Prison Privatisation Report International

No. 69, July 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.

UNITED STATES
Corporate concentration continues

The GEO Group Inc (GEO, see PPRI # 68, 67, etc) is negotiating to acquire rival Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) in a $62 million deal which will combine two of the largest private prison operators in the United States. While GEO also has international operations CSC has so far failed to win a contract outside of the US. In the past the company has bid for contracts in the UK (see PPRI #64, 63, etc)

GEO is using $42 million of its own cash and has arranged a $175 million credit facility underwritten by BNP Paribas. GEO will assume CSC’s debt of $124 million. The deal is expected to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2005.

GEO also plans to divest itself of CSC subsidiary Youth Services International (YSI) which operates 17 facilities for young offenders. CSC bought YSI in 1998 but it has had a chequered history (see PPRI #62, 61, 58, 55, 45-42, 36, 30, 26, 24, etc). GEO hopes to sell YSI either to CSC’s chief executive, James Slattery, or an alternative buyer. Although GEO believes there are positive prospects for the growth of the juvenile business it is deemed to be outside of the company’s core focus. However, the proposed sale of YSI has been criticised. According to PalmBeachPost.com, 15 July 2005, Morgan Stanley Investment Executive Director Richard Glass said: “I don’t feel [that] giving the juvenile business away is in the best interest of shareholders.”

If the deal closes GEO will have 55 facilities with a total design capacity of about 43,500 beds. GEO could immediately benefit from a recent decision by Arizona’s Department of Corrections to contract with CSC to build a 1,000-bed prison in Florence for sex offenders. As an editorial in the Tucson Citizen (www.tucsoncitizen.com)15 July 2005 points out: “But here's the kicker: CSC will charge the state $61 a day to house each inmate. The state could do it for $50 a day in a state facility. The CSC bill works out to an extra $11,000 a day for Arizona taxpayers - and an extra $4.1 million a year. So where is the ‘responsible fiscal management’ of which legislators boasted? CSC explains its higher cost by saying it will have an ‘innovative rehabilitation program’. We'll see.”

According to GEO’s Annual Report for the financial year ended 2 January 2005, GEO was “pursuing acquisition opportunities in 2004 and had capitalised direct and incremental costs related to potential acquisitions. During the fourth quarter of 2004, we determined that the related acquisitions were no longer probable, and wrote off the capitalised deferred acquisition costs of $1.3 million.” The report did not identify the target companies.

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is still the largest private prison operator in the US. It has also acquired rival firms, such as US Corrections Corporation in 1998. As well as CCA, GEO and Correctional Services Corporation other firms operating private prisons in the US include Civigenics, which in 1998 bought Capital Corrections Resources (see PPRI #17); Cornell Companies Inc, which in April 2005 acquired Correctional Systems Inc; and Avalon Correctional Services, Maranatha Corrections and Dominion Correctional Services.

• GEO Group’s international operations accounted for approximately 16.9% of total consolidated revenues for the financial year ended 2 January 2005. In the US, contracts with Federal Government agencies accounted for 27% of GEO’s consolidated revenues, with agencies of the State of Florida and State of Texas accounting for 12% and 9% respectively.

Consolidation of EM firms

G4S Justice Services Inc. (formerly Securicor EMS, see PPRI #67, 63, 62 & 60) a subsidiary of Group 4 Securicor has acquired Chicago-based ADT Offender Monitoring. ADT monitors some 17,000 offenders in the US. According to a statement from G4S Justice Services issued 23 June 2005, “the acquisition consolidates Group 4 Securicor’s position as the global leader in offender monitoring services. G4S Justice Services has grown five-fold since its acquisition in 2001 … the larger company will lead the USA electronic monitoring market both in terms of monitoring services and participants monitored.” The company now monitors “over 35,000 offenders a day in the USA, Europe and the Middle East.”

EMS had been providing offender monitoring services in the US since 1996. In 2001 it was acquired by British firm Securicor. In 2004 Securicor was acquired by Group 4.

• Elmo-Tech Ltd, an international provider of electronic monitoring and tracking technologies has established a US operations centre (see PPRI #67).

Cornell falls to Pirate

Pirate Capital LLC, a Connecticut-based investment firm and hedge fund has gained control of the board of Cornell Companies Inc. after a year long campaign to secure better returns for investors (see PPRI # 64, 63, etc). Houston-based Cornell has correctional facilities in operation or under construction in 17 states and the District of Columbia. It is also part of a consortium bidding for a contract in Israel and has expressed interest in the UK market.

AUSTRALIA
Junee monitor’s report

GEO Group Australia “failed to meet all performance obligations with respect to their compliance with the Minimum Standards” at Junee Correctional Centre in 2003-04, according to the latest monitoring report (see PPRI # 68, 67, 64, 61, 57, 55, 52, 46, 41, 40, 38, 35, etc). Concerns noted by the New South Wales Government’s contract monitor included:

• An audit of the case management process found that “out of date screening forms and incorrect procedures were being used during the Reception Induction process.” However, a follow up audit found that management had implemented new local procedures to comply with requirements.
• “Monthly case notes as required in the Minimum Standards were not completed. The issue continues to be of concern and is being closely monitored.”
• In 2002-03 the monitor found that “there was a failure … to ensure that the case plans of all inmates were reviewed on a six-monthly basis”. In the latest report the monitor stated: “This is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) of the Performance Linked Fee (PLF). The GEO Group has both a contractual and legislative obligation to ensure that all inmates’ case plans are reviewed every six months. As a result of last year’s findings, GEO management introduced a Compliance Monitoring System to assist them in meeting their obligations. However continued monitoring of this area revealed a repeated failure to meet this KPI.”
• “The refurbishment of the centre, including but not limited to the gatehouse, kitchen and reception area, and the provision of suitable amenities to the centre remained an area of concern.”
• GEO should maintain a KPI of providing 65% of sentenced inmates with employment. “This KPI was based upon an inmate population of 600. When the inmate population was increased to 750 the Department agreed to continue to calculate attainment of the KPI using the inmate population of 600. This has proven to be a difficult benchmark for GEO to reach, particularly with the loss of a major business unit which provided significant employment opportunities. The Department and GEO have been working … to develop an appropriate counting rule to manage the situation.”

It was “not possible to provide a final report on GEO’s performance for the purposes of payment of the Performance Linked Fee for 2003-04.” However, the report noted that as a result of performance failures in 2002-03, the operator was penalised A$46,477, some 15% of the company’s Performance Linked Fee.
Junee Correctional Centre 2002/04 Performance Report, Appendix 21, New South Wales Department of Corrective Services Annual Report 2003-04, www.dcs.nsw.gov.au/documents/index.asp

New South Wales Value for Money Inquiry

The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry into value for money from correctional centres in the state is continuing. One of the inquiry’s terms of reference is to compare the operational costs of the only private prison in the state, the GEO-run Junee Correctional Centre (see PPRI #68, 67, 64, 61, 57, 55, 52, 46, 41, 40, 38, 35, etc), with the publicly run Mid North Coast Correctional Centre (MNCC).

MNCC is a 500 bed remand and reception centre catering for 350 maximum and medium security males, 75 minimum security males and 75 minimum security females. Junee holds 600 medium and 100 minimum security males.

According to the Department of Corrective Services’s submission the costs per minimum security inmate per day are A$82.31 at Junee but only A$80.12 at MNCC. “…a clear comparative based on assessing like inmates of like classification reveals that the Mid North Coast Correctional Centre is A$2.19 per inmate per day cheaper than Junee Correctional Centre to manage.”

Both the GEO Group Australia Pty. Ltd and consultants commissioned by GEO, Knowledge Consulting, submitted papers to the inquiry. However, sections of GEO’s submission have not been published due to commercial confidentiality. GEO stated that Junee operates at a cost of A$22.23 million and argued that, taking account of health costs, “Junee operates at a cost of A$81.86 per inmate per day while the published New South Wales cost is A$187.80.”

Figures provided by the Auditor General stated that “the cost to the Department [of Corrective Services] was A$22.7 million which consisted of a management fee of A$21.5 million payable to GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd and A$1.2 million in other direct and indirect costs.”

The Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Union (LHMU) represents “the great majority” of employees at Junee Correctional Centre. In its letter to the inquiry the LHMU stated that:

• “During the period since 1996 and in particular since mid 2001, there have been important changes in the way work is performed … a significant number of those changes arose from the July 2001 introduction of 12 hour shifts for custodial staff, who previously almost exclusively worked shifts of eight hours duration. This change means a full complement of custodial staff is now on site at Junee for only 12 hours of each day, rather than the 16 hours (made up of two eight hour shifts) which previously applied, and allowed a considerable reduction in total labour costs.”
• The introduction of those shifts and “the concurrent reduction in out of cells time for inmates from 13 or 14 hours a day to 11 hours have caused considerable difficulty for custodial staff in terms of effective case management. Adequate time for the proper exercise of case management was available up until mid 2001, but in our members’ view has not been available since that time.”
• Since mid 2001 “ the number of inmates incarcerated at Junee has risen from 600 to 750, whilst over that time there has been a reduction of over 20% in the aggregate number of hours input by custodial staff.”

The union also pointed out that custodial staff have not had a wage increase since 30 June 2003 and the LHMU is seeking increases of “between 29% and 36% dependant on classification payable over three years and the introduction of a 38 hour week (currently 40 hours)” and that “the inquiry should be cognisant of a likely increase in wages…” as the LHMU has “sought the question of appropriate remuneration … be determined by the NSW Industrial Relations Commission.” The LHMU also alleged that “the existing operators of Junee … have previously attempted to introduce non-union agreements and individual agreements to replace the existing award of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission. It now appears that employees’ ability to be represented by their union and to effectively bargain on a collective basis will be undermined by proposed Commonwealth legislation. Those restrictions will not apply to publicly-run NSW correctional centres.”

The LHMU concluded: “for reasons of fairness and equity … in order for effective comparisons of the costs of running privately operated v publicly operated centres into the future, it is imperative the NSW government includes as a contractual requirement that any operator of a private correctional centre negotiate industrial instruments with employees and their union on a collective basis.”

Meanwhile, Justice Action, an NGO, argued that “the Committee should look at the recidivism rate as a measure of the efficiency of Department of Corrective Services initiatives rather than short-term financial accounting measures … by any accounting, DCS has failed in its first job: community safety. More than 40% of prisoners return to prison within two years of release, and the reoffending rate is even higher …” Justice Action also argued that “the definition of value for money needs to take account the long term costs associated with high recidivism rates, rather than a superficial comparison of cost-per-prisoner-per day across states, or a comparison of public versus private providers.” The submissions are available on the internet at: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au

Victoria - contract information confidential

The following are extracts of an exchange that took place during Victoria’s Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) meeting on 13 May 2005. It relates to the Committee’s recent attempts to find out the costs of the two existing privately financed, designed, built and run prisons (see PPRI #32, 30, 25, 23 & 13).

Mr Forwood (Liberal opposition) - …in 2002-03, from memory, this committee sought some information in relation to the cost of private prisons. We followed it up each year. Last year we were advised that disclosure ‘is now under active consideration and you will be notified.’ In September 2004 we were told that ‘legal advice had been finalised. In December 2004 we were told that ‘a decision is expected shortly’ and advice would be forwarded to the committee ‘by the end of January’. In April we had a key finding saying ‘it is now 10 months and the committee considers this matter should be resolved and the information provided.’ Here we are, in May 2005 - any idea where the information is and when we are likely to get it?

Mr T Holding (Minister for Corrections) - “Additional advice was sought from Maddocks lawyers, the Department of Treasury and Finance … and Ernst and Young regarding the legal, financial and probity implications of the PAEC’s recommendations.

In seeking the release of this financial information, the PAEC may have been unaware triennial reviews of the PSAs take place. These reviews entitle me to reset the contractors’ performance targets and allow them to re-bid for the correctional and health services. If I reject their re-bid, I can seek a full market tender the outcome of which must ensure value for money is achieved for the state. The second triennial service review has commenced and it is considered likely the contractors will re-bid by providing Corrections Victoria with a dollar figure and all relevant financial information related to this calculation for the correctional and health services. Advice from Maddocks lawyers confirmed the commercial-in-confidence exemption contained in the Freedom of Information Act … supported by the Department of Justice’s position that any release of the financial and related information may disadvantage the state and potentially unreasonably expose the current contractor to disadvantage.” Let us make this absolutely clear.

Mr Forwood - You are hiding!

Mr Holding - This advice says to government firstly, that we are fully within our rights to assert our responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act not to release these contracts; secondly, that it would be inappropriate both in terms of maximising value for money and the best possible outcome for the Victorian public were these private financial considerations and bids to be made public during a competitive bidding and evaluation process. What this advice makes very clear is that this decision is based not only on protecting the interests of Victorian taxpayers who have every right to …

Mr B Forwood - Rubbish!
Source: Corrected Transcript, Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, Inquiry into Budget Estimates 2005-06, Melbourne, 13 May 2005.

South Australia’s PPP

The Government of South Australia is proceeding with a A$45 million public private partnership to develop new police stations and courts. The Plenary Group will finance the project and the debt will be underwritten by Deutsche Bank. Hansen Yuncken is the construction firm.

NEW ZEALAND
GEO’s contract ends

The management of Auckland Central Remand Prison, New Zealand’s only privately managed prison, was taken over by the Department of Corrections on 12 July 2005 (see PPRI # 67, 63, 62, 54, 51, 46, 38, 34, etc).

The Corrections Act 2004 prevents private prison management in New Zealand. However, if they win the next general election, opposition parties have pledged to reverse the policy.

In a company press release, 12 July 2005, GEO’s managing director in New Zealand, Mr Peter Bezuidenhout, said: “If the opportunity arises in the future the GEO Group would be delighted to again play a role in New Zealand’s correction facilities system.”

The Public Service Association welcomed the prison’s transfer. In a statement issued 13 July 2005, PSA National Secretary Brenda Pilott said: “Imprisoning people for the crimes they have committed is a core role of the state and it should never be hived off to a private operator for profit. The ACRP experiment proved that the exercise was a simple cost-cutting exercise … it employed fewer officers per inmate and paid them less than staff employed by Corrections at all the other prisons across the country.”

ISRAEL
MTC now in the frame

US firm Management & Training Corporation (MTC, see PPRI #64, 58, 55, 51, 50 etc) has been added to the consortium comprising GEPSA of France, Housing & Construction Holding Company, and Dankner Investments which is bidding for a PFI prison contract in Israel (see PPRI # 68, 67, 64-62, 60, 59, 56, 52, etc)

MTC was brought in due to their expertise in operating prisons in the US, Australia and Canada. GEPSA only provides non-custodial services to the prisons it is involved with in France. The contract on offer is for the finance, design, construction and operation of all services. The Government has set a deadline of 9 August 2005 for receiving bids for the contract. A Government spokesperson told PPRI that none of the bidders has withdrawn as a result of pending legal proceedings to halt the tendering process.

Meanwhile, in separate proceedings, human rights group ACRI has won the disclosure of some prison tender documents previously deemed confidential by the government. Although not all documents sought by ACRI are to be made available under Freedom of Information legislation, the attorney general has taken a broader view than the prison service. The Supreme Court ruled on 14 July 2005 that ACRI should receive documents by 1 August in return for an agreement from its lawyers to withdraw an application to have the bidding deadline postponed.

REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
NGO calls for evidence

Although private prisons are already on the Government’s agenda, in his Third Annual Report (2004/05) the Republic of Ireland’s inspector of prisons and places of detention, Mr Dermot Kinlen, has recommended that the Government should “open at least one prison to private companies,” (see PPRI #68, 67 & 60-58).

In response, the Irish Penal Reform Trust has produced a report arguing that the inspector does not have a mandate to make such a policy recommendation and, in any case, his view “misrepresents the research on the outcomes of prison privatisation.”
Inspecting Private Prisons, An evidence-based critique of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention’s call to introduce private prisons in Ireland, Irish Penal Reform Trust, July 2005. Available soon from www.iprt.ie

UNITED KINGDOM
GSL’s mixed inspection reports

1. Wolds issues need addressing

“Overall, Wolds is a reasonably well performing training prison on all but one of our indicators. Three key issues need to be addressed in order for it to perform well across those tests,” stated the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers. She made 114 recommendations for improvements and noted 16 examples of good practice following an announced inspection of GSL UK Ltd - run Wolds prison between 15 and 19 November 2004. The report was not published until June 2005 (see PPRI #45, 35, 10, 7 & 5).

The prison opened in 1992 as a remand centre and was the first privately managed prison in the UK. It was re-roled in 1993 as a local category B training prison and to category C in 2003. This was the first full inspection since 1998.

The chief inspector commented that “the growing distance between private and public sector prisons was a distinct disadvantage, which would become greater.” The inspections team’s findings also included:

• “Prisoners told us and we observed that it was a safe prison, in spite of low staffing levels and lengthy periods out of cell.”
• “Both the environment and the relationships between staff and prisoners were good.”
• “Sight lines to the second holding room were poor and the room itself was basic and stark.”
• “A three-day structured induction programme was run, which was shorter than the five day version envisaged in the original contract tender and did not include a tour of the prison as the tender outlined. The programme did not follow the published timetable. Prisoners were not occupied throughout but were not locked up when not involved in the programme. Induction staff received no specific training for their task.”
• “Each houseblock was originally designed to hold 50 prisoners, 24 in double cells. However, 10 of the single cells in five of the houseblocks were also being used to hold two prisoners. The living accommodation was generally good and clean but single cells were too small to be shared and the lack of a separate toilet in such cells was disrespectful.”
• “Mattresses were generally clean but many were badly compressed and unfit for use.”
• “Many PCOs [prison custody officers] said it was difficult to undertake personal officer work at the same time as routine tasks.”
• “Not all incidents of suspected bullying were investigated or recorded in prisoners’ files. This was a concern as the last death in custody report had included a recommendation that all information about prisoners under threat should be investigated.”
• “We heard some uncaring views about prisoners who self harmed, whose behaviour was often described as ‘manipulation’. Not enough was being done to verify prisoners’ accounts of events leading to their distress, nor were self harming and the background always fully discussed at reviews.”
• “The apparently low numbers of night staff might have caused problems if two incidents occurred simultaneously.”
• “The race relations management team (RRMT) was not operating effectively and was not aware of the serious concerns expressed by some black and minority ethnic prisoners about equity of treatment and access to facilities. Racial monitoring was inadequate. Incidents of alleged racist behaviour and language were not being reported and challenged.”
• “Fifteen per cent of prisoners at Wolds were from black and minority ethnic groups but there were no black or minority ethnic staff.”
• “There were significant differences between some results from white and black and minority ethnic prisoners across a range of important areas, such as safety and the helpfulness of personal officers. Many black and minority ethnic prisoner believed that staff were ignorant of their culture.”
• “There were 24 foreign national prisoners at Wolds but there was no foreign nationals policy and no prisoner groups.”
• “The [health] centre ran with minimum staffing levels, which meant that services such as nurse-led clinics, smoking cessation and relaxation classes were available only sporadically. Checks on equipment were not carried out and items in the resuscitation kit were out of date. The prison … had been without the services of a clinical psychiatrist for over six months.”
• “The dental surgery fell below acceptable standards although a full refurbishment was due to be completed before the end of the financial year.”
• “Leadership and management of education and training were unsatisfactory. The prison placed great emphasis on education to occupy prisoners but there was little management or prison-wide co-ordination of education and training.”
• “Employment opportunities were very limited with few workshop places. Most jobs were domestic and occupied little time. There was little opportunity to gain qualifications but good training in the two workshops. Only a third of prisoners were occupied during the working day.”
• “There was good time out of cell. Prisoners were unlocked for over 12 hours on weekdays and over nine hours at weekends. However, facilities to occupy prisoners were insufficient for the time available.”
• “There was considerable dissatisfaction among prisoners with the quantity and quality of food. Catering was subcontracted to Aramark.”
• “The [prison] shop was managed by Aramark and contained a range of 250 items. Prices were high in relation to prisoners’ means. Only 30% of black and minority ethnic prisoners [survey respondents] believed that the products range met their needs.”
• “There was no local resettlement policy or strategy and resettlement was not managed strategically or coherently.
• The [offending behaviour] programmes available were based on a national and area needs analysis but waiting lists were long.”
• “There was little purposeful activity for many lifers not on full-time education.”
• “There were some potential gaps in procedures for protecting child visitors.”
• “We found little evidence to suggest that a strategic approach to staff training had been developed. Although drugs awareness training was offered to staff by the programmes unit, no training needs analysis had been conducted.”

Report on a full announced inspection of HMP Wolds 15-19 November 2004, HM Inspector of Prisons. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/prisons/inspprisons

2. Altcourse “very good local prison … some areas that needed attention.”

Altcourse is “a very good local prison” according to the chief inspector of prisons who carried out an announced inspection in February 2005. Her report found that Altcourse was “also largely a safe prison, even though prisoners were out of their cells for a considerable amount of time, with low staffing levels.” The environment and the quality of staff-prisoner interaction were “extremely good” and the prison provided high quality resettlement services that identified and tried to meet prisoners’ needs (see PPRI #36, 35, 30, 29 & 18).

However, there were “some areas that needed attention.” There were “relatively high claims of victimisation by prisoners on prisoners, reflected in relatively high assault levels within the prison; suggesting a need to develop preventative as well as responsive anti-bullying measures. First night procedures needed to be strengthened; there should be more opportunity to acquire vocational qualifications; and the prison needed to pay more attention to establishing good links with agencies outside – particularly in healthcare and resettlement. There were also weaknesses in policies and procedures on race and foreign nationals.”

Altcourse, is a privately financed, designed and built prison on Merseyside, North West England. It opened in 1997 as a Category A core local prison and was restructured to Category B in June 2003. It holds remand young adult and adult prisoners as well as sentenced adult prisoners. It is run by GSL.

The chief inspector noted 13 examples of good practice and suggested 98 recommendations and housekeeping points to the prison’s director and the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service.

Ms Owers also stated: “This report, like good inspection reports generally, is likely to get little publicity. That is unfortunate, not only for the managers and staff at Altcourse, but for the prison system in general. Altcourse’s holistic and dynamic approach to prison management needs to be sustained. Moreover, it offers a model from which all prisons could learn a great deal.” However, some of her concerns included:

• “First night procedures were not good. Prisoners' immediate needs were not identified and there was no formal system to address this.”
• “About 5% of the population were black or minority ethnic but there was only one minority ethnic member of staff. The race relations officer had not been trained in investigating complaints, although these were generally completed satisfactorily. There were 38 foreign national prisoners, who got some basic support and there were links with the Liverpool immigration service. However, there was no foreign nationals committee and there were no prisoner groups and no Immigration and Nationality Directorate surgeries. Managers were making efforts to recruit black and minority ethnic staff.”
• “Altcourse was a local prison that, uncharacteristically, provided prisoners with a considerable amount of time out of their cells and with purposeful activity for most. However, there was not enough accreditation of work and training.”
• “Allocation to work was efficient but did not always take account of the prisoner’s needs, skills or sentence plan targets. The prison provided meaningful activities for about 85% of the population, most of whom were in some form of work or education. Some of the work was mundane or undemanding, but all staff stressed the importance of a work ethic.”
• “The quality of teaching was generally satisfactory and a suitable range of courses was offered. However, progression to higher education was limited. Not enough vocational and accredited courses were offered in the workplace.”
• “The personal officer scheme operated sufficiently well, although the recording of contact in prisoner history sheets was limited. Weekly entries in prisoner history files were of variable quality, with most restricted to one-line entries or stamped.”
• “Racist incident complaint forms were not freely available and prisoners had to ask staff for one. Thirty-four incidents had been reported in the 12 months to December 2004 and investigated by the RRLO. The quality of these investigations was reasonable although the RRLO had not been trained in completing investigations.”
• “A visitors' centre processed visitors and prisoners’ property efficiently but did not provide advice and support to visitors. There were complaints about the visits booking line and the drugs Barringer machine. The visits hall was functional, with a small canteen and crèche. The closed visits booths provided little privacy, and prisoners could spend long periods in holding rooms with nothing to occupy them.”
• “The largest proportion of complaints (20%) was about property or compensation. Over 95% of the complaints received replies within seven days. In our survey 26% of respondents thought that complaints were replied to promptly and 29% said that replies were fair; the local prison benchmark for both these questions was 16%. The sample of replies we read were generally helpful, written to the prisoner and addressed the complaint. However, some replies were difficult to read, written in the third person or did not address the complaint. There were some complaints about food that were not addressed or which acknowledged problems but did not include an apology.”
• “Prisoners could sometimes wait for up to two and half hours for the [legal] interview.”
• “We were concerned that the crisis suite was located in healthcare. When it was open it was managed by healthcare staff who felt that if a prisoner was a high risk self-harm candidate he would be better cared for in healthcare where he would be co-located with a carer and healthcare staff could oversee his management. This had the effect of medicalising the problem and was in contrast to most other prisons where prisoners at risk of self-harm are managed in crisis suites located elsewhere in the prison.”
• “The standard of education and quality of resources varied between areas. Only 6% of the teaching was graded unsatisfactory. The small library offered a mainly recreational service, and had poor links with the education department. The
  standard of education was generally satisfactory, and good in ICT, but poor in numeracy and literacy.”
• “Although training was available for prisoners in many work areas, accredited vocational training was available in only three areas – in two of these it was poorly organised.”
• “All prisoners brought to the segregation unit under restraint were strip-searched on arrival. This was to ensure that no weapons had been secreted and to reduce the risk of self-harm in the segregation unit. Although laudable aims, strip-searching should be dependant upon risk assessment.”
• “Catering had been contracted out to Aramark. In our survey, 57% of respondents said the food at Altcourse was bad or very bad, and only 16% compared to a 21% benchmark at local prisons said it was good or very good. Prisoners had mixed views about the catering provision. The main complaint was about its quality and quantity.”

Report on an announced inspection of HMP Altcourse 7–11 February 2005 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, April 2005, published July 2005. www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/prisons/inspprisons

• Two prisoners were found hanged at Altcourse just days before the publication of the chief inspector’s report. Lee Crabtree, who was on suicide watch, was found dead in his cell on 11 July 2005 and David Oakes was found dead on 12 July. Inquiries have been launched.
  

CZECH REPUBLIC
Moravia a likely site?

The prison service is continuing a feasibility study into the development of some form of private prison (see PPRI #67). A report was due to be presented to the government in March but this was delayed by the director’s resignation. CTK National News Wire, 18 May 2005, reported that, according to “several sources” a private prison is to be established in Moravia since many citizens convicted in Moravia have to serve their sentences in Czech prisons. However, several regions have expressed an interest in having a new prison.

FRANCE
PPP programme on schedule

Negotiations with bidders for the first contract for the finance, design, construction and facility management of four medium-security prisons should be completed by the end of this year (see PPRI #67, 52, 44, 25 & 11). The second tendering process for a cluster of three prisons was launched in March. For both of these contracts private provision will include facility management, cleaning and utility supply. Also at the end of 2005 the Ministry of Justice will launch the third tender with the possibility of a broader range of services offered to the private sector. The possibility of a full PFI prison being commissioned is regarded as remote for the foreseeable future.

SOUTH AFRICA
Prison operators’ revenues

Global Solutions Ltd’s revenues from its prison contract in South Africa were £14.6 million for the financial year ended 31 December 2004 compared to £14.1 million in 2003 (see PPRI # 68, 64, 63, 61, 58, 56, 54, 52, 51, etc) The company’s pre-tax profit before goodwill amortisation was £3.1 million (£3.3 million in 2003), according to Global Solutions Ltd’s recently filed Annual Report and Financial Statements.

GEO’s revenues from its South African operations were $15.05 million and its operating income was $3.7 million for the financial year ended 2 January 2005, according to the company’s 10K report filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission. Meanwhile, the GEO Group Inc. Annual Report 2004 noted that the company regards itself as being “in a remarkable position to strengthen its partnership with South Africa’s department of correctional services as solicitations for new prisons materialise.”

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