All new prisons in England and Wales are to be privately built and run. In a speech to the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) annual conference on 19 May 1998, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, announced that a Prison Service review found  the option of using private finance to build new prisons while retaining the management function in the public sector was not affordable and “does not offer value for money.”

The Home Secretary also endorsed another review which concluded that “the immediate transfer of existing private prisons to the public sector is not affordable and cannot be justified on value for money grounds.” But he said that “the Prison Service will be allowed to bid for the chance to take over the management of existing privately managed prisons on the next occasions that the contracts expire.”

Neither review has been made public. Rejection of the private/public option is because of objections from the private prison companies. It remains to be seen whether it will be feasible for the Prison Service to compete effectively for the management contracts.

Mr Straw claimed that his decisions were based partly on the findings of the Labour members of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in 1997 (see below).

History of the U-turn

The Home Secretary’s announcement completes a Labour ‘U-turn’ on pre-1997 election pledges. In 1994, John Prescott (now Deputy Prime Minister) told the POA conference that: “Labour will take back private prisons into public ownership - it is the only safe way forward.” At a meeting of the Bourne Trust, a prisoners’ aid society, on 7 March 1995, Mr Straw, then Shadow Home Secretary, said that “at the expiration of their contracts, the Labour government will bring these [privately managed] prisons into proper public control and run them directly as public services.” Speaking at the POA conference in April 1996, Mr Straw said that he found it “morally unacceptable for the private sector to undertake the incarceration of those whom the state has decided need to be imprisoned ... almost all people believe that this is one area where a free market does not exist.”

But the Government’s back-tracking started soon after the election on 1 May 1997. On 8 May, Mr Straw said “...if there are contracts in the pipeline and the only way of getting the [new prison] accommodation in place very quickly is by  signing those contracts, then I will sign those contracts.” On 19 June, Mr Straw announced that he had renewed UK Detention Services’ management contract for HMP Blakenhurst and agreed to two new privately financed, designed, built and run prisons. He also said that the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee which reported in March 1997 were “still to be fully considered” and announced that he had ordered the two Prison Service reviews referred to above.

 

What the Home Secretary said to the POA about private prisons - the full text.

Private prisons

“Let me now turn to the issue of private prisons. Many of you, I know will be familiar with the views on private prisons I have expressed in the past. My first concern about private prisons was that they could mean the abdication of the state’s direct responsibility for public safety and the deprivation of freedom. I was concerned that this central responsibility would slip away: that discipline would be wholly exercised by private contractors: that profit would be put above humanity and constructive regimes for prisoners.

That was why I took a great interest in the deliberations of my Labour colleagues on the Home Affairs Select Committee who examined these arguments with great care in the 12 months before the election. They took evidence from all sides, including from the POA. At the end of their examination their conclusion was the same as that of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. They said this in their agreed conclusion:

‘While we accept that contracting out is not universally welcomed, we consider that the fears hitherto expressed over the principle of contracting out - that it would mean the abdication of state responsibility for public safety and the deprivation of freedom  - have not proved justified, and that the idea of privately managed prisons is undoubtedly now more generally accepted, and should be allowed to develop further.’

No Home Secretary can ignore that sort of conclusion.

The Select Committee also pointed out that the private sector has shown a great deal of concern to improve regimes and to make the prison experience as challenging and constructive as possible for inmates. This is not to deny of course that the private sector establishments have not had their share of incidents - from disturbances to suicides. And I know, and appreciate the fact, that staff from the public sector have stood ready to assist in resolving these situations. I therefore attach great importance to the fact that a direct employee of the Prison Service, the Controller, is present in each privately managed prison to ensure that the contract is complied with and that the quality standards set by the Prison Service are being met.

The continuing existence of the private sector has, however, in no way narrowed down the scope of the public sector. Over the past five years, public sector staff alone have increased by over 3,000.

In the Prison Service, as in all other areas of public life, we have to ensure that the public’s money is spent wisely and effectively. As a responsible Government we have committed ourselves to providing best value to achieve high performance, efficiency and effectiveness.  Whatever the anecdotes, the facts are these: current cost comparison research indicates that privately managed prisons are between eight per cent and 15 per cent less costly than their counterparts in the public sector. The difference is accounted for almost entirely by: lower staff ratios; lower staff costs, including pension arrangements and salaries; and greater effective availability of staff with fewer holidays and, in many cases, a longer working week. The private sector matches, and in some cases exceeds, the performance of public sector counterparts - in terms of key performance indicators, security and standards audit scores and Chief Inspector of Prisons’ reports.

Review of  scope for public sector involvement

My early decision to proceed with further DCMF prisons and to renew the Blakenhurst contract came against this background. The critical factors in those decisions, however, were our commitments to the Government’s spending plans and to accommodating safely the population - which was under far more severe pressure than had previously been revealed. This left virtually no room for manoeuvre but I did, at the same time, commission two reviews to explore options for greater public sector involvement in the longer term. I am pleased to note that this Association contributed constructively to both reviews.

The first review sought to demonstrate that the public sector does indeed have the capacity to match private sector performance. Nevertheless, the conclusion of the review which I have endorsed is that the immediate transfer of existing private prisons to the public sector is  not affordable and cannot be justified on value for money grounds. The biggest challenge for the public sector, therefore, is to narrow the value for money gap. There is more that the public sector can achieve in this respect and I know that some very positive views have been offered by trade unions and managers on how our efficiency programme might continue.

I am, therefore, pleased to tell you I have now agreed that the Prison Service will be allowed to bid for the chance to take over the management of existing privately managed prisons on the next occasions that such contracts expire.

The second review was about the use of private finance to build new prisons whilst retaining the management function in the public sector. Again, some very thorough work has gone into this review and I must conclude that there is no way that such a proposition is affordable and it certainly does not offer value for money.

It is important that the Prison Service tackles the value for money challenge. I can assure you that there will continue to be opportunities not only to measure against the private sector but for current privately managed prisons to be taken back into the public sector if the terms are right.”

 

 

Parc debacle continues

        The Prisons and Probation Minister, Joyce Quin, has called for a full report on HMP Parc at Bridgend, Wales which opened in November 1997 (see PPRI #18,19 and 20). It is believed that the company has, so far, been fined £55,000 for contract deficiencies.

In a statement issued on 6 May 1998, the Minister said: “I know that the Director General of the Prison Service has been in discussion with senior staff at Securicor to rectify weaknesses identified. An action plan has been drawn up to strengthen the running of the prison.  In view of the latest problem I have asked the Director General to let me have a full report on the current situation at HMP Parc. ”

That same day, a disturbance took place and officers from nearby publicly run prisons were drafted in to help regain control.

On 20 May, according to the Prison Service ‘Gold [emergency]Commander’ John Dring,  at 7pm the Prison Service’s Command Suite had to be opened in order to deal with “some instability on two wings following a day long search ... carried out by Prison Service dogs and Parc staff.” During the evening “four Control and Restraint units from nearby [publicly run] establishments were placed in readiness in the staff mess at Parc but in the event were not deployed ...”

Since opening, three of the prison’s senior management - including the first director - have all been replaced. The new director started on 27 April and was recruited from the publicly-run HMP Bristol.

Securicor has now abandoned its high technology pod system under which one prisoner custody officer stood at a  control desk on each wing and remotely locked/unlocked every cell door while watching up to 75 prisoners. The computer controlled locking system is being replaced by  traditional locks and keys. According to the Guardian on 30 May 1998, prisoners failed to respect a yellow line around the pod consoles and, by crowding the officer on duty, made it impossible for him or her to monitor activity on the wings.

n On 12 May 1998, Stephen Shaw, Director of the Prison Reform Trust visited HMP Parc. This is a summary of what he found:

“On the day of my visit there were 714 prisoners, 480 adults and 234 young offenders. The capacity  is 800.  Parc receives prisoners from all over Southern England as there are not enough defendants and offenders from courts in the region it was designed to serve.

Staffing

As at 30 April, the prison was short of 30 prisoner custody officers. This was due to an unexpectedly  high turnover of staff.  The Prison Service has called for Securicor to increase its complement by 20 officers, so although 42 newly trained staff are due to start work on 25 May, the prison will still be understaffed.

 “Urgently required. Overtime on Sunday 10 May. 1½x time. Any shift or part or all in all areas.” - staff notice.

 The staff are courteous but morale is low as a result of the suicides, disturbances and  the management turnover. Prisoners, particularly young offenders, are openly contemptuous of the staff’s abilities.

The prison is also short of health care staff, a problem exacerbated by the fact that between 60 and 70 per cent of all prisoners are said to be on some form of medication.

Regime

Disciplinary adjudications are running at a very high level - five times that of neighbouring publicly - run HMP Swansea with only twice the number of prisoners. Due to the lack of staff there is a limited regime. Prisoners are unlocked for much of the day but many are clearly bored. Parc has received  more convicted prisoners than expected. This has had major consequences, for example, insufficient work places. There are only 120 full time work places and 120 education places. Available work includes making darts and dart boards, as well as electric harness wiring.

The incentives scheme is barely working. Mandatory drug testing has only been in operation for six weeks and staff are not achieving the required 10 per cent random testing level. There is little sign of a clear drugs strategy.

Generally, there is no effort made to separate convicted and unconvicted young offenders. In the health centre, young offenders and adult prisoners mix freely.

Race relations

Some of the prisoners sent to Parc are black Londoners. They have to deal with abuse from white racist gangs. The company has clearly not made race issues a priority. One unit (B4) has had to be closed for re-painting after racist graffiti and swastikas were  daubed.  At least one cell in the Segregation Unit needs re-decorating as there is racist graffiti on the walls. There are few ethnic minority staff.

High technology

The prison has been heralded as being equipped with especially high technology. This image is exaggerated. All internal gates are opened through a central unlocking system which tends to be shambolic. There is a lengthy waiting time for gates to open. On one occasion during the visit, the wrong gate was unlocked.  Staff are still being trained to work the system. The perimeter security is impressive but no more advanced than at some publicly- run prisons.

Overall, Parc matches the experience at all previous private prisons in the UK. It has had a fiery baptism. The plans now in place under new leadership may mean it has a more secure future.”

 

Now private fine enforcement

        Another function of the criminal justice system is to be privatised. The Government is planning legislation enabling  private companies  to trace fine defaulters and offenders in breach of their probation orders in England and Wales. Civilian enforcement officers would have the power to enforce warrants, including entering an offender’s home and “to lay his hands on offenders without exceeding their legal powers...” At the end of 1996, the level of arrears through default was some £139m. It has also been estimated that thousands of warrants for non-compliance with community penalties have not been enforced by the police.

In July 1994, the then Conservative Home Secretary,  Michael Howard, told the British Security Industry Association  that his review of police functions would lead to more opportunities for private firms.

 

Group 4 again

       Group 4 has been chosen by the Prison Service to operate a pilot project using a voice recognition system to track sex offenders and drug dealers released on parole. Offenders will phone in at fixed times from certain locations. Their voices will be matched with computer -stored samples. Early tests of  the American technology found that it could not recognise an English accent and it had to be adapted.

The project will last six months and will take place in conjunction with the Probation Service in Kent, South East England. It is the first voice tagging scheme in Europe and Group 4's first tagging contract.

Group 4 runs three prisons, two immigration detention centres and four prisoner escort services in the UK.

 

 

UNITED STATES

 

Ethics hearing into Dr Thomas

      Dr Charles Thomas, director of the University of  Florida’s Privatization Corrections Project, is to face a public hearing into two conflict of interest charges (see PPRI #13).

In an Order Finding Probable Cause issued on 28 May and released on 2 June 1998, the Florida Commission on Ethics accepted that there is “probable cause to believe” that “as a professor at the University of Florida and also an OPS employee for the Correctional Privatization Commission, [he] violated Florida Statutes ... by having contractual relationships with private corrections companies, or companies related to the private corrections industry, which conflict with his duty to objectively evaluate the corrections industry through his research with the University,” and also “by having contractual relationships with companies that are regulated by, or doing business with, his agency, the Correctional Privatization Commission, and which impede the full and faithful discharge of his public duties or create continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his private interests and his duties with the Correctional Privatization Commission.”

Corrections guru

Dr Thomas, the so-called independent guru of privatised corrections, has always maintained that his views, reports and other publications are independent even though his project is partly financed by corrections corporations, he is a director of CCA’s Realty Trust, he owns stocks in corrections companies, has worked for the Florida Correctional Privatization Commission, and advises other government agencies in the US and abroad.

Central to the Commission’s Order was Dr Thomas’s stock ownership at the same time that he produces an annual report used by investment firms to determine the value of  those same stocks.

The hearing, which could take some months  to be scheduled, will determine whether Dr Thomas is guilty of the charges. But he has the right to resolve the complaint at this stage by offering to make a settlement with the Commission’s Advocate. The Commission would then have to agree to any recommendation that the Advocate might make.

FPBA’s great day?

The Commission’s investigation was launched after the Florida Police Benevolent Association (FPBA), which represents state-employed correctional officers, filed a complaint about his activities in July 1997.

Commenting on the Commission’s Order, the FPBA’s Ken Kopczynski said:  “This is a great day for forces fighting privatization in Florida. “They [those against privatization] have tried for years to have honest debate on the issue of private corrections, yet the Correctional Privatization Commission and industry would point out studies and reports by Dr Thomas as unbiased proof that privatization worked. Not any more.”

But the FPBA might be celebrating too soon. The Commission has not found Dr Thomas guilty. Even if the hearing eventually decides that he is, Dr Thomas has the right to appeal the decision in the District Court of Appeal. And if he is guilty,  it is the State Governor who will ultimately decide how - if at all - Dr Thomas is penalised.

A spokesperson for the Ethics Commission told PPRI that if guilty, Dr Thomas could be liable to a civil fine of up to a maximum of $10,000 on each charge; he could be demoted or dismissed from public employment; have his salary reduced; or simply be publicly censured or reprimanded  by letter from the Governor.

Dr Thomas’s most recently published study is Evaluating the Potential Public Policy Implications of Correctional Privatization by the State of Iowa, January 1998. The Corrections Project web site features The Weekly Stock Report on publicly traded corrections companies.

A 104 page report on the complaint and the investigator’s findings is now public record. It can be obtained by sending $15.60 to: Florida Commission on Ethics, PO Drawer 15709, Tallahassee, Florida, 32317-5709. Tel: ++ 1 850 488 7864.

 

 

Wackenhut faces Texas lawsuit

       Wackenhut Corrections Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit for damages in the federal court in Dallas, Texas. The case is  being brought by current and former prisoners at the company’s  Coke County Juvenile Justice Center in Bronte, Texas.

The prisoners claim that the company “created an environment wherein girls as young as twelve years old were subjected to sexual abuse, received no counselling, no vocational treatment, no case treatment plans and inadequate or inappropriate medical care, were placed in a ‘levels’ programme in which the length of the time of the juveniles’ detention could be unilaterally changed, lengthened or shortened depending on the whims of Wackenhut’s untrained staff members, and were made to live in an environment in which offensive sexual contact, deviant sexual intercourse and rape were rampant and where residents were physically injured to the point of being hospitalised with broken bones.”

When it opened in 1994, the facility was the company’s first juvenile rehabilitation contract.

Court documents state that, “Wackenhut had literally thrown together the facility and staff in less than three months.” Although Wackenhut claimed the facility would be staffed with “highly trained professionals who will obtain order and control of the facility to ensure the health and safety of its occupants,” it is claimed that the company  did not live up to “more than 150 promises, warranties and representations made to the State of Texas and its citizens.”

The documents set out a catalogue of incidents in which it is claimed that “residents were degraded, humiliated, assaulted, harassed and emotionally abused.”

In September 1998, the court will decide on the legal  issue of whether the case constitutes a class action. Once that has been established, the substance of the case can be argued. The company denies all the prisoners’ claims.

Barton and Harden and others -v - The Wackenhut Corporation, Wackenhut Corrections Corp and John Does 1-99; Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint - Class Action, Request for Certification of Class Action Status and Request for Permanent Injunction; US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Case No:3-97CV2677H.

n A 35 year-old counsellor at Wackenhut’s Coke County facility has been indicted following an investigation into allegations that he had unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15 year old resident in January 1998.  Another  resident of the facility who agreed to settle a sexual abuse case with the company on undisclosed terms in December 1997, shot her  boyfriend and then killed herself soon after.

n The Texas Youth Commission (TYC) has agreed to extend its contract with Wackenhut at the Coke County facility.  The 104 beds are to be increased by 48 and girls are being transferred to other facilities to make way for boys. According to a TYC press release, one local judge commented that: “the workers ... seemed pleased about the changes. They think it will be easier to work with boys rather than girls.”

A spokesperson for the TYC told PPRI that it was aware of the lawsuit but was not a party to it and that the reason for the shift from girls to boys was “a programming decision.”

 “TYC staff have offices at the facility and are involved with day-to-day monitoring. In instances in which we are less than satisfied with the contractor’s performance, we ask for corrective action. Wackenhut has always responded to our corrective action plans and has always complied with our requests for improvements.”

Asked why the workers think it will be easier to work with boys, the spokesperson said; “You would need to ask them really. Generally, however, the girls we see at TYC typically come to us with a higher level of emotional disturbance issues than the boys do. The girls have a more common history of being sexually and physically abused  than the boys. The girls are a very challenging population to help.”

 

Trough time again

       The third Privatizing Correctional Facilities Conference - slogan “tap into this explosive industry for increased revenues” - is being held in New York in September 1998 (see PPRI # 6 and 12). It is organised by the World Research Group and the Reason Public Policy Institute.

The conference brochure boasts that the list of speakers “quite obviously reads like an international edition of Who’s Who in Correctional Privatization.” Noting that less than five per cent of American prisoners are confined in private facilities, the organisers argue that the “growth potential of the industry, including a number of publicly-traded companies, is enormous,” with analysts estimating that the value of contracts “will exceed $2 billion during 1998 and grow annually by 30-35 per cent in the foreseeable future.”

“The most debated question is whether or not privatizing prisons saves taxpayers money. It has long been argued that the private sector does a better job of management than the public sector, but the issue of prison privatization goes much deeper than that.”

The conference will “not only discuss the fundamental issues of facility financing, procurement and performance measurement; it will cover union obstacles, recent legislation changes and legal developments.” One of the listed key benefits of attending is hearing an evaluation of  “the performance of privatization across the globe.”

The event will be chaired by Dr Charles Thomas, of the Private Corrections Project, University of Florida.

 

AFSCME enters the fray

       The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, a trade union which represents 100,000 correctional officers and support staff in publicly run facilities, has launched a new, nationwide anti-privatisation campaign.

“We say to the Wackenhuts and CCAs of the world that whenever they rear their ugly head, we are going to fight like hell to stop them,” said Gerald W. McEntee president of AFSCME on 6 May 1998.

The union has also published a report Should Crime Pay? which concludes that “prison privatization creates incentives to grow the prison population, pushing up long term prison costs.”

 AFSCME’s Corrections United Advisory Committee began its effort to convince state legislators not to privatise corrections facilities when it lobbied congressmen in Washington in May. Contact: AFSCME Corrections United, 625 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036-5687.

 

The CCA way

      The cover story of the May 1998 issue of the American magazine Chief Executive includes an extensive interview with Doctor C. Crants, Corrections Corporation of America’s Chief Executive Officer. Chief Executive describes itself as “a journal of strategy and analysis by and for international CEOs.”

Set out below are some brief extracts from the interview:

Toe- to- toe with thugs

“Ours is a business where the better you do it, the cheaper it is ... along the way, what we learned was the more programs we offered for the inmates, the better they felt about being incarcerated in our facility. The easier they were to manage, the better the quality of the job of the staff. Remember there’s a corrections officer who has to stand toe-to-toe with a thug. We want that thug to be appreciative of his opportunity to serve his sentence in a CCA facility; to participate in these programs. So instead of acting out or abusing our staff, he conducts himself appropriately. That means lower staff turnover and lower training costs. We have staff that eventually become very experienced and good at what they do.”

Free enterprise owner-managers

“...CCA pays its employees more than government pays theirs. We have comparable benefits packages with higher salaries. And we make every single employee of CCA - after they’ve served a year with us - a shareholder in the company. We think of ourselves as shareholder-managers ... what we are doing in the criminal justice arena is bringing free enterprise owner-managers to something that has been operating on an entirely different economic theory for 200 years.”

Pricing power

“...when you own the building you do set the prices. And because government is inefficient, we can move our prices up and own facilities to still provide the cost savings they’re looking for - and also provide our shareholders the net income that has allowed us to grow our earnings per share the way we have ... if you give them cost savings, you still do very well for your shareholders, but you also make a lifetime customer.”

Prison design affects cost

“The primary mechanism for managing prisons is line of sight, being able to watch every single inmate every single moment of the day. That requires a design from the point of view of the person who is going to operate it.”

On expanding abroad

“Approximately half of the prison inmates in the world are in the US ... we have incarcerated in US prisons and jails at county, state or federal level approximately 1.8m people. The sum of all the rest of the countries on the face of the earth is about 1.8m, counting the Peoples Republic of China, which says it has one million people locked up. A country like England has 60,000 people  incarcerated. So the international market is not very interesting when compared with the domestic market. It’s not a priority for us. There are also cultural differences. That’s why we’re only in Australia and the UK.”

On South Africa

“We are not pursuing business in South Africa for its money-making potential. Violent crime in South Africa is destabilizing democracy. There is so much violent crime in South Africa that there is some question as to whether democracy is going to survive the ‘death’ of Nelson Mandela. They are also concerned and are trying to increase the amount of prison bed space they have.  They need CCA’s technology. I wouldn’t want to describe it as humanitarian, but we’re participating in a process of what is essentially technology transfer.”

The deal with Sodexho

“In 1987 Sodexho plunged into the private prison management business in France. They came here thinking they would enter the US market. We made a strategic alliance that we would market together in international marketplaces. Less well known is our agreement that we would not pursue business in France. And they would not pursue business in the US. We did not want to wake up one morning and have a $6 billion revenue giant bouncing around in the domestic market. And we did not see ourselves as giving up anything in France. I would imagine the French government would never give an American company a contract.”

The bottom line

“The rule here is that we work for the shareholders.”

 

Can’t be sued for rights abuses

      The US Justice Department and Correctional Services Corporation (the company formerly known as Esmor) are defending a lawsuit seeking damages for immigration detainees who claim that their human rights were violated  at a company-run facility (see PPRI #3 and14).

In 1995, detainees at the Esmor-run Elizabeth Immigration Detention Center in New Jersey, suffered a range of abuses which included: being shackled to chairs and tables; physical and verbal abuse; substandard food; inadequate medical care; and constant nerve racking noise and bright lights.

The conditions led to riots, which in turn led to the facility being shut down by the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) and Esmor’s contract being cancelled. The contract was sold on to Corrections Corporation of America and the facility has since reopened.

Following an inquiry, the INS accepted some blame for the conditions at the Esmor-run facility through its lack of supervision.The INS also agreed that Esmor guards had physically and psychologically abused detainees.

Now lawyers from the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey have filed a lawsuit in the US District Court of New Jersey on behalf of 19 of the detainees, claiming compensation from the INS and Esmor for the detainees’ treatment. The lawyers claim that the Government violated UN human rights laws.

But the Justice Department and the company are arguing that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that sovereign immunity laws protect the United States from being sued for human rights violations.

The company is also facing a separate lawsuit from another group of detainees.

n Correctional Services Corporation reported that its revenues for the first quarter ending 31 March 1998 increased 64.8 per cent to $19.1m from $11.6m in the first quarter of 1997. Net profit jumped by over 200 per cent to $1.1m compared to $325,941 in the first quarter of 1997. Results for the first quarter of 1998 were due to the opening of several new facilities.  As at 30 April 1998, the company had 28 contracts in Florida, New York, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and Washington State with an aggregate of 4,795 beds.

 As at 15 May 1998, CSC’s shares had risen to 50.6 per cent  above their closing price on 2 January  1998 compared with an increase of 14.2 per cent on the Dow Jones Index.

On 28 May the company announced that it had been awarded a contract to manage the 500 bed Jefferson County Detention Facility in Texas. This is expected to generate a further $7m in annual revenues.

n Corrections Corporation of America, which took over the running of the Elizabeth, New Jersey detention facility for the INS, is being sued by the former warden, Steve Townsend. Mr Townsend alleges that he was fired for telling the INS that CCA was forcibly sedating and improperly restraining detainees. The company denies Mr Townsend’s claim.

 

OSI privatisation briefing

        The Open Society Institute’s Center on Crime Communities and Culture held a briefing on prison privatisation in New York on 21 May 1998.

The event was organised to “explore new evidence and information, including questions about overall accountability, humane and effective operations and long term impacts, along with a look at current privately-operated prisons.”

Speakers included lawyer Al Gerhardstein, who represents prisoners in a class action lawsuit against CCA (see PPRI #18 and 19), Adrian Moore of the Reason Public Policy Institute (see page5) and Judith Greene of the Institute on Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota.

Ms Greene spoke of the “danger in the advantage that the private prison companies can deliver is their ability to cut red tape by circumventing public financing and procurement processes.  Private prison companies short-cut important public policy deliberations, circumventing citizen input on critical policy choices.”

More details from: Dominique Dieudonn_ ,The Center on Crime Communities & Culture, OSI, 400 West 49th Street, New York, New York, 10019.

 

AUSTRALIA

 

Sale time in Queensland

     The Coalition Government is to sell its state owned, privately run prisons to help recoup the A$195m cost of building new prison accommodation for the increasing prisoner population.

The Arthur Gorrie Remand and Reception Centre at Wacol, near Brisbane, has been run by Wackenhut’s Australian subsidiary since July 1992. Borallon Correctional Centre has been run by Corrections Corporation of Australia since 1990. Both companies approached the Government with the sale idea.

 If, as expected, the companies buy the facilities that they manage, the state’s first privately owned and managed prisons will be created.

When the management contracts come up for renewal, the state’s Queensland Corrections (QCORR) will be allowed to bid against the companies.

The opposition has criticised the plan, warning that the Government could lose control of the prison system and that it could repeat the problems found in Victoria’s private prisons. Another concern is that the existing private owners/operators would have an unfair advantage over QCORR in any tendering process.

The Premier has promised an additional 2,997 prison cells over the next three years. Plans include a new maximum security prison, two juvenile detention centres, three other new prisons and the expansion of existing facilities.

n The new director of the Arthur Gorrie Centre is Kevin White, who is leaving the most troubled prison in New Zealand to take up the post. After serious riots and allegations of brutality at Paremoremo maximum security prison, west of Auckland, Mr White has recently introduced what criminologists have called the most oppressive regime imposed this century.

Mr White is leaving after just two years at Paremoremo. “It was nothing to do with the troubles. I know the connection will be made, but that is just rubbish,” he told the New Zealander on 20 May 1998. The Corrections Minister said that: “the changes he has implemented ... have enhanced his reputation. It is to the credit of the New Zealand Department of Corrections that he has been head hunted.”

 

Tasmania

       A private company is claiming that it can design, build and run a prison in Tasmania for A$2m a year less than it would cost the state to run the existing Risdon Prison. The Government wants to close and replace Risdon but denies that it has invited three companies to lodge expressions of interest.

Members of the Legislative Council Select Committee into Corrective Services visited Victoria’s  three private prisons and found them to be well run. The Committee is reviewing the state’s prison system and considering whether privatisation would be a better option. It is also considering a proposal to have prisoners serve sentences at weekends or in their annual holidays.

 

Courting Western Australia

       The Government of Western Australia has short-listed five consortia to bid for a A$20m, 25 year lease-back  contract.  A new development for the  Ministry of Justice at Fremantle will include five courtrooms, judges’ chambers, libraries, registry and associated administrative premises.

Among the consortia are Thiess Contractors (Wackenhut’s construction partners in Australia) with Forbes & Fitzhardinge Woodland; Multiplex, Rothschild & Cox and Corrections Corporation of Australia; and Babcock & Brown, John Holland, Spowers and Jones Coulter Young.

 

New prisons for New South Wales

       The Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, has pledged to build new prisons to meet the demand for new places that will arise from his policy of ‘zero crime’ in the state. The private sector will be invited to bid for the contracts to design, build and run any new facilities.

Mr Carr told the Sunday Telegraph on 10 May 1998 that:"We've toughened the penalties, we've given police the powers ‑ it's over to the judges and the magistrates to throw the book at the criminal," he said. “We’ve just got to build more prison accommodation.” Mr Carr blames the rising  crime rate on chronic unemployment, family breakdowns and the proliferation of drugs in society.

New South Wales currently has one privately managed prison, Junee Correctional Centre, run by Wackenhut since 1993.

 

Wackenhut developing

        Australasian Correctional Services, Wackenhut’s Australian joint venture company, is to redevelop the immigration detention centre at Villawood in Sydney for the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA).

The company won a contract to run the existing facility in December 1997. The contract to finance, design, build and maintain the new facility will be worth A$22.5m. The Government will pay an annual charge for using the new, expanded facility which will hold up to 300 detainees.

Wackenhut manages three other  immigration centres for the DIMA.

 

Victoria’s suicide scheme

      The Government has launched a new, innovative suicide prevention training scheme for staff at Corrections Corporation of Australia’s Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre. It is being financed by a A$75,000 Government grant.

 

ALP to take prisons back

     If elected to office in 2000, Victoria’s Labor Party would try to restore private prisons to public ownership and control. A  policy document debated at a recent conference of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) stated that: “Labor, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, is not convinced that privatisation of prisons, prisoner transport, court security or other ancillary activities will produce either improved correctional services and outcomes or any cost savings. In allowing the private sector to operate correctional facilities, there is reduced accountability and transparency in prison activities, lower staffing, minimised security standards and higher costs to government.

“Accordingly, Labor will supervise the  administration and  operation of the correctional system where privatised and immediately review state government contracts with the private sector service providers with a view to reverting their function to the public sector as soon as practical to do so.”

The ALP does not say how their plans will be financed.

 

Riot at Wackenhut prison