ON OTHER PAGES

The United States delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has further delayed the possibility of an inquiry into prison privatisation.

In Geneva on 17 April 1998 the US, supported by the Netherlands, called for the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to reconsider its decision made in 1993 to seek authorisation to appoint a special rapporteur and hold an inquiry into prison privatisation (see PPRI # 10). This is the third time that the original request has been referred back.

The US proposal was agreed to without a vote and the matter has been referred back to the Sub-Commission which convenes for its next annual meeting in August 1998.

The Sub-Commission was set up with the specific function to undertake studies, particularly in the light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The issue of prison privatisation was originally raised by Cuba.

The Sub-Commission’s subsequent request was for the then delegate from India, Mr Ali Khan, to be appointed rapporteur for the inquiry. As Mr Khan is no longer a delegate there is the unresolved question of who to replace him with. But the central issue is whether the Sub-Commission still believes that there is a need for a three year in-depth study of “all issues relating to the privatisation of prisons including the obligation to respect and implement the legislation in force in the country concerned and the possible civil responsibility of enterprises managing private prisons and their employees.”

If the Sub-Commission decides to pursue its original request for an inquiry, the matter will not be reconsidered by the Commission on Human Rights until April 1999. If the Commission agrees to the request, it would then take at least another year for the inquiry to be launched.

UNITED STATES

Arizona boot camp scandal

The death of 16 year old Nicholaus Contreraz on 2 March 1998 at a private non-profit, paramilitary-style camp for boys in Arizona has exposed a serious lack of oversight and accountability of such facilities.

One autopsy revealed that the boy died of complications from a lung infection that were exacerbated by physical activities at the Arizona Boys Ranch. Another autopsy by a forensic pathologist showed that the boy had been manhandled causing bruising, abrasions, scratches and minor puncture wounds to the head and body.

A 37-page Pinal County [Arizona] Sheriff’s report released on 17 April 1998 states that some staff members thought that Contreraz was faking his breathing problems, even though he repeatedly coughed and vomited in the days before he died.

An Internet web site operated by Boys Ranch states that staff use non violent physical force, “... holding a child either in a basket hold (a hug) or against a wall or on the ground, until the child regains sufficient self control to cease disruptive behaviour...” The motto is “It’s About Change” and the site features a graphic of a ‘street’ boy being transformed into a clean shaven graduate wearing a mortar board.

The Arizona Boys Ranch is one of a network of eight campuses with a capacity of some 600 boys. The State of California is its largest customer with 325 referrals. The Boys Ranch receives around $3,600 per month for each referral. Since the death, California has not made any new referrals and on 22 April 1998 the San Joaquin [California] County Probation Department decided to remove 24 youths from the Arizona camp.

The Pinal County Sheriff’s report also includes allegations by four boys that staff had thrown them into walls. Another boy alleged that a staff member “took him to an empty barracks and threw him around for having too much food in his mouth during dinner.”

Five boys alleged that staff members forced Nicholaus Contreraz to do push ups with his face in or over a pail that contained soiled clothes. The report included an acknowledgment from a staff member that the boy was made to hold a push up position with his feet on a desk and his head by the pail on the floor. But it was denied that Contrereaz’s face was in the pail.

Boys also alleged that staff sometimes made them urinate or defecate on themselves rather than go to the toilet at an unscheduled time.

Former residents of the Boys Ranch who have been subsequently contacted by the Los Angeles County Juvenile Services Department have made allegations that support the evidence contained in the Pinal County Sheriff’s report.

On 26 April 1998 two staff members were fired, four suspended and the programme director replaced.

n Since 1994, the Arizona Department of Economic Security has received 91 reports of alleged abuse or neglect at Boys Ranch camps. The Department’s Child Protective Services substantiated at least 24 of the complaints. Since Nicholaus Contrerez died, there have been nine reports of abuse or neglect.

In 1995, Boys Ranch officials disputed findings of abuse in 13 cases, calling state investigators inept and biased. A lawsuit against the state is still pending.

For ten years the state Auditor General’s Office has criticised the system of licensing facilities such as the Boys Ranch. As recently as 1996, Arizona’s Department of Economic Security recommended re-evaluation of the Boys Ranch licence, citing risks to children and violations of rules and statutes. Yet the following year, the Boys Ranch was given more control over how licensing visits were conducted and reported.

Rebound loses Colorado licence

Denver-based Rebound Corporation Inc has had its licence to run the 184 bed, high security High Plains Youth Center in Brush, Colorado revoked by the State (see PPRI #9 and 18). The facility was closed on 23 April 1998.

Although it has complied with the decision, the company has called it “inappropriate” and has applied to Denver District Court for a hearing to regain the licence. According to company literature High Plains is “a fully accredited American Correctional Association secure juvenile facility”.

In Maryland in 1992, the company lost its licence to run a Baltimore facility after State officials complained that it hired young and inexperienced staff, was slow in starting programmes and had not prevented assaults and riots. In 1997, the company lost a contract after a series of assaults and a riot at a Florida facility.

The latest Colorado State investigation into the facility began in February 1998 following the suicide of 13 year-old Matt Maloney. Rebound staff were supposed to check on residents every five minutes but the suicide victim’s body was not found for four hours.

Colorado’s audit revealed alleged repeated cases of child abuse, insufficient and unqualified staff, inadequate training, a high turnover of staff and lack of mental health care. The company admitted youths with mental problems despite having a policy not to and no expertise to deal with them. A number of High Plains staff have been fired for allegedly sexually abusing residents. Since 1 January 1997, the Morgan County Department of Social Services has substantiated 23 cases of child abuse, including four cases of sexual abuse.

In March, Colorado withdrew 40 youths it had referred to the facility. It allowed the facility to remain open for out of state referrals but then other states also began removing their clients. Rebound informed the State that “necessary adjustments” would be made to bring the facility “into full compliance to reflect the licensing arrangements.” But on 20 April the State announced the facility’s closure.

High Plains has operated since 1988. Numerous problems have been reported and investigated during the last three years. In 1995 a federal Occupational Health and Safety report described High Plains as an unsafe work environment. That same year the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services issued a critical report which included findings of sexual abuse, high staff turnover, ignored warning signs of suicide and other problems.

Colorado’s Governor has referred to High Plains’ closure as “a lesson to policy makers about the need for higher standards and accountability for private prisons.”

Rebound supervises some 400 juveniles at six facilities in Colorado, Utah and Virginia. The company was started by Marshall S. Sterman who runs the Mayflower Group, an investment banking firm.

Rebound’s lobbying

According to State of Colorado records, Rebound Corp has paid lobbyists more than $250,000 over the last five years to monitor all juvenile detention and criminal justice legislation.

The company supported legislation to privatise juvenile detention facilities and to create a boot camp which the company now runs. It also opposed a State plan to build a 500 bed juvenile facility fearing that this would threaten its business. One of the lobbyists, Diane Rees, has admitted that the company tries “to get wording inserted into all juvenile detention Bills that would allow the State to contract out to companies such as Rebound.”

The Private Corrections Project at the University of Florida, which is partly funded by corrections corporations (see PPRI #13) but claims neutrality, has recently published a comparative recidivism analysis of ex-prisoners of public and private prisons in Florida.

The study was supported by a grant from the Florida Correctional Privatisation Commission. The report examines the recidivism of 396 prisoners released from CCA’s Bay County Correctional Facility, Wackenhut’s Moore Haven Correctional Facility and prisons operated by the Florida Department of Corrections.

The analysis is limited to a follow-up period of 12 months. The study concludes that: “ the research findings presented here provide unequivocal empirical evidence of reduced recidivism (and therefore heightened public safety and financial benefits) among releasees from private facilities. The Florida Correctional Privatisation Commission and its independent contractors at Bay and Moore Haven deserve credit for their success. Clearly, of course, more research must be done...”

But Professor Mike Maguire of the School of Social and Administrative Studies at the University of Wales, Cardiff, has reviewed the study and suggests caution about its findings.

In his view, the study is professional, carefully carried out and quite convincing. But not totally so. For example, some of the language used by the authors such as “unequivocal proof” is an exaggeration. Also, they match two groups of prisoner by type of offence, age, race and previous convictions. According to Professor Maguire, these are all proper criteria known to influence the chances of reconviction. But a possible flaw in the exercise is that the authors say nothing about the length of sentence imposed for the current offence.

“It may be that the authors have this data but they do not refer to it in the paper. In other words, are those in public prisons serving sentences of different lengths than those in private prisons? If they are, then this may explain the differences in reconviction rates which are observed,” he says.

There is also a problem in the section on programme completion. “Are those that drop out in any case more likely to reoffend? Programme completion may be correlated with reduced recidivism but may not cause it. Both could be caused by the prisoner independently deciding that s/he wants to give up on crime.” A Comparative Recidivism Analysis of Releasees from Public and Private Prisons in Florida, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Karen F.Parker, Private Corrections Project, Center for Studies in Criminology & Law, Univ. of Florida.

Tennessee proposal lost

The large scale privatisation of Tennessee’s corrections system has failed to win legislative approval (see PPRI #11and 16). What started out last year as a proposal to privatise the state’s entire $280m corrections system was scaled back to 70 per cent. By the time privatisation was finally debated by state politicians in April, a Bill had been amended to privatise no more than 25 per cent of the system by 1 July 2000. But a majority of legislators remained unconvinced.

Privatisation was defeated largely by the efforts of the Tennessee State Employees Association. It was up against Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the company behind the original proposal, in its home state. CCA’s president had legally made significant donations to Tennessee politicians’ campaigns. The company’s chief lobbyist, Betty Anderson, is the wife of the House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh who was in favour of privatisation.

CCA had claimed that it could save the state $66m a year by taking over all but one of the state prisons. But doubts were raised about whether these savings would be realised. Five companies expressed an interest in running the prisons. But despite requests for details, CCA, Wackenhut, Cornell Corrections and US Corrections Corp all refused to disclose how savings would be made. Accountability and safety were other concerns.

The issue could be raised again next year. But as the Chattanooga Times commented: “The real issue is, of course, whether privatisation is needed at all. The Corrections Department and state employees have already saved the state nearly $70m through greater efficiencies, so who needs privatisation? Besides CCA stockholders, that is.”

CCA moves into new territory

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest of the corrections companies, has recently published its 1997 Annual Report; filed its 10-K with the Securities & Exchange Commission; announced it is to merge with the recently formed CCA Prison Realty Trust; been targeted by a lawsuit from angry shareholders; acquired competitor US Corrections Corp.; and achieved record revenues for the first quarter of 1998.

Letter to shareholders

In the Annual Report’s letter to shareholders, Chief Executive Officer Doctor C. Crants writes that last year the company “expanded its operating territory and profitably, successfully navigated the political landscape, weathered the storm of media scrutiny and debate, and forged new rules for our industry’s development.” But the company admits that there were growing pains. “Pressure on our established employee base resulted in increased overtime and a backlog in our reporting system kept us from being fully aware of the consequences of this pressure.”

In describing how CCA “exited” two contracts, the Santa Fe Detention Center and the Columbia Training Center (see PPRI #8), Doctor Crants states that “we are paid to look after the long term interests of the company; its employees and its shareholders. It is rare, but when a contract loses its viability for CCA, we must be willing to delete it from our portfolio.”

10-K

In its 10-K document, the company states that it engages in extensive marketing efforts and is “the industry leader in promoting the benefits of privatisation of prisons and other correctional and detention facilities.” It believes that the majority of its new business will come from within the US. But through its joint venture agreement with Sodexho, which has operations in 66 countries, CCA is currently marketing its management services in Australia, Canada, Panama, South Africa, the UK and “continental Europe”.

Directors’ salaries and other payments

The Annual General Meeting on 12 May 1998 will be asked to ratify payments to Doctor C. Crants and the four other highest paid executives combined, who received $1.07m in salaries and other compensation but excluding stock options in 1997. In March 1997, the company bought 200,000 shares from Doctor Crants for $7.6m. In September 1997, CCA bought 122,500 shares from Chairman Emeritus Thomas Beasley for $5.3m.

Joseph S. Johnson, a director of the company (see PPRI # 13) was paid $382,000 for “consulting services delivered in connection with ... the company’s successful consummation of the contracts with Washington DC for the housing of inmates in the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center” (see PPRI # 18 and 19). He has also been granted an option to buy up to 80,000 shares valued at $2.6m (a 25 per cent discount on market price) “in consideration of his extensive efforts in building and facilitating the company’s business relationship with certain governmental departments, agencies and entities,” particularly the District of Columbia.

US Corrections Corp

On 20 April 1998 CCA announced that it had acquired US Corrections Corp of Kentucky, one of the company’s main competitors in the US. This company had four facilities in Kentucky, one in Ohio (owned by the company but run by the local sheriff) and two under construction in North Carolina all with a combined total of 5,275 beds. US Corrections Corp also had management contracts for government owned facilities in Florida and Texas.

CCA targets government owned facilities

On 20 April 1998, CCA also announced that it is to merge with CCA Prison Realty Trust whose President is the son of Doctor C. Crants (see PPRI #13,17 and 18).

CCA’s press release stated that: “The merger ... will allow respective shareholders of both companies to benefit from every type of private sector/public sector partnership: facilities owned and managed by CCA, those owned by government and managed by CCA, those owned by Prison Realty Trust and managed by CCA, and those owned by Prison Realty Trust and managed by government. We are enthusiastic about the possibilities for growth in all of these areas.”

Doctor Crants told analysts and investors that the merger will allow shareholders to participate in the potentially huge market represented by the 94 per cent of all prisons now managed by government.

The new combined company will be a Real Estate Investment Trust and, as such, pay no Federal corporate income taxes as long as 95 per cent of its earnings are distributed to shareholders. The shareholders will pay tax on their dividends. It has been estimated that the tax savings for the new company could be at least $50m per year. Commenting on the merger to the New York Times, Doctor Crants said that: “In running this company we just focus on shareholder value and the rest of it works itself out fine.” CCA expects the merger to be completed by January 1999.

But not all shareholders are delighted. A class action lawsuit has been started by non-director shareholders who believe that the directors of both companies will gain too much at their expense. Lawyers acting for these shareholders told PPRI that the merger could be in breach of the directors’ duties to get the best possible deal for all shareholders. A preliminary court hearing could take place by mid-May.

First quarter 1998

For the three months ended 31 March 1998, the company reported a 54 per cent increase in revenues to $141.3m compared with $91.8m in the corresponding period last year. The net profit was $18.4m and the profit margin was 13.1 per cent, the highest in the company’s history. At the end of March, 41,108 beds were in operation with an average occupancy rate of 97 per cent.

As at 23 April, CCA claimed to have 62,487 beds in 77 facilities under contract (but not all in operation) in the US, Puerto Rico, Australia and the UK. On ther same date Prison Realty Trust owned 20 facilities in nine US states.

n Alex Friedmann, a prisoner held at CCA’s South Central Correctional Facility in Clifton, Tennessee has been transferred to a publicly run prison for making “a deliberate effort to disseminate material which is negatively oriented to the prison operating company.” Mr Friedmann was quoted in a Nation article about CCA in January 1998.

In a letter to the Nation on 16 March 1998, Mr Friedmann alleged that CCA refused to let him see the magazine article on the grounds that it “could incite disobedience to law enforcement officials or prison staff”. Following an appeal by the magazine’s publisher, state prison officials overruled CCA’s decision, allowing Mr Friedmann to see the article. But by then he had been transferred.

Wackenhut raises $124m

Correctional Properties Trust, Wackenhut Correction Corp’s newly formed Real Estate Investment Trust raised $124m before underwriting fees on 24 April 1998 by selling 6.2m shares. The money is to be used to buy eight prisons from Wackenhut Corrections Corp.

More corporate concentration

Youth Services International Inc (see PPRI#3, 8, 9 and 13) announced in April that it is to acquire Community Corrections Inc, a Texas based company that runs boot camps and provides aftercare services for adjudicated juveniles in Georgia and Texas.

Old in Oklahoma

Nine companies are interested in building and running a prison for more than 300 elderly, disabled and sick prisoners in Oklahoma. The State’s Department of Corrections is using the companies’ proposals to find out how much the facility would cost as the State has not yet committed funds to the project. The Department would like a facility operating by September 1999. Most major US corrections companies have expressed an interest, as well as firms such as Just-Care Inc, Southern Corrections Systems Inc. and Dominion Management-Oklahoma Inc.UN

UNITED KINGDOM

Open door to Group 4

Malcolm Stevens, the civil servant responsible for drawing up tender documents and designing the regime for the Government-commissioned private Secure Training Centres (STCs) for child offenders has been offered a senior position by Group 4.

Group 4 has already won two STC contracts (see PPRI #16 and 19). Mr Stevens recently retired from the Prison Service on the grounds of ill health, but his expertise would be a great asset to Group 4 in the competition for the three remaining STC contracts.

Under Civil Service guidelines, such sensitive moves from the public to the private sector must be approved by the Cabinet Office. Mr Stevens’ job offer is currently being reviewed. But, so far, no cases have been disallowed. All the UK prison and court services companies now employ a significant number of former senior civil servants and ex-prison governors (see PPRI #16).

n Group 4's first STC, Medway in Kent, opened in April. Its capacity is 40 children. But on opening there were just two in its care despite the company having a full complement of staff. The cost to the taxpayer is around £400 per child per day. The Group 4 company running the STC is known as Group 4 Rebound ECD Ltd.

A report by the charity, The Childrens’ Society, concludes that STCs are a pointless waste of money and will become colleges of crime. “Spending millions on locking away less than 200 children [in five STCs] is madness when it could be spent on keeping tens of thousands of troubled children in school and away from a life of crime on the streets,” said the charity’s director, Mr Ian Sparks.

n Group 4 [whose motto is “Giving the World a Sense of Security”] has set up an office in the US in order to respond to requests for tenders. The company is currently bidding for contracts in South Africa as part of a joint venture company, Ikhwezi. It is also tendering for contracts in other countries. The company’s Court Services division is also marketing services such as bed watching of prisoners in hospital, serviced accommodation for magistrates’ courts as well as inter - prison movements. Group 4 currently has prison and prison service contracts in the UK and Australia. It is part of a European - based group operating in over 30 countries.

More private immigration centres

Reports by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on two privately-run immigration detention centres, Campsfield House near Oxford and Tinsley House at Gatwick Airport, were published on 16 April 1998 (see PPRI #18). The reports were set within a critique of the Government’s overall immigration detention policy and practice.

The Government’s response was to admit that existing legislation is inadequate and that the system is “a mess”. The regimes at the two centres are to become more controlled and structured and more private detention centres are to be built to cope with the increasing number of asylum seekers.

Campsfield House

Group 4 has run the facility since 1993. The Chief Inspector heard a wide range of concerns from detainees, staff and management. He concluded that “Group 4 were doing a good job in difficult circumstances” but he recommended that 94 improvements should be implemented by the Secretary of State, the Director General of the Immigration Service and the company.

Not least of the Chief Inspector’s concerns was the fact that there had been “totally inadequate contract monitoring and compliance arrangements, some of which defy rational explanation”.

Staff at Campsfield House are employed by Group 4 Securitas (whereas prisons and court services staff are employed by other Group 4 companies) and are members of the GMB trade union. Concerns about wages and conditions reported to the Chief Inspector include:

n they receive equivalent pay to Group 4 Prisoner Custody Officers [undisclosed] but work many more hours (56 per week);

n many officers work overtime to supplement their basic pay and that “by Thursday everybody is exhausted”;

n they receive no lunch break or provision of a meal;

n the pay and conditions help to explain the high turnover of staff (originally 57 per cent, 22 per cent at the start of 1997) and only 25 per cent of the original staff remain;

n they are not supported by management, feel ignored when passing information upwards and given little or no information about security issues;

n they are accused of abusing their authority over detainees whereas they provide a service beyond requirements;

n the centre only runs with the consent of the detainees;

n the policy of the company not to allow pressure groups to see Campsfield House for themselves works against the interests of the establishment;

n there are inadequate numbers of staff on shifts;

n supervisors work seven consecutive 12 hour shifts.

Tinsley House

Tinsley House opened in May 1996 and is run by Wackenhut (UK) Ltd on a three year contract. Serco is sub-contracted to manage the facilities. Although the detainees reported a wide range of grievances, the Chief Inspector concluded that “generally speaking, the quality of services provided within Tinsley House was very good ... overall, we detected a commitment ... to provide a professional, caring service to detainees”. He still recommended that the Immigration Service and Wackenhut should implement 109 improvements.

As with Campsfield House, the Chief Inspector’s report provided an insight into conditions for staff. He reiterated his view that “the quality of personnel and continuity of staff attendance in institutions is a critical determinant of the success of the total operation.” He recommended that “the terms and conditions of employment of detention officers should be reviewed.” It was revealed that:

n even though hours worked had been cut from 56 to 48 hours per week, it is hard to recruit and retain staff and there are staff shortages;

n detention officers are not salaried employees;

n pay rates (undisclosed) are not high enough to encourage staff to stay;

n absence through sickness is high;

n there is no sick pay or pension scheme;

n holiday pay is given at the rate of an eight hour a day but staff are required to work a 12 hour shift;

n there is no dedicated lunch break but staff are entitled to one meal per 12 hour shift; no food is provided to staff working the night shift;

n staff are often required to work two hours’ overtime at the end of a 12 hour shift;

n there is no incentive to become a supervisor;

n staff are committed to each other rather than to the company.

Campsfield House, Report of an Unannounced Short Inspection, 13-15 October 1997 and Tinsley House, Report of a Full Inspection, 4-7 August 1997, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne’s’s Gate, London SW1H 9AT.

n Tinsley House is not Wackenhut UK Ltd’s only contract. According to the most recently available published accounts, for the financial year ended 31 December 1996 (the year in which Tinsley House opened), Wackenhut UK’s revenues increased 46.7 per cent to £8.9m from £6.1m in 1995. Pre-tax profit in 1996 was £141,204 after deducting costs of £119,000 for directors’ salaries and pension contributions. The company paid a service charge of £50,000 (£31,871 in 1995) to Wackenhut International Inc, a subsidiary of the Wackenhut Corporation in the US. The accounts state that “it is the policy of Wackenhut UK Ltd to encourage its staff to participate in the well being and growth of the company.”

n When asked if the contract for Campsfield House could be placed in the House of Commons Library, the Home Secretary replied that “the contract specification for the running of Campsfield House Detention Centre is Commercial in Confidence. I regret that it cannot be disclosed (Hansard, 2 April 1998).

Good public sector practice

In 1993, the first and only market testing of a prison to take place in the UK resulted in an in-house win for the prison’s management team. Since 1994, HM Prison Manchester in north west England has been run under a series of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between the Prison Service and the prison’s management, rather than a contract as with the private sector.

After problems with the first SLA, a revised agreement was signed in October 1996. For legal reasons, where a competitive tender in the public sector is won by the in-house team, it is not possible to have binding contracts either between Government departments or between divisions or branches within a department. The SLA is therefore a ‘proxy contract’ and clarifies roles and responsibilities and provides comprehensive statements of requirements, standards and expected outcomes.

Manchester’s SLA has been scrutinised by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in conjunction with a team from the National Audit Office. In a report published in April 1998, the Chief Inspector concludes that “the Prison Service should adopt a pilot scheme to introduce the SLA process in a further two or three establishments”.

The Chief Inspector believes that SLAs are the way ahead “not least because they represent a most effective tool for estimating the true cost of not just a prison, but of all activities conducted within it, particularly those designed to protect the public by tackling reoffending.” HM Prison Manchester, Report of an Unnanounced Short Inspection, 27-29 October 1997, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne’s’s Gate, London SW1H 9AT.

Parc’s second suicide

There has been another suicide at Securicor’s HMP Parc at Bridgend, Wales (See PPRI #16,18, and 19). Prisoner Dallas Lee was found hanging in his cell on 5 May 1998. The company has launched a “full and urgent inquiry.” This is the second suicide at the prison since it opened in November 1997.

Probation services under threat

The Home Office is examining the possibility of contracting out community service supervision functions currently carried out by probation officers. The terms of a Comprehensive Spending Review require management to consider how far public/private partnerships can be used to improve services.

AUSTRALIA

Corporatisation in Victoria

Victoria’s Corrections Minister, Mr Bill McGrath, introduced a Public Correctional Services Authority Bill in State Parliament on 30 April 1998. It will transform the Public Correctional Enterprise (known as CORE) from a service agency within the Department of Justice to a public authority. In effect, this corporatises the remaining public prisons and correctional centres.

The Minister proposes that the public authority will:

n separate the service provider from the service purchaser and policy maker (Department of Justice) and regulator (Correctional Services Commissioner);

n result in a more level playing field between private prison operators and the public sector correctional agency;

n enable the authority to operate in a more business-like manner under a board of management;

n compete with the private providers on a competitively neutral basis.

The Bill sets out the new authority’s objectives. These are designed to emulate “as far as practicable” the statutory and contractual framework established for private prison operators.

Also within the Bill are arrangements for transferring all existing staff to the new authority. All terms and conditions are to be “no less favourable than those enjoyed in the public service” and pension rights will be protected.

The board of management will comprise directors with “both commercial and correctional expertise and skills.”

Evaluation

The performance of both the public and private sectors will be evaluated over the next three years. If the private sector is found to be more cost effective and performing better on prisoners’ rehabilitation then “it would be a very difficult argument not to proceed further with privatisation,” said Mr McGrath.

The new authority will commence later this year or early in 1999.

For the State Opposition, Mr Andre Haermeyer said: “What they are doing is trying to get the public system to emulatethe miserable failure that private prisons has been in this state.” The Federation of Community Legal Centres and the public sector trade unions have also condemned the legislation.

n A privatisation consultant hired by the Victorian Government has criticised the existing prison privatisation programme for lack of regulation. In an interview with the Australian on 30 April 1998, Dr Peter Troughton of Victoria’s Treasury Energy Projects Division said that in every privatisation a strong regulator was needed, at arm’s length from the Government, to keep the management honest with public reports. He said that he was “worried” that Victoria’s three private prisons have no independent regulator or Ombudsman.

He was also critical of the Government’s investigation into the recent problems at Port Phillip Prison. This is being conducted by the Corrections Commissioner, Mr John Van Groningen, and his report is unlikely to be made public. Dr Troughton said that he would not trust that the investigation was adequate unless the results were published.

n In a brief update on some of the issues dealt with in his 1997 book Private Prisons and Public Accountability, Professor Harding of the Crime Research Centre, Western Australia argues that: “Governments have a responsibility to cement and improve regulatory procedures not as a matter of economic rationalism but as one of equity, decency and purposiveness in Australian prisons policy and administration - both public and private.”

Private Prisons in Australia:The Second Phase, Richard Harding, Australian Institute of Criminology trends & issues, April 1998. AIC, GPO Box 2944, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. Email:aicpress@aic.gov.au

Victoria’s spy hole

A convicted criminal, who claims he was a British MI5 and MI6 agent in the 1960s and 1970s eluded Victoria’s system of probity checks and managed to become an official prison visitor at Group 4-run Port Phillip Prison in Melbourne. Mr Tony Holland was imprisoned in England in 1981 for dishonestly handling stolen goods. He later moved to Australia. He was appointed as a prison visitor in December 1997 after agreeing to a police check on his background.

The Corrections Minister, Mr Bill McGrath, personally signed the document ratifying Mr Holland’s appointment. Now that Mr Holland’s true background has been revealed his appointment has been cancelled.

In Victoria, prison visitors have unrestricted access to a prison and liaise between prisoners and prison management.

Group 4 takes to PR

Group 4 has hired public relations firm Royce Communications to try to counter the negative publicity surrounding the company’s recent problems at Port Phillip Prison (see PPRI #15-19). Royce is the company that the Victorian Government used to promote its New Prisons Project which oversaw the development of private prisons. Meanwhile, the private investigator that the company hired to investigate the first two deaths in custody at the prison now has a caseload of six.

United States	New Zealand
United Kingdom	Adjaria (formerly Georgia)
Australia	South Africa

Prison Privatisation Report International