suicide watches. When I’ve been on shifts I’ve noticed they’re sort off filled in advance or retrospectively.”
NICK CAMERON - “As long as you’ve done your job… when you’ve done your job and if you get an issue where you see somebody else isn’t doing their job, speak to them first ‘that’s not right you should be doing it properly’ and if they don’t do anything you should speak to a supervisor or the head of residential.”
PK - But the prison’s director doesn’t ask Steve where or when the forms are being falsified or which officers are responsible for not following the correct procedure.
PK - This week
Premier Custodial Group is investigating the allegations raised in tonight’s
programme. The Scottish Prison Service says it is confident that Premier will
take appropriate action. Three officers have been removed from duties involving
prisoner contact or training until the investigation is complete. In a statement
Premier says it is committed to ensuring that the people in its care are in
a safe and secure environment and are treated with respect and dignity … Kilmarnock
is a well run prison where staff and prisoner relationships are good. That’s
supported by independent assessment. Premier treats any alleged breach of procedure
very seriously and the overwhelming majority of staff at Kilmarnock work diligently
to perform a valuable and difficult service son behalf of the community.” Premier
says there hasn’t been a suicide there for two years. But from the evidence
we’ve uncovered that would appear to be more through good luck than good management.
Prison Undercover: The Real Story http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/default.stm
ELECTRONIC
MONITORING
BI Inc loses out on EM contract, files lawsuit
Legal action by the electronic monitoring equipment firm Behavioral Interventions Inc. (BI) has forced the state of Missouri to suspend its equal opportunities policy of requiring that a percentage of each state contract should go to businesses owned by women or ethnic minorities. The state’s policy follows federal law.
Last year, BI of Boulder, Colorado, bid for a $4.5 million contract to supply and service electronic monitoring equipment for Missouri’s state prison system. The company arranged 19.6 % women and ethnic minority participation. The state’s target is 20% minority and 10% female owned business participation in contracts for services, materials and construction.
As BI failed to meet the 30 % requirement, the contract was awarded to Securicor EMS Inc. of California, now a subsidiary of the UK based Group 4 Securicor.
BI filed a lawsuit on 27 September 2004 arguing that it had been denied equal protection under the law. The company claims the US Supreme Court has held that federal, state and local governments cannot arbitrarily mandate levels of participation in public contracts.
In January 2005 a US District Court judge issued an injunction against the state, ordering the contract to be re-bid and the suspension of the women and ethnic minority participation requirements. In February the judge confirmed his decision. A further hearing is set for 23 May 2005 in Kansas City. In the meantime, Securicor EMS continues to operate the contract until the case is resolved. Missouri’s attorney general plans to “aggressively defend the law.”
However, the Missouri chapter of the National Association of Women Business Owners is arguing that the state should improve its policy as the current system allows prime contractors to use women and minority-owned firms as partners to win bids but then fails to award them work. The Minority Business Council of St Louis claims that Missouri has never reached the required level of women and minority-owned business participation.
BI’s operations
BI claims to work with judicial systems in 50 states and six countries, monitoring
more than 60,000 offenders. The company offers “solutions” for budget constraints,
jail overcrowding, multiple DWI/DUI offenders, unsupervised misdemeanants, probation
problems, parole issues and prisoner re-entry.
For eight years BI was the federal court system’s exclusive provider of electronic monitoring systems. Then it lost the contract, valued at $30 million to Securicor (see PPRI #46)
Since then that contract has been
re-bid and in February 2005 three companies, BI, Securicor and ADT Security
Services Inc. won a one year contract, renewable each year to 2009 to be the
providers of equipment and services to federal officers supervising probation,
parole and pre-trial defendants and offenders. Each of the 94 district courts
can choose which provider it wants to use. BI currently serves around 30 of
those courts. Systems provided include tamper resistant ankle bracelets, voice
verification to confirm that an individual is in a particular location, a remote
alcohol monitoring system and a handheld device that allows officers to spot
check an individual’s location from outside a building.
According to BI, there are about 150,000 pre-trial defendants, probationers
and parolees supervised by federal courts to community supervision. Of these,
approximately 20,000 individuals are referred annually to the federal home detention
programme where electronic monitoring is almost always used.
In California BI has a contract with the department of youth authority that includes the provision of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology.
Dmatek’s growth
Another company behind the growth of electronic monitoring of offenders is the Tel-Aviv based Dmatek.
The company develops and manufactures electronic monitoring systems and its Elmo-Tech subsidiary specialises in law enforcement applications. On 1 March 2005 Dmatek released its financial results for the year ended 31 December 2004, which showed revenues of $17.8 million, up 12% on the previous year. Pre-tax profits nearly doubled from $0.715 million to $1.5 million.
Elmo-Tech has divisions operating in the US, Europe and the rest of the world (ROW). In Europe Elmo-Tech’s revenues grew 38% to $6.9 million in 2004 largely due to a series of contract expansions and renewals. Examples from 2004 and 2005 to date include:
In 2004 Elmo-Tech’s ROW division increased its revenues by 36% to $2.6 million. In the Pacific Rim, programmes in New South Wales and New Zealand (where it supplies Chubb, see above) were renewed. New Zealand has started a trial programme of using GPS to track sex offenders. The company also benefited from programme expansions in Singapore and Mexico.
In January 2005 Elmo Tech announced that it had signed an agreement to provide electronic monitoring technology to Hashmira Company, now a subsidiary of Group 4 Securicor, which had been awarded a an initial one year contract by Israel’s ministry of public security. The contract for the newly launched home detention monitoring programme has an option for two one year extensions.
In the US Elmo-Tech won a third in-prison monitoring contract in Minnesota and a state level contract for home detention systems with Securicor EMS, a subsidiary of Group 4 Securicor. The monitoring equipment delivered for the Securicor contract “so far is valued at more than $1.3 million.” The new contract potentially “opens up a big new distribution channel” in the US. In a Dmatek press release 5 January 2005, the company would only refer to the state as “one of the large ones.”
Elmo-Tech claims a 20% share of the US market for home detention systems. It supplies equipment to ADT (see above) so now provides two of the three contractors to the federal courts. The company’s view is that GPS tracking of offenders “continues to be of interest to corrections agencies although absolute numbers of systems in use are still low.”
In a press release, 1 March 2004,
Mr Reisman, said: “In the long term we expect to see markets for electronic
monitoring of people growing with Dmatek in the lead position to provide for
the need for technology.” He expects to generate new business in the US and
to see “contract opportunities in Denmark, France, Scotland and Sweden alongside
continued growth in existing accounts.” The company “will also be actively pursuing
additional in-prison monitoring opportunities.”
GLOBAL
MARKET
Promoting public-private partnerships
Sponsored by firms such as Serco, PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG and hosted in Prague by the government of the Czech Republic, the ‘5th Annual Public Private Partnerships Global Summit’ last November brought together “governments and the leading private sector players from around the world to discuss the latest developments in PPPs and to learn from one another.” Paris was the venue in February 2005 for ‘PPP in France’ which included sessions on “initiating the PPP policy and empowering the administration to implement the prison programme” and “experiences from the UK-the operational performance of PFI prisons.”
Just two of the numerous forthcoming events aimed at promoting privatisation/PPPs are aimed at expanding the global market for private prisons and criminal justice services generally. The first, a European PPP Symposium ‘Towards Convergance: Building an EU wide PPP Market’ is a “conference and networking event for PPP professionals pushing the boundaries of the €95 billion European PPP market delivered by public sector PPP leaders in the EU.” The brochure notes that: “Where transport projects have proven the case, schools, hospitals, prisons and waste management projects are now coming to the fore as the PPP agenda is developed in Europe. Opportunities for European contractors and consortia are clear, however external barriers remain for companies seeking to invest equity and win procurement contracts beyond domestic markets.” Organised by Centaur Conferences the event will take place in London on 24 May.
London is also the venue for SMi’s
‘PPP/PFI in Criminal Justice & Emergency Services’ event. This is scheduled
to take place on 20/21 June 2005 and should include prison case studies from
the UK, France, Germany, South Africa and Victoria, Australia as well as UK
police and fire services.
Ironies of imprisonment,
Michael Welch, Rutgers Univesity, Sage Publications, 2005. www.sagepublications.com
This book, with a foreword by Professor Todd Clear of John Jay College, “explores
the ironies of imprisonment while contributing to a critical penology that strives
to understand problems facing punishment.” Chapter 9, entitled Punitive Profit,
“… contributes to critical penology by challenging the uncritical acceptance
of a crime-punishment nexus while scrutinising market forces shaping social
control. The author argues that: “While critics question the tortured logic
of increasing expenditures in criminal justice that have failed to improve public
safety, the corrections industry continues to generate ideological and financial
windfalls for politicians, corporations and a growing cast of opportunists…”
and that … “keeping privatisation in a favourable light requires the reproduction
of several interlocking myths.” Thee chapter concludes: “Numerous accounts confirm
that a prison enterprise geared towards accumulating capital does so by slashing
operating costs, most notably labour (ie, professional, well trained staff)
and much needed programmes and services (eg, education, medical care, substance
abuse treatment). The end results are neglect, abuse and violence.”
Measuring Prison Performance:
Government Privatisation and Accountability, Gerald G. Gaes, Scott D. Camp,
Julianne B. Nelson and William G. Saylor, AltaMira Press, California, September
2004, www.altamirapress.com
The authors argue that prison performance must be measured in reference to the
goals of a particular prison system. They quote Yergin and Stanslaw (1998):
“Where the frontier between state and market is to be drawn has never been a
matter the could be settled once and for all…Instead it has been the subject
over the course of this century, of massive intellectual and political battles
as well as constant skirmishes.” They add that; “Prison privatisation is one
of those battles. These are the two themes captured in this book-government
accountability and prison privatisation. You cannot discuss one intelligently
unless you discuss the other.” They also provide a template for the measurement
of prison performance. “It is because we have spent a great deal of time trying
to assess the relative performance of private and public prisons, as well as
the performance of individual prisons within a system, we believe it is time
to take a fresh look at the problem and suggest alternative theoretical and
empirical solutions.”
Comparative Criminal Justice
Policy Making in the United States and the United Kingdom: The Case of Private
Prisons, Trevor Jones and Tim Newburn, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume
45, Number 1, January 2005, www.oup.co.uk/crimin
The authors “compare the process of policy change in each country and analyse
the factors shaping key policy decisions.” They conclude that “given the timescale
of developments in both countries, it certainly appears that there was at least
a degree of ‘policy transfer’ frmo the United States to the United Kingdom …
however it is also clear that the story is not so simple…”
Private and Public Sector
Prisons: A Comparison of Select Characteristics, Curtis R. Blakely, Vic W. Bumphus,
Federal Probation, Office of the US Courts, June 2004. See also Probation Journal,
Vol. 51 No. 3, September 2004.
“Much of the contemporary literature suggesting differences between the [public
and private] sectors are based largely upon speculation rather than observation
and research.” The authors argue that “by considering prison privatisation,
insight can be obtained about the role of the contemporary prison (both private
and public) as well as the role that a profit ideology may play in the future
application of punishment.” The authors use data from the Corrections Yearbook
1998 and 2000 (although data on the private sector were incomplete for 2000)
and discuss issues such as demographics, custody and sentencing, salaries, training
levels, turnover rates, frequency of assaults and drug treatment.
America's Prisons: The Movement
Toward Profit and Privatization Curtis R. Blakely, BrownWalker, USA, 2005.
The author describes
this book as a supplemental reader. It deals with prison objectives/ideologies,
inmate commodification and civil rights infringements. It provides an introductory
look at the characteristics of prison privatisation, and the related perceptions
held by the federal judiciary and published by the print media.
Making profits out of Human
Misery, The Business of Prisons, Prof. Randall Sheldon, Prison Service Journal,
Number 157, January 2005.
This article critiques the US ‘corrections industrial complex’ and privatisation
and profiles Corrections Corporation of America. The author concludes: “whether
or not privatisation of prisons continues (and there are some serious doubts
that this trend will continue) prisons and jails will continue to operate, which
will still guarantee steady employment for a large workforce, plus continuous
profits for those businesses that provide various goods and services.”
Prison Privatisation: Who
Profits? Prison Reform Trust, London, January 2005, www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk
A report on private prisons in England and Wales that raises questions about
efficiency savings, performance, pay and conditions and the lack of accountability.
The Trust calls for a public debate. “What the Prison Reform Trust is asking
is: are there some specific concerns beyond the general debate about privatisation
that apply when prisons are involved?” said Rt. Reverend Dr Peter Selby, Bishop
of Worcester. “ … to make matter worse there has been little parliamentary scrutiny
of the contracts handed to operators, meaning for taxpayers there is a serious
lack of accountability. That’s why the time is right for a proper public debate
on the ethics of introducing the profit motive into our criminal justice system,”
said Brendan Barber, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress.
It’s A Private Affair by Carol Matlack and Raphael Kahane, Business Week, 18
October 2004, www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_42/b3904075_mz054.htm
The article announced that “the next chapter in the dismantling of Europe’s
public sector has arrived.” Discussing public-private partnerships the authors
noted: “So far the trend hasn’t attracted much criticism from Europe’s powerful
public-sector labour unions. That’s probably because relatively few of their
members’ jobs are at stake. Most public works construction is already contracted
out, and key employees in the new privately operated facilities - such as prison
guards, school teachers and hospital nurses – are to remain on the public payroll.
But that could change.”
Cashing In On Cons, Silja
J.A. Talvi, In These Times, 11 February 2005, www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1924/
see also www.alternet.org/story/21223
This article is an undercover report on the American Correctional Association’s
2005 winter conference in Phoenix. The event was partly sponsored by the private
prison industry. The author describes the exhibition hall where “here the discussions
were all about increasing profit margins, lessening risks and liabilities, winning
court cases and new, improved techniques and technologies for managing the most
troublesome inmates.”
The Last Jingle Jangle of
the Auld Triangle (Mountjoy Closure & Super Prison Construction), http://videoindymedia.org/en/2005/02/45.shtml
This short video asks whether the introduction of PPP schemes into prison building
also signals the introduction of private prisons and discusses the alternatives
to building a new super-prison in the Republic of Ireland.
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