Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) held ten juveniles beyond their scheduled release dates in order to increase its income from the State of Florida. CSC was formerly known as Esmor (see PPRI # 3, 14 , 21 and 24).

An independent monitor, assessing the CSC-run Pahokee Youth Development Center for the Department of Juvenile Justice in October 1998, found a memo written by a CSC official ordering that 10 residents  should be kept for an extra five days beyond their scheduled release date.

This would have increased the facility’s capacity on the day the State was due to calculate payments to the company. This is done twice a year on the basis of an average daily  ‘head count’.

At $68 per day per resident, the overpayment would have Damounted to $3,400. The company also receives payments  from the local education authority.

The monitor also found that in July and August 1998, 11 boys had suffered broken bones, but CSC only had records of five incidents.

In December 1998, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida filed a public records request asking CSC for 18 items, including  personnel records, records of complaints made by the boys, a schedule of  release dates  and details of the income earned from keeping residents beyond their release dates. The aim of the lawsuit is to find out if further contract violations have taken place.

A CSC executive has said that the attempt to obtain overpayments “will never happen again”. But the company has so far refused to supply the ACLU with the information requested on the grounds that it should not be in the public domain. Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice has asked the company to comply with  the ACLU’s request.

 Ongoing problems

CSC took over the former maximum security facility for adults in January 1997. Within a year,  judges ordered the removal of some boys after complaints of  shackling, extended solitary confinement, abuse from staff and inadequate mental health treatment.

Eighteen staff have been fired or disciplined for using excessive or improper force and allowing boys to fight.

The State has also been concerned about inadequate  training and staffing ratios for over a year and, in September 1998, sent CSC a written warning.

The company responded by including all staff in mandatory overtime rather than  asking the staff normally assigned to the area with the shortage. Staff are now forced to work a double shift if co-workers are absent.

On 2 December 1998, 40 staff staged a protest against the new overtime policy.

Now in the UK and Australia

CSC manages facilities with some 10,000 beds in the US. In 1998, CSC extended its operations to the UK but failed to make the short list of preferred bidders for a prison contract in East Staffordshire. In Western Australia, the company is being considered to build and run a new prison at Perth.

n A Federal judge in New Jersey has ruled that Esmor Correctional Services Inc (CSC as was), its officials and Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) officials cannot be exempted from a lawsuit for damages brought by 19 former detainees at the company’s Elizabeth Immigration Detention Center (see PPRI #3, 14 and 21).

Both the company and the INS had argued that sovereign immunity laws protected them from being sued for human rights violations. US District Court Judge Dickinson Debevoise released the INS from the case but not INS officials or Esmor.

He ruled that the 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act, which has been used for cases of human rights violations outside the US, applies to cases in the US.

In 1995, following a riot  by detainees over degrading conditions and abuses by Esmor staff, the Elizabeth facility was closed. The INS took some responsibility for the problems but cancelled Esmor’s contract.

 

 ‘Three strikes’ ... more prisons

      Domestic burglars  convicted of a third offence will receive a mandatory minimum three year sentence under a  new policy announced by the Government in January 1999.

This will come into effect later this year and will eventually increase the prison population in England and Wales. This is despite the Home Detention Curfew scheme under which some 4,000 other offenders will be released early in order to be electronicly tagged by private companies (see PPRI #24).

It could also create the need for more prisons.  Since all new prisons in England and Wales are to be privately financed, designed, built and run this could allay the private sector’s fears about future prison contracts.

At a privatisation conference in New York last September (see PPRI # 21 and 24), Mr David Kent, head of the Prison Service’s Contracts and Competition Group  said that, in England and Wales, there are no new prisons planned beyond the current programme and that when all those prisons are open, about 10 per cent of the prison population will be in privately managed prisons.

But in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in November 1996, Group 4, Premier Prison Services and UK Detention Services (UKDS) all said that they would like to see between 20 and 25 per cent of the entire prison estate shared among three to five companies. 

Recent contract awards mean that Group 4 and Premier Prison Services Ltd (Wackenhut and Serco) are increasing their dominance of the UK ‘market’. So some companies would argue that a more equal distribution of new contracts is required.

In December 1998, the Prison Service announced that Group 4, along with its construction partner Tarmac plc, is the preferred bidder for a £154m contract to finance, design, build and run a new 600 bed prison for  adult males at Onley in Warwickshire.

Premier Prison Services Ltd and construction partner Kvaerner is the preferred bidder for an 800 bed prison, including a 200  bed therapeutic regime, for adult males at Marchington, East Staffordshire.The contract is valued at £240m.

Both contracts are expected to be signed in March 1999. The prisons are expected to open in 2000.

Group 4 now has contracts for two DCMF [design, construct, manage, finance] prisons and two DCMF Secure Training Centres as well as managing two other prisons, two immigration detention centres and operating four regional prisoner escort services.

Premier Prison Services has three DCMF prison contracts in England and one in Scotland, a DCMF Secure Training Centre, as well as managing one prison, operating two regional escort services and an electronic tagging contract.

Wackenhut (UK) Ltd runs an immigration detention centre and is about to relinquish a contract for industrial services at one publicly run prison.

Lagging behind are UK Detention Services Ltd (CCA and Sodexho), which  only has one DCMF prison contract and manages one other prison, and Securicor which has just one DCMF prison contract, although  it operates  one regional prisoner escort service and two regional electronic tagging services.

n Securicor is currently carrying out research into the prison systems of 30 countries with the highest Gross Domestic Product. The aim is to produce an in depth market research plan.

 

 

Group 4 child centre crisis

“Group 4 has spent considerable time and effort setting up this contract with the Home Office. We have looked together at best practices ... there will, inevitably, be critics of Medway ...what such critics fail to point out is that the major cost of at Medway is on education, which is what most of the youngsters badly need, and that is reflected in Rebound ECD’s name ... Education, Care and Discipline.” - Group 4 Securitas International Magazine, No 26, 1998.

 “There can be little doubt that Medway STC is facing a crisis. Although many new secure units face significant difficulties in the early months after opening, the problems experienced in the STC surpass most ... a major theme running through this report is about what we judge to be the inadequacy in numbers and competencies of the staff group ... we did not believe that the organisation structure of the STC is ideally suited at this stage to delivering the objectives of the service.” - Government Inspection Report, January 1999.

Medway Secure Training Centre (STC) for 12-14 year old persistent offenders was inspected by a team of social services, prison and education inspectors in September and October 1998. Their report was published on 14 January 1999. The STC, which opened in April 1998, is run by Group 4 subsidiary Rebound ECD Ltd (see PPRI # 16-23 and 25).

The inspectors made 38 recommendations for immediate and urgent action. Their findings included:

n restraint had commonly been used as a primary means of control. On a number of recorded occasions this had led to injuries being sustained ... not all of these incidents were recorded in an appropriate way. Wrist and neck locks were used in restraint. These methods have been criticised by the medical profession as being potentially injurious to young people ... they were also in contravention of the STC rules;

n virtually all staff were unqualified, (apart from successfully completing the STC’s own training  programme) and a significant majority were inexperienced in working with young people;

n senior managers had lost sight of the ‘big picture’ and insufficient attention was given to prioritising and acting on the areas vital to the success of the project and the safety and security of the trainees;

n managers did not appear to be aware of some of the procedural requirements necessary to manage complex situations eg, self harm, suicide and self harm prevention, and bullying ... these were major failings;

n there were significant defects in the management of bullying, self harm and detoxification;

n action plans with associated monitoring activity were not in evidence;

n explicit sexist and racist attitudes were not dealt with;

n two senior managers and 30 per cent of the remaining operational staff had resigned within the first six months;

n 21 staff from other Group 4 facilities had been drafted in help run the STC, including a 12 person ‘restraint squad’;

n no systematic risk assessment was carried out;

n throughout the inspection there were numerous instances in which good order had broken down;

n the quality of education provision was unsatisfactory;

n programmes aimed at diverting trainees from reoffending had simply failed.

Company fined but wins another contract

The company claims that it has made improvements since the inspection. The inspectors and the Home Office will monitor progress. The Government has ignored calls from penal reform organisations to close the STC.

Rebound ECD Ltd, has already been fined £5,869 for contract failures. Last November, the Government asked the company to take urgent action to address problems at Medway. Mr Paul Boateng, Home Office Minister, said that “we expect Rebound to deliver to these young people in conditions in which their welfare and public safety are secured. Nothing less will do.”

In December 1998, the Prison Service produced a draft protocol for providing emergency public sector assistance to Medway to provide “the prompt, effective resolution of a specific incident and the return of command to contractors at the earliest opportunity.” Rebound will have to pay for such assistance.

The protocol suggests using “authorised Control and Restraint basic and advanced techniques as appropriate in the resolution of the incident. An officer, in dealing with a trainee [the term used for children held at Medway]  shall not use force unnecessarily and, when the application of force is necessary, no more force than is necessary shall be used...”

Medway  is the first of five proposed STCs and Group 4 has already been awarded a second contract. Medway’s Director, Ms Sue Clifton, is to advise the Government’s new Youth Justice Board for England and Wales on how best to deal with young offenders.

Inspection of Medway Secure Training Centre, Social Services Inspectorate, Department of Health, January 1999.Available from: Department of Health, PO Box 410, Wetherby, LS23 7LN, England.

 

Wackenhut pulls out

      The privatised industrial functions of HM Prison Coldingley, south of London, are being transferred back to the Prison Service on 1 February 1999 (see PPRI #23  and 25). Staff who became Wackenhut employees on 1 November 1997 will once again become public employees.

The cost to taxpayers of the failed venture and the financial details surrounding Wackenhut (UK) Ltd’s withdrawal from the contract have not been disclosed. But it is thought that Wackenhut’s losses have been around £40,000 per month. The company owes the Prison Service £52,500, half of an interest free loan, plus payments for utilities. The Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents the 28 instructors, is owed more than a year’s union subscriptions deducted at source from members’ wages by Wackenhut.

Last October, Wackenhut gave six months’ notice that it intended to withdraw from the contract. Mr Julian Le Vay, the Prison Service’s Finance Director, told Public Finance that Wackenhut was  making losses. “They said if we could rearrange the contract so that they didn’t make those losses then they might still be interested. But I did not have the strong impression that they were very keen to remain in this.”

 

Prison shops to go

        The Prison Service is considering contracting out 103 prison shops  - known as canteens - and the provision of physical education and sports classes in over 30 prison gymnasia.

Some 26 prisons have already contracted out their shops. The Prison Service has identified cost savings but prisoners have complained about immediate price rises.

n At Group 4-run HM Prison Buckley Hall, in north west England, the Board of Visitors Annual Report for 1998 stated that: “Aramark have now been contracted to provide the canteen and shop facilities. The first three months were problematic, mainly due to lack of staff  because of the three months taken for security checks prior to their appointment. However, the staff are now in place and the canteen shop and the issue of goods seem to be working well with fewer complaints. There may be problems ahead: we understand that prices are being increased in stages to the recommended retail price and this will no doubt cause some complaints by inmates in the future.”

 

 

...and bail hostels 

      One of the largest bail hostels in the Government’s national network of 101 bail and probation hostels  is to be put out to tender.

The plan is to test whether “a private or voluntary partner could provide or run an approved hostel to at least the same standard at lower cost” and to challenge the Probation Service’s arguments about the level of resources needed to provide a safe and effective service.

The first hostel to be market tested is in London. It  has been chosen due to its proximity to courts where prisoner escort services are already privately run.

The Home Office announcement came in the same week that the Chief Inspector of Probation praised the work of probation and bail hostels.

n The Labour Government’s plan to privatise bail hostels was first considered by the then Tory Government in the 1980s. By October 1989, new  companies had been formed specifically to build and run prisons, borstals, halfway houses and other detention, remedial or after care facilities. In 1991, the Criminal Justice Bill was amended to enable bail hostels to be contracted out.

 

 

Inquests into Doncaster deaths

      A Coroner has determined that four prisoners who died in 1998 at Premier Prison Services Ltd-run HM Prison Doncaster, north east England, all committed suicide. The inquests took place between 18 and 22 January 1999.

Michael Arliss, a remand prisoner accused of murder, hanged himself with a bedsheet tied to bars in his cell on 23 March 1998, after watching a film with other prisoners.

‘The Chamber’,  a rented film, featured a man facing execution in an American prison after failing to clear his name for a murder he did not commit.

During the inquest, the Coroner, Mr Stanley Hooper, told the director of the prison, Mr Kevin Rogers, that he was “ ... somewhat concerned about the fact that entertainment relating to long term prioners awaiting execution and being sent to their deaths is being shown to prison inmates.”

Mr Rogers replied that “Mr Arliss could have chosen not to watch the film ...censorshsip rules are strictly observed by the prison. What may not upset one person may upset another...”

During the inquest on 17 year old John Scarborough who was found hanging in his cell on 17 April 1998, Mr John Hillman, the prison’s operations manager, said that he had been concerned for the prisoner’s welfare and was critical of nursing staff  who had returned him to his cell.

The other inquests concerned Mark Hutton, 18, who was found hanging from a cell window handle and 33 year old John Standeven, who died while on a  15 minute watch.

 

 

December hangings

      Two suicides in four days in December 1998 have brought the number of deaths at Securicor’s HM Prison Parc, in Wales, to four since the prison opened in November 1997 (see PPRI #18-21, 23 and 25).

 Delwyn Bishop-Price, a 30  year old remand prisoner and 19 year old Michael Rooke were found hanging in their cells. Investigations into the deaths have been  started.

At Group 4's HM Prison Altcourse, near Liverpool, Jonathan Allan, an 18 year old remand prisoner was found hanging on 14 December. At HM Prison Doncaster, Wayne Thomas, a 23 year old remand prisoner, was also found hanging.

 

Another US company in the UK

       GSSC Europe Ltd, which was awarded the electronic tagging contract for southern England last December, is owned by  General Security Services Corporation of Minneapolis.

The company is a major provider of electronic monitoring services and has revenues of almost $100m per year. In the US, it provides court security officers and screening services to government agencies.

Its Alternative Monitoring Services Division has contracts in 30 states. The company’s website boasts this glowing reference from a customer: “They do what they say they’ll do and frankly they’re fun to work with.”

 

UNITED STATES

 

Cornell ‘teething’ in Georgia

        Georgia’s first privately financed, designed, built and  run prison has been criticised by state officials  just two months after opening.

The medium security D Ray James State Prison in Charlton County run by Cornell Corrections Inc opened in October 1998.

In November and December inspectors found lax security and filthy conditions. They reported inadequate medical facilities, non-certified personnel patrolling the perimeter, security lapses, poor record keeping and inadequate tracking of prisoners. On some days, staff had no idea how many prisoners were supposed to be in the areas they were supervising.

The company attributed the problems to taking in prisoners too quickly and has assured the Department of Corrections that the facility will be run like a state prison. Cornell is receiving $45.13 per prisoner per day, some $13 less than the state spends at its own prisons.

Mr Lowell Hudson, the prison warden, has already been transferred to open another Cornell facility in California although he has stated that the move had nothing to do with conditions at Charlton County. “I’m doing bigger and better things for Cornell. Cornell is expanding like a son of a gun,” he told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The contract allows for 750 prisoners to be held at the facility but the company plans to double the size in anticipation of the state needing more capacity.

 

 

Second conflict case for Thomas

       A second conflict of interest complaint has been filed against Dr Charles Thomas, the criminologist who runs the influential Private Corrections Project at the University of Florida (see PPRI # 13, 21 and 25).

Dr Thomas has been regarded as a leading independent authority on prison privatisation.

But Dr Thomas, whose consultancies have included government agencies and whose research is used by stock market analysts,  receives project funding from corrections companies. He also owns some 30,000 shares in CCA worth around $600,000 and he is a paid Board member of Prison Realty Trust. His website includes a weekly stock market report on publicly traded corrections firms.

Wackenhut Corrections Corp now refuses to provide company information for Dr Thomas’s noted annual census.

The Florida Police Benevolent Association (FPBA), the union which represents state employed corrections officers, made the first complaint.

Now the FPBA alleges that, in the light of the Ethics Commission investigator’s findings of probable cause on two aspects of the first complaint,  a further conflict exists since Dr Thomas is receiving $3m in consultancy fees to advise on issues relating to the merger between Corrections Corporation of America and CCA’s Prison Realty Trust (see PPRI # 25).

Meanwhile, the FPBA’s first complaint has still not been settled. A hearing is due to take place on 19 May 1999 as negotiations between Dr Thomas and the Attorney General’s office failed to agree a settlement thought to include a financial penalty of several thousand dollars and Dr Thomas selling his company shares.

 

 

Nurse takes on CMS

     Correctional Medical Services Inc, the largest private correctional health care firm in the US, is being sued by a nurse who alleges that she was suspended without pay for refusing to alter her medical notes relating to events leading up to a prisoner’s death.

The company featured in a major investigation into prison health care last year (see PPRI #25).

Ms Janie Kushniruk, a registered nurse employed by CMS at  the Macomb County Jail, Michigan, where the company runs the infirmary, is alleging that CMS demanded that she change her medical notes on Larry Golson, a prisoner who died on 5 December. Ms Kushniruk alleges that she was suspended without pay because of this.The company denies the allegations.

 

 

Another gap in the market

       An increasing number of ageing prisoners serving longer sentences require more specialist and expensive services. This, in turn, is creating a new niche market for private medical prison companies which believe that they can offer fixed - rate specialist care more cheaply than the public sector.

Just Care Inc of Alabama has recently opened the Columbia Care Center, a 326 bed private medical prison in South Carolina and it plans to open another 14 facilities in south eastern states in the next five years.

Corrections National Corp of Texas is opening a 700 bed facility in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania in 2000 to provide nursing home and hospice services for prisoners in north eastern states. The company wants to open a further four 500-1,000 bed facilities in the south west and south east United States.

Both companies are developing their facilities without contracts from public authorities. But they believe that the demand for their services already exists and will grow.       According to research carried out at South Dakota University College of Nursing, an elderly prisoner can have the body deterioration usually associated with a non-incarcerated person ten years older.

Recent estimates also show that there could be more than 225,000 prisoners over the age of 50 by 2005.

 

 

AUSTRALIA

 

Another Victorian adult prison?

    The Government of Victoria, which already leads the world with 45 per cent of its prisoners held in three private prisons, is considering commissioning another 600 bed private jail for adult males.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Victoria’s prison population grew by 11 per cent in the last financial year, although the crime rate only increased by one per cent. The Premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, says that tougher sentencing policies have led to higher incarceration rates. He has considered adding an extra wing to an existing private prison but, in order to cope with demand, he believes that a new facility is needed.

 

... and a private youth facility?

 

The Government of Victoria has launched a feasibility study into establishing a private youth training centre.  Existing facilities are outdated and overcrowded and there is an increasing number of  young male offenders in custody. The Minister for Youth and Community Services said there was a need to ensure that low risk youths between the ages of 17 and 20 are kept out of the adult prison system. Liberty Victoria and a range of other organisations have criticised the idea.

 

Port Phillip’s poor food services

       A consultant’s confidential report on food services at Group 4-run Port Phillip Prison near Melbourne has revealed that drugs have been found in the kitchen, knives and other items stolen and contract catering staff assaulted by prisoners.

Seven catering staff supervising 30 to 35 prisoners in the kitchen were working in an insecure environment. The staff were too intimidated  to confront prisoners over thefts and drug matters.

P&O Services, which has the contract to provide catering at the prison, has rejected the consultant’s findings.

The trade union representing Group 4 staff first raised the issue of kitchen security and the lack of a supervising officer with Port Phillip management in March 1998.

n The report is part of an Audit Victoria review of all aspects of  the state’s prison system.

 

 

Victoria courting consortia

       Three consortia have been short listed for a contract to finance, build, own and operate  a new Victorian County Court Complex and provide ancillary services in Melbourne.

These are: the Liberty Group comprising Multiplex Constructions Australia, ABN/AMRO Australia Ltd and Rothschild Australia Ltd; County Court Consortium, comprising Serco Australia, Baulderstone Hornibrook, Macquarie Bank Ltd and Becton Corporation Australia; and Australasian Court Services, comprising Thiess Contractors, Australasian Court Management Ltd and Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

The private sector could potentially be involved in  non-judicial aspects of the operation of the  County Court complex such as court user management and security services, information technology, custodial management and various miscellaneous services.

The possible privatisation of court transcription services has been criticised by the State Opposition on the grounds of the threat to privacy.

 

 

Western Australia undemocratic

       The Government’s Request for Proposals to build, own and run a 750 bed prison at Wooroloo South, Perth (see PPRI #25) excludes a public sector bid, denies public consultation and calls for submissions from companies before Parliament has even debated legislation enabling privatisation.

According to Paul Moyle, a senior lecturer at the University of Western Australia, the Request for Proposal states that should enabling legislation not be passed, alternative administrative arrangements will be made. He refers to the Government’s strategy as “private sector involvement by stealth and an insult to parliamentary democracy.”

Even though three consortia have been short listed,the Government claims that it is not committed to contracting the prison to a private company and that private sector bids will be compared with public sector benchmarks.

The Opposition Labour Party is arguing against private prisons due to the commercial secrecy that surrounds them.

n The two new consortia which failed to make the short list of bidders for Wooroloo South were: Western Australasian Custodial Services comprising ANZ Investment Bank, Securicor, Consolidated Construction, Obayashi Corporation and an unnamed group of architectural and engineering consultants, and the Patron Consortium, comprising Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd, Lend Lease Property Services Pty and the Banque Nationale de Paris.

 

 

CCA wins WA escort contract

       Corrections Corporation of Australia (CCA) has been chosen to negotiate a five year contract to provide prisoner escorts between prisons and courts, the operation of some police cells and court custody centres and the provision of in-court security services throughout the state.

 CCA will also carry out structural improvements to a number of buildings. The contract is expected to be phased in over six months starting in April 1999. The police will continue to operate services in remote areas.

The Attorney General said that “the contracting out of non-core justice services is in line with the State Government’s law and order policy and our commitment to improving public safety.”

 

 

Containment takes new meaning

      Sea container firms are the latest to join Australia’s prison industrial complex. In Western Australia, the Government is to house 48 maximum security prisoners in 24 modified steel sea containers to reduce prison overcrowding.

The prison population  - now at 2,600 in prisons with a capacity for 2,160 - has increased 60 per cent in the last three years due to tougher sentencing policies. Many fine defaulters and minor offenders are held in maximum security prisons.

Aboriginal and prisoner advocacy groups have condemned the plan.

 

Union takes on Wackenhut

       The Miscellaneous Workers Union has accused Australasian Correctional Management (ACM), Wackenhut’s Australian subsidiary, of unfair work practices at the Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre, at Perth (see PPRI # 14 and 21).

The union claims that the company has replaced trained detention officers (known as fly-in, fly-out staff) with less well paid, inexperienced local people. ACM took over the centre in December 1997. Of the original 30 staff recruited, only four remain.

Staff have complained about health and safety issues and the union has had to apply  to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission over ACM’s non-payment of wages for overtime

One former officer told the West Australian that “When we joined the company we were told that because of the size of the company and where it was going, we were going to be sucked up into the vortex of success. I didn’t realise they meant blown off.”

n ACM Detention Services recently undertook its first major overseas removal of illegal immigrants. According to Wackenhut’s All Points Bulletin, Fall 1998, “a total of 29 former residents of the Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre were airlifted by charter flight and were returned to the Peoples Republic of China. Although the pace was hectic and the entire operation was completed inside 30 hours, all staff who participated shared a unique experience.” The report also noted that “ACM Detention Services has previously provided escorts for small groups of people scheduled for transport by commercial flight to a number of countries throughout South East Asia, the Middle East and Europe.”

 

 

NEW ZEALAND

Government evaluating

       Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd, part of  the Chinese Richina Pacific Group, is the preferred bidder to build the Auckland Central Remand Prison (see PPRI # 23 and 25).

The prison will be built next to the existing Mt Eden facility and completed in 2000..

The Department of Corrections is now evaluating tenders, including an in house bid, to manage the new prison. Two more prisons are planned for the Northland and Greater Auckland areas.

 

DEBATE

 

 

In Britain, Australia and the US, trade unions are recruiting staff in private prisons. Is this a true anti-privatisation strategy or simply good business sense? In this article based on recent experience in the US, Brian Dawe, Director of Operations for Corrections USA (CUSA) argues that unionising in the private sector undermines the fight against privatisation.

CUSA promotes a zero tolerance policy towards prison privatisation. Trade unions that recruit staff in private prisons are hypocritical. How do you negotiate for job security of your members today and attempt to put their employers out of business tomorrow? It just doesn’t wash unless you are more concerned with dues than with the profession. 

In PPRI #21, it was reported that AFSCME (American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees), had launched a new campaign and was going to “fight like hell” to stop prison privatisation. But AFSCME, as a union, is in the business of self perpetuation.  They are about union dues and have a misguided ‘strength and numbers’ ideology. 

I believe there is strength in numbers only when you share common interests. What they really mean is strength through dues dollars. 

AFSCME already represents some staff in at least three private prisons. Last August, the union resolved “that to reduce the incentive to contract out, AFSCME will explore opportunities to represent workers employed by private companies and not-for-profit agencies ...”

How do you do that and pretend to be against privatisation? How do you organise employees in these facilities? Do you say come, join us, we are fundamentally opposed to the very job you do and want to run your employer out of business?

In New York, at least one AFSCME official sits on the State’s Comptrollers Advisory Committee which invests state employees’ retirement funds.

In 1997, the fund purchased shares in Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).  AFSCME did nothing about it for more than a year while the retirement fund of the very officers they represent was being spent to help the privateers succeed. AFSCME only sought divestiture after they were pressurised to do so.

In December 1998, the fund sold its CCA shares - but not because of its concerns about privatisation. The fund now owns shares in Wackenhut. All this time, one AFSCME local has been  fighting CCA’s plan to build a 1,000 bed prison in Fallsburg, New York while others have been involved in similar campaigns.

Is this how you fight privatisation, by investing your members’ money in the very companies that threaten their livelihoods?

Now the AFL-CIO

Now we have learned that the AFL-CIO, the federation of trades unions in the US, has about $10m worth of shares in CCA.

In April 1997, when CCA proposed privatising the whole of Tennessee’s corrections system, Mr Jim Neeley, head of the AFL-CIO in Tennessee said that “labor will support CCA’s efforts to manage prisons not just in Tennessee but across the country. It is a fully fledged marriage.” Now we know why.

CUSA’s zero tolerance policy means zero all the time, not just when we can't make money from it.

The unions’ strategy is to conquer an expanding labour market. It is sound business. It is less costly to represent the staff  than to fight their employers. But it is not sound strategy if you are a professional correctional officer.

CUSA is not a union. We are a professional organisation. Privatisation does not serve our interests as professionals.

Organising private employees undermines the effort to defeat privatisation. The duties of a union - fair representation and to provide job security - are in direct conflict with the position of eliminating an industry. The two positions are incompatible.

If the AFL-CIO had invested money in fighting privatisation, our campign might have been over by now.

n CUSA has identified a number of US public authorities’ pension funds with investments in CCA. These include: Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association; Tulare County Retirement Association; Florida State Board of Administration; Idaho Public Employees Retirement System; Milwaukee Employees Retirement System; Minnesota State Board of Investments; and New Jersey Division of Investment. The California Public Employees Retirement System also has CCA shares but the fund does not represent the California State correctional officers, whose investments are held separately.

n Following its recent demonstration at CCA’s headquarters (see PPRI  #25), CUSA will be demonstrating at Wackenhut’s headquarters in Florida on 5 February 1999. Contact: CUSA, PO Box 394, Newton, NH 03858: Tel:++1 603 382 9707. Fax: ++1 603 382 1502. Web:www.cusa.org

 

RECENT BOOKS, REPORTS AND PAPERS

Commercial Confidentiality and Public Accountability for Private Prisons, by Arie Frieberg, Professor of Criminology, University of Melbourne. Presented to the conference on Private Prisons and Public Accountability, Institute of Criminology, University of Sydney, November 1998. This updates Prof Frieberg’s arguments in earlier work (see PPRI #14). He calls for  all confidential information to be made public, and “taking the task of monitoring, supervising and reporting on the private sector activities out of the hands of the public sector correctional authorities and place it with a truly independent authority, if such can still exist.”

 

Contractualism, Privatisation and Justice: Citizenship, the State and Managing Risk by Linda Hancock, Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, in Australian Journal of Public Administration, December 1998. Based on the experience in Victoria, this article deals with “the problems of privatisation and contractualism in policing and corrections  - particularly in relation to ‘core tasks’. The author concludes that “contractualism ...  raises  significant issues for citizen-State relations.”

 

The Effect of Prison Privatisation on the Legal Position of Prisoners by James Davies, Arts/Law student at University of New South Wales in Australian Journal of Administrative Law, Vol 6, November 1998. This paper summarises prison privatisation in Australia and suggests how disgruntled prisoners might seek legal redress against private prison operators.

 

Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre - A Case Study in Prison Health Services by Adrian Howe, Senior Lecturer in Law and Legal Studies, La Trobe University,  in Alternative Law Journal, December 1998. This article focuses on CCA’s women’s prison in Melbourne which opened in August 1996. The author notes that “after staffing, health services (which are the biggest expense in prison) have been the subject of ongoing complaints at MWCC” and raises the broader issue of whether private prisons are breaching various international conventions.

 

The Prison Industrial Complex by Eric Schlosser in The Atlantic Monthly, December 1998. This article charts the industry’s growth in the US, and concludes that  “every brand new prison becomes another lasting monument, concrete and ringed with deadly razor wire, to the fear and greed and political cowardice that now pervades American society”.

 

Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC), Inspection and Review of the Corrections Trustee for the District of Columbia, November 1998. This report was commissioned by the US Attorney General’s Office after numerous problems arose at this CCA-run facility (see PPRI #18,19, 23 and 24)

The report concludes that the facility experienced “pivotal failures in its security and operational management as a result of seriously flawed decisions by leaders of both CCA and District of Columbia”. The report contains 19 major findings and 24 recommendations for improvements.

 

A Fiscal and Economic Analysis of the Crime (Sentences) Act, by the Prison Reform Trust, see contact details below. Written in the light of the “scant regard for the fiscal implications of policy .. the ideas explored in this report have a generic value and could be applied to all proposed legislation ...”

 

Transnationals in Public Services, briefing notes for current debates on public sector issues by Public Services International, BP 0-01211 Ferney-Voltaire, Cedex, France Tel: +33 450 40 6464. Fax: +33 450 40 7320. Email: psi@world-psi.org This is one of a series of PSI pamphlets dealing with the challenges of privatisation and public sector reform. This has ideas on how trade unions and community organisations can form international coalitions  against transnational corporations.

 

 

Correction

In PPRI #25 it was reported that the Government of Victoria had passed the Correctional Services Authority Act which corporatises the Public Correctional Enterprise (CORE). This Bill has not yet been presented to Parliament. It is due to be considered this year. We apologise for the error.