ON OTHER PAGES

United States

Australia

United Kingdom

Recent Reports and Papers

 

US: asylum seekers allege CCA abuse

Asylum seekers held at Corrections Corporation of America’s immigration detention centre at Elizabeth, New Jersey are alleging that staff violated their civil rights.

On 28 January 1999, Salah Dafali was beaten so badly that he required hospital treatment. Oluwole Aboyade alleges systematic abuse since taking part in a peaceful hunger strike last year. CCA’s Special Operations Response Team, SORT, is alleged to have been involved in at least one incident.

“They are some of the most serious allegations of abuse we have received about a detention centre,” said Andrew Painter, legal counsel to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees in Washington.

CCA has held two internal investigations into these incidents and found no evidence of excessive force being used by its guards. The company denies all allegations. Karen Nicholson, CCA’s warden at the facility, stated that the company has a “zero tolerance policy to [unprofessional] staff behaviour”. She has since resigned for personal reasons.

But Lorelei Valverde, an Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) official, told the Bergen Record that “they [the company] are in denial. We are very concerned ... some of the force does appear  excessive.”

Ms Valverde also said that the INS is trying to determine whether segments of the guards’ videotapes of the incidents are missing intentionally or accidentally. “Is it that they don’t know how to operate the camera, that they switch cameras, or that they have erased parts or shut off the camera before something happens?”  She said that a video of one of the incidents under investigation by the FBI developed “a gap” after the first viewing. “There was something in the video which had been seen [the first time] and then was gone.”

  The INS  closed the detention centre in 1995 and the then operator,  Esmor (now Correctional Services Corp), lost its contract following a riot by detainees over abuse and inadequate conditions (see PPRI #2).

CCA bought out Esmor’s contract, revamped the facility and, when it reopened in 1997, the INS promised that it would be a model of privatisation.

Shoe print on the face - resignations and firings

Since these recent incidents allegedly took place, as well as the warden resigning, the chief of security has been removed and two supervisors and six guards have been barred from going near detainees. Three more guards have quit following investigations into drug use.

One person has been fired for refusing to co-operate with an internal investigation. It is thought that this was  a transport service employee detailed to take Mr Dafali to hospital.

When Kevin Simpson, who worked for TransCor America Inc (a CCA company), arrived at the facility after the incident on 28 January 1999, he noted that Mr Dafali’s clothes were bloody, he had a shoe print embedded in his face and the bottom of his chin was split open.

Mr Simpson refused to put his observations in writing to his superiors until he could consult a lawyer. This, claims Mr Simpson, led to his dismissal in February.

According to Simpson, when he arrived at Mr Dafali’s cell, INS officers were taking photographs of Mr Dafali’s injuries. “CCA guards told me the guy hurt himself. They said he banged his head and face against the wall, hit his face on a garbage can and caused his own injuries. I didn’t believe it. I still don’t. I don’t see how you get a shoe print on your face from a wall,” said Mr Simpson.

Investigation by newspaper

In April 1999, following a six month investigation, the Bergen Record published its findings which included:

n allegations of degrading and abusive treatment by guards and others date back more than a year;

n immigration lawyers allege that detainees have been verbally abused or mistreated after complaining about conditions;

n a hunger strike organiser alleges that he was kept in a cell smeared with excrement for six days after a protest;

n detainees spend at least 22 hours a day in a windowless dormitory, where they eat, sleep and shower;

n guards have alleged that they fear losing their jobs if they report mistreatment;

n in 24 months, the facility has had three wardens, three deputy wardens and two chiefs of security;

n two senior officials were removed at the request of the INS following charges that they were creating a destructive atmosphere; a third was fired by CCA;

n the turnover rate among guards is between 30 and 40 per cent;

n since January 1999, CCA has been notified of 18 contract violations;

n tension between the INS and CCA “which hold markedly different views ...underscore the different approaches to discipline and security that sometimes emerge ...”

n in a 1997 videotape, a guard told an asylum seeker who was tied to a bed to go to another country and “be their illegal alien, not mine ... I don’t care about your politics.” The guard referred to the centre as “my house”;

n in the winter of 1998, the INS wrote to a CCA Vice President about a litany of problems including missing funds and valuables belonging to detainees and unreported or missing information that seemed to point to a cover up

This was all despite the presence of seven INS contract compliance officials and the facility’s accreditation with the American Correctional Association.

The newspaper based its report on  “affidavits, internal memos, congressional testimony and interviews with more than three dozen detainees, attorneys, human rights advocates, centre staff members and officials.”

In September 1998, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights testified before a US Senate immigration sub-committee about problems at the centre. The Committee has also complained that the INS does not act fast enough to deal with complaints. Detainees also suffer lengthy stays in the centre due to the INS’s system of processing asylum claims.

But the INS sought and obtained the removal of CCA’s most recent chief of security, Darwin C. Mitchell. Mr Mitchell started his job in the summer of 1998 after he  was transferred from another CCA facility in Tennessee, where he had been a shift commander. He is now assistant chief of security at another CCA facility in central Arizona.

In August and October 1998, Lawyers for Human Rights wrote to the INS alleging that Mr Mitchell and others used excessive force on an Algerian detainee. After viewing a videotape of the alleged incident, the INS referred the case to the FBI. There was a gap in the videotape’s coverage of the incident.

Since the most recent incidents and allegations, CCA’s guards have been receiving training in videotaping and the use of force.  But the INS is also considering making its own videotapes of incidents and requiring them to be placed in a locked box. It now has an official in the centre’s control room which was previously staffed by CCA employees only.

CCA’s contract with the INS  is due to be renewed in August 1999.The company also has contracts with the INS to run facilities in Arizona and Texas.

n The INS has since transferred Salah Dafali and Oluwole Aboyade  to a prison in rural Pennsylvania.

n In April 1999, 39 guards at the Elizabeth facility were tested for drug use after detainees found a marijuana cigarette and handed it over to the INS alleging that it belonged to CCA staff. Within a week, three guards had left their jobs. Two had tested positive and  the third left rather than take the test.

For a full account of the Bergen Record’s investigation and findings, see The Bergen Record Online at http://www.bergen.com/region/ccaquit9904143.htm

 

 

UNITED STATES

 

Abuse, cover up and donations

        Doctor C. Crants, Chairman and Chief Executive of Corrections Corporation of America donated $4,000 to Wisconsin politicians over a period when the state was investigating alleged abuse of its prisoners held at a company facility in Tennessee.

The donations were made between September and December 1998.

On 5 August 1998, a guard at CCA’s Whiteville Correctional Facility, Tennessee was assaulted and seriously injured by prisoners from Wisconsin (see PPRI #25).  Nine prisoners face criminal charges arising from the assault.  

But prisoners alleged that, in retaliation, they were beaten, shocked with stun guns and sexually abused by CCA staff investigating the assault.

One prisoner told his lawyer that, several days after the 5 August incident, at least eight individuals dressed in black took him to a room, stripped him, kicked him in the ribs and shocked his penis with a stun gun. He claimed that those who allegedly assaulted him were trying to find out who attacked the CCA guard.

Another prisoner told Wisconsin legislators that, twice on 11 August, he and a cellmate were handcuffed, beaten, sprayed with mace and shocked with a stun gun and stun shield by members of a tactical squad. He also alleged that he was stripped, forced to kneel on the floor and while bent over his bunk a guard sexually assaulted him with a shampoo bottle, shocked him with a stun gun and hit him on the head.

Abuse covered up

The company denied the prisoners’ allegations and assured the state that nothing untoward had taken place. A visit by state officials to the prison on 19 August 1998 found no evidence of abuse.

But the state subsequently decided to carry out a further investigation and, in November 1998, a five member legislative team found that:

n between 15 and 20 prisoners were abused;

n the prisoners were abused by members of CCA’s SORT [riot control]teams brought in from outside the prison;

n at least two prisoners had injuries inflicted by electric shocks from stun shields or guns;

n prisoners were banged against walls;

n the abuse took place over a four day period;

n seven CCA staff, including the chief of security, were fired after the incidents;

n prison officials had withheld information about the incidents from state officials.

 Michael Sullivan, Wisconsin’s Corrections Secretary, had previously been convinced that  no abuse had taken place. But he requested that the Memphis FBI fully investigate what he described as “the cover up of these incidents” by CCA employees.

Susan Hart, a spokesperson for CCA, said that the company has “a zero tolerance policy for anything inappropriate inside an institution, including the failure to report and including inappropriate use of force, and that policy is certainly indicated by our behaviour to dismiss those employees who did not appropriately follow policy.”

 Gaston Fairey, a lawyer in Columbia, South Carolina represents 26 prisoners and is preparing to file lawsuits on their behalf. Another lawyer in Milwaukee is representing three other prisoners.

Who got the campaign donations?

The state Governor, Tommy Thompson, received $2,500 in September 1998. Republican Scott Walker received $500 in mid-October, three weeks before he was selected as a member of  the CCA facility  inspection team. Mr Walker was also recently appointed Chairman of Wisconsin’s  Assembly Corrections Committee. He is now sponsoring legislation that would let the state contract with private prisons in Wisconsin. Dean Kaufert, another Republican member of the inspection team, also received a donation.

 Despite the inspection team’s findings, the four Republican representatives concluded that there was no reason to stop sending Wisconsin prisoners to CCA prisons.

In December 1998, three Finance Committee members who received donations from Crants voted in favour of sending an additional 357 Wisconsin prisoners to a CCA facility in Sayre, Oklahoma.

CCA’s Susan Hart told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that there was no connection between Crants’s giving and the problems at the Tennessee facility.  Scott Walker said that “quite frankly I was surprised that if he [Crants] was going to give, he hadn’t given earlier. I’ve been a private prison advocate for some time.”

Another ten years

Wisconsin sends its prisoners out of state to ease overcrowding in its own prisons. In the last ten years, its prison population has grown from 6,100 to around 17,600. The administration currently has authority to send up to 4,500 prisoners to private prisons but wants to double that number by 2001. Wisconsin currently has some 2,350 prisoners held out of state. It has a contract with  CCA to  hold around 1,200 prisoners, paying the company $42 per prisoner per day.

The state’s Corrections Secretary has said that Wisconsin must send prisoners out of state for at least ten years as it cannot build new prisons fast enough to cope with the increasing prisoner population.

n The state Governor has said that he will only consider sending prisoners to a 1,200 bed prison currently being built speculatively at Stanley by the Dominion Group if it is staffed by public employees.

 

Alaskans mistreated in Arizona

        Alaskan prisoners, many of whom are Native Americans, are being mistreated at CCA’s Central Arizona Detention Center in Florence, Arizona, according to a  monitor appointed by Alaska’s Superior Court.

The monitor’s report, published in April 1999, found:

n food problems were severe and have continued to be so for several years;

n telephone conversations with lawyers were being recorded, in violation of a court order;

n the prison’s telephone system and the phone contractor’s billings procedures were so complex that it was difficult for prisoners to make ‘collect’ calls to their families. “The prisoners who are suffering the most are ... those from rural areas, especially Native Alaskans.”

n the staff’s ability to respond to serious emergencies was a concern - in one incident recorded on videotape, staff used broom handles, which are non-approved non-lethal weapons, to remove prisoners from cells. Pepper spray was also used inappropriately. A videotape showed a subdued and restrained prisoner being pepper sprayed by a CCA guard.

The monitor, Mr John Hagar, a San Francisco based lawyer, revisited the facility in February 1999. He stated that conditions had improved since his last inspection a year ago. There is now a system in place that separates stronger, more organised prisoners from weaker prisoners. Until that was implemented, there was an increasing trend in demonstrations and prisoner-upon-prisoner assaults.

But he also noted in a separate, undisclosed report that the FBI is investigating alleged use of excessive force.

Mr Scott Taylor, a prisoners’ rights lawyer, told the Anchorage Daily News that the problems in Arizona are consistent with what one might expect to find in a privately operated prison. “From what I have seen, I can’t really criticise CCA too much for Central Arizona. They have such a rapid turnover with staff. It is hard to keep good, trained staff on site. And new poorly trained guards pose a danger to inmates.”

On 4 May 1999, Alaska’s Department of Corrections filed a rebuttal of Mr Hagar’s criticisms in the Superior Court, arguing that he had gone beyond his remit and that his report consisted “primarily of [his] conclusions and opinions”.

CCA receives some $1.5m per month from Alaska’s Department of Corrections for holding 860 Alaskan prisoners at the 2,400 bed facility. Alaska has been sending prisoners to Arizona since 1995.

Incidents not reported

       Tennessee’s Department of Corrections has served a written warning that the operators of Hardeman County Correctional Facility failed to report two serious incidents to the state’s Assistant Commissioner of Operations.

The Facility is run under contract by Corrections Corporation of America.

On 17 January 1999, several prisoners assaulted a guard who required facial surgery as a result. Eight prisoners were segregated for their involvement.

On 21 January 1999, an incident involving construction workers and prison maintenance staff led to three injured people requiring hospital treatment.

Neither incident was reported to the state despite a contract requirement to do so.

A letter dated 11 February 1999 from Tennessee Corrections Commissioner Donal Campbell to the Hardeman County Correctional Facilities Corporation states: “The above described policy violations constitute breaches of Hardeman County’s obligations under the contract ... As corrective action, within ten days, please forward ... a full report on these incidents and any responsive action taken. In addition, please see that incident reports are entered in accordance with policy. Please be advised that ... any future breaches of this nature will be considered successive and repetitive, and may result in the assessment of liquidated damages without notice and an opportunity to cure.”

 

Youngstown settlement final

      The $1.65m settlement of the lawsuit brought by prisoners at CCA’s Northeast Ohio Correctional Center against CCA has been ratified by the court (see PPRI #18, 19, 23, 24, 26 and 28).

n The first in a series of lawsuits on behalf of  25 juveniles held at a former CCA run juvenile detention centre in Columbia, South Carolina is scheduled to be heard on 1 November 1999.

The cases arose from alleged abuses, including hog tying, by CCA staff in 1996 and 1997 (see PPRI #8). CCA withdrew from the contract in June 1997.

 

TransCor faces lawsuits

       The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit in the US District Court on behalf of a female prisoner who alleges that she was sexually assaulted by a TransCor of America guard while shackled during a five day journey transferring her from Texas to a Colorado prison in March 1998.

According to papers filed with the court, after the woman arrived at the Fremont County Jail, she required medical  attention, medication and psychotherapy because of the assault. She was so distressed that she could no longer eat, sleep or function normally. Her distraught condition eventually prompted jail staff to contact victim assistance workers.

Mark Silverstein of the ACLU said that at least two similar lawsuits are pending against the company in Colorado and that they all claim that female prisoners were sexually assaulted while being transported by all‑male crews from TransCor.

 

CSC staff still inexperienced

       A riot at Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) - run Crowley County Correctional Facility at Olney Springs, Colorado on 5 March 1999 required public sector riot control teams from four states to help regain control of the prison.

During the incident, in which prisoners flooded cell blocks and caused some $10,000 worth of damage, one prison guard suffered a fractured jaw and four prisoners were injured by rubber bullets fired by  the riot control teams.

Five hundred prisoners in two cell blocks were subdued  by CSC guards using OC spray while awaiting reinforcements  to arrive.

According to a Colorado Department of Corrections ‘after action’ report, the air in the cell blocks remained “saturated ... throughout recovery operations.” It also noted that the “indications are [that] the [CSC] staff were not as well trained as they could have been.”

Since the riot, between 20 and 25 per cent of the 260  staff, including the deputy warden, have left.

An investigation into the riot has recommended that CSC  and Dominion Correctional Properties, the facility’s builder and owner, make 29 improvements to procedures, training, equipment and design. CSC is to be charged  for the cost of deploying 56 state riot control officers.

n This is the second major disturbance at the 1,200 bed facility since it opened in October 1998. Within a month  of opening, there was a two day lockdown and troublesome prisoners were transferred. Two CSC staff were fired and three others resigned as a result of  the incident. At the time, the facility’s warden told the Denver Post that roughly 70 per cent of his staff had no previous experience, although they underwent four weeks’ training.

 

CSC contract not renewed

       Correctional Services Corporation will not be renewing its contract for the 120 bed Bayamon Detention Center in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. It was due for renewal on 1 May 1999. The company stated that it “mutually agreed” with the Administration of Juvenile Institutions on 23 February 1999 not to renew.

On that day there was a riot in which armed detainees took seven staff hostage for 14 hours (see PPRI #28).

 

Hobbs problems continue

       A riot by 400 prisoners at Wackenhut Corrections Corp’s 1,057 bed Lea County Correctional Facility, Hobbs, New Mexico left 13 guards - including two state employees - and one prisoner injured on 6 April 1999.

Four of the guards have returned to work, but fifteen have resigned since the incident (see PPRI #24).

Hundreds of state and local corrections and law enforcement officers from around New Mexico responded to the riot. Wackenhut’s contract stipulates that it has to reimburse the state for the cost of such assistance.

The facility opened in May 1998 and has suffered a series of incidents, including:

n in August 1998, Wackenhut disciplined guards for allegedly kicking a handcuffed prisoner in the groin.

n in January 1999, Wackenhut disciplined six staff for allegedly conspiring to cover up an incident on 21 December 1998 in which a prisoner was kicked in the head  while restrained. Two guards were fired, one was suspended, two supervisors were forced to resign and  a third was demoted.

A recent state commissioned study into levels of violence at public and private prisons found that Hobbs had the highest number of injuries that had to be treated away from the facility.

A trade union representing guards at the facility has filed a formal grievance about unsafe work conditions and other issues. Guards have to work double shifts, which they claim is causing stress.

 

Cornell hires ex-offenders

        At least three Cornell Corrections Inc staff employed to supervise juveniles at the Youth Development Program, Santa Fe County, New Mexico have criminal records.

They  are to keep their jobs but no further ex-offenders will be hired.

In April 1999, David Wolf, the County Manager, wrote to the company stating that the staff should be removed and that neither ex-convicts nor others with morally  questionable misdemeanour charges would be tolerated at the facility.

The juvenile facility’s director, Mr Peter Looker, told Associated Press  that “we have no one in this facility who has raped anybody, who is a paedophile or who engages in that type of sexual deviancy”. Looker said he believed that the three had been rehabilitated. He has since said that  hiring them was an incorrect interpretation of the contract.

Cornell’s background checks on the staff had not been passed to the Sheriff’s Department for scrutiny.

The Sheriff’s Department is also currently investigating allegations that a guard, who has since been fired, raped and molested a female prisoner at the facility earlier in April.

n On 16 April 1999,  a male guard at the adult facility - also run by Cornell - was arrested on charges of  sexually assaulting a male prisoner.

 

Resisting Cornell in Pennsylvania

        The Pennsylvania state Correctional Officers Association, the Association of Federal Government Employees, Corrections USA and local community representatives are fighting an attempt by Cornell Corrections to build a prison in Phillipsburg, Pennsylvania.

In April 1999, Cornell was awarded a $342.7m Federal Bureau of Prisons contract to own and operate a 1,000 bed facility (see PPRI #28). The company has a time limit within which to find a location for the prison.

 

Nevada’s privatised health care

        The Governor of Nevada plans to privatise the entire prison system’s health care services. Savings of up to $6m over two years are being claimed. But several hundred state employees could lose their jobs.

Two firms, including Correctional Medical Services (see PPRI #25 and 26) are negotiating for the contract.

 

Privatisation ‘guru’ resigns

      Dr Charles Thomas, Director of the University of Florida’s Private Prison Project, has been fined $2,000. He has ceased all evaluative research on the private corrections industry through his position at the university,  and he has submitted his resignation as Director of the Private Corrections Project with effect from 13 August  1999.

Following two complaints by the Florida Police Benevolent Association (FPBA), the Florida Commission on Ethics found that there was probable cause to believe that Dr Thomas’s financial interest in the corrections industry impeded his ability to evaluate objectively the industry through his research at the  university (see PPRI #13, 21, 25 and 26).

As well as his work at the university, Dr Thomas is a paid consultant to Prison Realty Corporation as well as being a board member and shareholder. He also owns shares in Correctional Services Corporation, but this was not an aspect of the conflict cases.

In June 1998, the Commission found probable cause for a conflict between Dr Thomas’s work for the Florida Corrections Privatisation Commission, his relationship with CCA and his role at the University of Florida. Dr Thomas resigned his position with the Privatisation Commission but the case was not fully settled.

Last December, the FPBA filed a second complaint after it emerged that, in 1998, Dr Thomas personally received $3m for consultancy to CCA Prison Realty Trust. The work related to the company’s merger with Corrections Corporation of America which resulted in the formation of Prison Realty Corporation (see PPRI #28).

The FPBA alleged that Dr Thomas violated Florida’s Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Dr Thomas  strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

But as part of the settlement of both complaints announced on 19 April 1999, Dr Thomas finally accepted the Commission’s findings. The settlement is not official until ratified by the Commission on Ethics on 3 June 1999.

Commission investigator’s findings

The Commission’s report of the investigation into the second complaint was published on 17 March 1999. Mr Eric Scott, of the Attorney General’s Office concluded that “it appears [Dr Thomas’s] contractual relationship with PRC [Prison Realty Corp] created a situation which could tempt dishonor. Because the results of [his] research can have such a profound effect on the private prison industry [he] is in a position where his private economic interests and his public duty overlap in a manner which could lead to a disregard of his public duties. In other words, [he] could be tempted to alter the results of his research in an effort to maintain or increase his private economic benefit”.

But Mr Scott also pointed out that “there is no evidence that [Dr Thomas] has ever actually disregarded his public duties for a private benefit. However, violations [under Florida statutes] are based upon the fact that a conflict exists, not whether or not [Dr Thomas] succumbed to the temptation.”

The report also noted that, despite the University of Florida recognising the potential for a conflict and entering into a Monitoring Plan for Potential Conflicts of Interest, the plan “did not eliminate the conflict”.

A second hearing had been scheduled for May pending negotiations over a settlement.

Ken Kopczynski of the FPBA, said  “We were very happy that the Florida Commission on Ethics again validated our position. This ends a chapter in the FPBA's fight against prison privatisation and will, hopefully, bring about an honest debate on the issue”.

International reputation

Dr Thomas has been regarded as the ‘guru’ of private  corrections. He has conducted and/or directed research comparing private and public prisons and advised government departments. The Private Prison Project website features Dr Thomas’s  Weekly Stock Report, which tracks the share prices, trading records and developments of the publicly traded corrections companies.

In evidence to the Ethics Commission’s investigation into the first complaint, Mr Irv DeGraw, a Sarasota-based stock analyst, referred to the Blue Book, Dr Thomas’s annual industry census, as “the Bible”. He also stated that information provided by Dr Thomas to stock analysts could “greatly influence the markets” and that Dr Thomas was “widely recognised as the expert on privatisation nationally, in fact, worldwide.”

But Mr DeGraw also said that he had been “concerned” about Dr Thomas’s directorship of CCA Prison Realty Trust as  “economic interest in your research and work creates a bias.”

n Since 1989, the University of Florida Private Corrections Project has been funded entirely through donations from private corrections companies.

n Dr Thomas receives a University salary of $84,000 per year.

n In April 1997, Dr Thomas became a board member for CCA Prison Realty Trust;

n On 1 January 1999, CCA Prison Realty Trust merged with Corrections Corporation of America, creating Prison Realty Corporation (PRC) a Real Estate Investment Trust that provides financing for private correctional facilities.

n Dr Thomas is a Director of PRC and owns 30,000 shares valued at $660,000.

n Dr Thomas received a $3m consulting fee for services performed in connection with the merger.

n Dr Thomas receives $1,000 per month as a retainer plus travel expenses and stock options.

Corporate support for Dr Thomas

Evidence to the first investigation also revealed that:

n According to Mr Michael Garretson, Chief Operations Officer for Correctional Services Corp (CSC), his company  began donating money to the Project “because he [Thomas] took the lead in trying to get privatisation accepted by state and local governments. Until he [Thomas] became involved, only the Federal Government had utilised the private corrections industry.” Mr Garretson said that CSC expected Dr Thomas’s Project to “document the successes in private corrections and to prepare factual reports about the industry, even if it’s about one of our competitors, because their successes are good for the industry.”

n Wackenhut Corrections Corporation no longer donates money to Dr Thomas’s project. Mr George Zoley, the company’s Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer alleged that Dr Thomas had “crossed over the line of impartiality” by joining CCA Prison Realty Trust although he had found the work of the Private Corrections Project fair and impartial.

n According to Dr Thomas, following the filing of the first complaint by the FPBA,  the ensuing investigation by the University of Florida and the withdrawal of funding from Wackenhut Corrections Corp, “there was a flood of calls and letters ... from the CEOs of many of the firms in the private corrections industry (eg, Alternative Programs Inc, Avalon Community Services, the Bobby Ross Group, Correctional Services Corporation, Correctional Systems Inc, the GRW Corporation, Management and Training Corporation, Maranatha Production Company, Securicor Custodial Services Ltd, Securicor New Century Corrections and Youth Services International ...”

He also stated that firms “that had never previously provided as much as a dollar of research funding stepped up to the plate (eg, Alternative Programs, Avalon, Bobby Ross Group, Securicor Custodial Services and Securicor New Century)...” and that the financial community “weighted in with strong support and confidence in both my integrity and objectivity (eg, Legg Mason Wood Walker Inc, Montgomery Securities and Stephens Inc).”

Complaint No: 98-206, State of Florida Commission on Ethics, Post Office Drawer 15709, Tallahassee, Florida, 32317-5709, USA.

 

Costs questioned again

       A Corrections Corporation of America advertisement includes the claim that “at least 12 separate independent studies show that privately managed prisons can save taxpayers up to 28 per cent on the cost of incarceration.”

But further doubts about recent research into cost savings cited by US private prison companies were raised at the University of Minnesota Law School’s prison privatisation  workshop in January 1999 (see PPRI #27).

According to Professor Michael Jacobson of City University, New York and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, none of the studies currently being quoted accurately reflect per diem rates.  In his view:

n per diem rates are often based on projected costs. They need to be determined at the end of a fiscal year as a result of reviewing actual expenditures;

n when costing a new facility, companies calculate their labour costs on the basis that the majority of employees begin at the lowest end of the pay scale. But when comparing labour costs with the public sector, they use the higher salary scales and benefit packages enjoyed by more experienced staff;

n ‘cherry picking’ the least difficult prisoners reduces the costs of private prisons while increasing public sector costs.

Professor David Schultz of the University of Minnesota, supported the findings of the Abt Report (see PPRI #25), agreeing that virtually all studies being offered by the private sector as proof of cost savings and/or increased quality of services are flawed or suspect.

He said that costs routinely ignored include: responses to unusual incidents, assaults, medical costs, workers’ compensation, disability insurance, back filing, court costs, future costs of incarceration, monitoring and transportation.

(Corrections USA  has produced a summary of the issues raised at the Minnesota workshop. See page 12).

 

Legal battle in Alaska

       Seven Delta Junction residents have filed a Superior Court lawsuit to prevent a proposed private prison being built on the site of Fort Greely, a military base scheduled for closure.

The residents claim that a deal between the city of Delta Junction and Delta Corrections Group violates state law because construction and operation of the proposed prison was not put out to competitive bid.

Delta Corrections Group is a joint venture of  Allvest Inc, which runs halfway houses in Washington and Oregon, and Cornell Corrections Inc, which took over five Alaskan pre-release facilities from Allvest in August 1998.

In March 1999,  the Delta Junction city council voted to accept a negotiated settlement with Allvest that rules out competitive bidding for the prison. Allvest had threatened to sue the city for breach of contract when the city council began reconsidering its position.

n Sgt. Bill Rogers, a retired correctional officer in Alaska and author of a recent report on privatisation writes:

The state of Alaska has been targeted by Cornell Corrections, CCA and others, who see a ripe market as this oil-driven state suffers from the fall of oil prices worldwide (see PPRI #1).

There is a prison population explosion but reduced public resources. So the companies promise big savings. But a closer look at their figures makes one wonder if their promises are anything more than a sales pitch.

The proposed facility would hold 800 minimum and medium custody offenders at a cost of around $54 per prisoner per day. But other facilities report a daily cost as low as $35 per prisoner per day.

The state already pays CCA $10,139 per day for housing 847 Alaskan prisoners in Arizona. By my calculations, that is $3.71m per year more than it would cost to house them in a publicly run prison in Alaska.

If a new prison is needed, why doesn’t the state open a public facility? Why did the Alaska Legislature pass a bill in the closing days of last year’s session allowing a private facility to be located in the area?

Lobbying and thousands of dollars in campaign donations by Allvest could be part of the reason. The other is that the company’s earlier plans for a private prison in Anchorage and the Mat‑Su Valley, north of Anchorage, were rejected when scrutinised by the voting public and their elected officials.

But Delta Junction is different. A private correctional facility is the only game in town. The prison would be located at what is now Fort Greely. This military base, now a major source of employment,  is scheduled to close. Yet, despite this, and the absence of a viable alternative source of jobs, residents just barely voted to accept the deal.

The Public Safety Officers Association (PSOA) and  Citizens for Positive Re-Use are now leading the opposition to a private prison. Aside from the arguments of principle and costs, a private prison could be the first step to a completely privatised state criminal justice system - an idea first raised at a conference in Anchorage a few years ago. Contact: Sgt. Bill Rogers, Prisons For Profit Research Project, http://www.321website.com/members/home/data/billrogers/homepage.html

 

Deprived areas split over prisons

        Delta Junction, Alaska, is not the only community wrestling with the dilemma of whether to accept a private prison as a quick fix for economic problems.

Duchesne, in eastern Utah, is one of four areas competing for the state’s first private prison. It has an unemployment rate of 12 per cent,  the highest in the state due to the collapse of its oil industry. It has been chosen by Wackenhut Corrections Corp as a prospective site for a  prison which will create around 120 jobs. Wackenhut is competing with three other companies for a state contract.

At Baldwin, in one of Michigan’s poorest counties, Wackenhut is soon to open a 450 bed youth facility which will employ 200 people. Guards will earn $10.29 per hour, around $3 less than in the public sector. Some residents have claimed that not only was the political approval process faulty, but they also doubt the claims of economic benefits.

 Stewart County in Georgia has lost 3.3 per cent of its population in the last eight years, according to the US Census Bureau. This is faster than any other county in the state. But the population will increase when Prison Realty  Corp builds a 1,524 bed prison at Lumpkin, creating around 400 jobs.

The Chairman of Stewart County Commissioners  claims that “it’s going to be ... the biggest thing that’s ever happened for the economies of Stewart and surrounding counties.” But some local people would prefer the economy to be developed using local resources.

In January 1999, the Texson Management Group opened a 192 bed prison at La Villa, Texas. La Villa is one of the poorest areas in the Rio Grande Valley, with 24 per cent of its 1,500 population unemployed.

The City Manager says that a prison was not his first choice for a new business but, he told Associated Press, “what else can we get?”

n Wackenhut’s policy of hiring locally for its Travis County Justice Center in  Austin, Texas, has caused rapid staff turnover. Guards did not like supervising prisoners who were their friends or family. The company is now recruiting from further afield.

 

Leading firms keep growing

      The leading US corrections companies enjoyed record growth during 1998. All expect continued expansion in 1999, according to Annual Reports (Form 10Ks) recently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Prison Realty Corporation (PRC) is the Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) formed on 1 January 1999 following the merger of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Prison Realty Trust. Correctional Management Services Corp is the new operating company; Prison Management Services Inc and Juvenile and Jail Facility Management Services Inc are the service companies. But all three are doing business as Corrections Corporation of America.

PRC’s business objectives are “to generate increasing returns to its stockholders through increases in cash flow available for distribution and to maximise long term total returns to its stockholders”. Its largest shareholder is Sodexho, the Paris  based food services conglomerate.

Revenues for 1998 were $662m compared with $462m in 1997. The company is the largest provider of private prison services in the US.

Prior to the merger, 97.2 per cent of CCA’s revenues came from the US, with two Arizona facilities accounting for 10.5 per cent of that total; 13 per cent came from  nine facilities in Tennessee and 18.4 per cent from 15 facilities in Texas.

As at 5 April 1999, CCA provided management services to governments under contracts for 81 facilities with a capacity of 71,851 beds, of which 70 facilities with a capacity of 51,223 beds were in operation. PRC owned 49 facilities with 48,000 beds, of which 11 were under construction. Outside of the US, CCA subsidiaries have contracts in Australia and the UK.

Wackenhut Corrections Corp kept its place as second largest company operating in the US in 1998. But it is still the largest US corrections company operating abroad.

Total revenues increased by 51 per cent from $206.9m in 1997 to $312.76m in 1998. Revenues from US operations were $264.64m and $48.12 from international contracts.

As at 3 January 1999, the company had contracts for 52 facilities with a capacity of 35,707 beds, of which 40 were in operation. Six facilities are due to commence operation in 1999.

Outside of the US, the company regards the UK and Australia as its “primary potential customers”  and already has contracts in the UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa. Contracts include prison management, design and construction, immigration detention centre management, electronic monitoring, prisoner  transportation and  health care services.

Cornell Corrections Corp had contracts for adult and juvenile correctional, detention and pre-release services in 12 states and the District of Columbia to operate 53 facilities with a total of capacity of 10,525 beds. Its residential facilities had a total capacity of 9,135 beds with 51 facilities in operation and one existing facility in Georgia being expanded.

Its revenues for 1998 were $123.1m compared with $70m in 1997 and profit after tax was $6.06m compared with $3.55m in 1997.

Twenty per cent of revenues came from contracts with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The company had no contracts outside of the US.

The company designs its facilities “with the intention to improve security and minimise the personnel needed to properly staff the facility by enabling enhanced visual and electronic surveillance ...”

At 31 December 1998 Cornell had 2,333 full time and 621 part time employees. Some 150 staff at two facilities were represented by trade unions. Negotiations over another agreement were taking place with 35 staff at a third facility.

Correctional Services Corp’s revenues for 1998 were $97.9m compared with $59.9m in 1997 but the company made a loss of $6m compared with a $3m profit in 1997.

Its business strategy is to: continue expanding its juvenile services; focus on specialised adult facilities for substance abuse offenders, parole violators, females, pre-trial detainees and sex offenders; and develop new markets in the US and internationally.

In September 1998, the company agreed to purchase one of its main US competitors, Youth Services International (see PPRI #24).

CSC believes that its past success has been based on “its reputation as a high quality operator”. The company states that it “maintains one of the most extensive ethical and compliance programmes in the industry ...”

As at 31 December 1998, the company’s adult division operated 15 facilities with a total of 6,621 beds. The juvenile division operated 18 facilities with 2,850 beds for convicted youths aged 12-20. These included military style boot camps, wilderness programmes, secure education and training centres and detention facilities. The company’s community corrections division operates four non-secure residential facilities for adult male and female offenders with a total of 459 beds.

CSC’s view of the international sector is that “the demand for privately managed facilities is increasing due to fiscal pressures, overcrowding, increased recidivism and an overall desire to deliver augmented services while minimising their cost impact.”

By 30 March 1999, the company had 3,794 full time employees.

The salaries, bonuses and other compensation (such as car lease payments, housing allowances and/or life insurance premiums) accrued to CSC’s Chief Executive Officer “and to CSC’s executive officers whose total cash compensation ... exceeded $100,000" amounted to $859,303 for CEO James Slattery and Executive Vice Presidents Michael Garretson and Ira Cotler. James Slattery also received stock options on 150,000 shares.

Lawsuits

The company has a number of lawsuits pending in which, it argues, the claims are “without merit”. These include:

n In March 1996, former prisoners of a facility  filed a case in the Supreme Court of the state of New York, County of Bronx, alleging personal injuries and property damage purportedly caused by negligence and intentional acts of CSC and claiming $500m for each compensatory and punitive damages. In April 1996, this case was transferred to the US District Court, Southern District of New York.

n In July 1996, seven detainees at one of the company’s facilities and certain of their spouses, filed a case in the Superior Court of New Jersey, seeking $10m each in damages arising from alleged mistreatment of the detainees. In August 1996, the case was transferred to the US District Court of New Jersey.

n In July 1997, former detainees of the Elizabeth, New Jersey immigration detention centre filed a case in the US District Court for New Jersey, alleging violations of civil rights, personal injury and property damage were caused by negligent and intentional acts of CSC.

Banking on Mr Banks

In October 1989, a subsidiary of CSC entered into an employment agreement with William Banks. He was responsible for developing and implementing community relations projects on behalf of CSC and for acting as a liaison between CSC and local community and civic groups who had concerns about CSC’s facilities being established in their communities, and with government officials throughout the state of New York.

As compensation, Mr Banks received three per cent of the gross revenue from all Federal Bureau of Prisons, state and local correctional agency contracts within the State of New York with a guaranteed minimum monthly income of $4,500. 

In December 1993, Mr Banks agreed to become a consultant to CSC. In 1997 and 1998 he earned about $239,000 and $300,000 respectively.

 

Just no customers for Just Care

      A 326 bed private prison hospital, the Columbia Care Center, has treated only a dozen patients in its first six months. The South Carolina facility needs an average of 100 patients per day to break even (see PPRI #26).  The hospital is marketing itself across the US and is negotiating with county, state and federal prisons.  Alabama based Just Care Inc claims that it can save as much as half of the average $300 a day it costs to keep a prisoner in a prison hospital.

 

California’s restrictive legislation

        A series of Bills aimed at restricting private prisons in California is about to be debated.  A Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA 10) would prevent private companies from contracting with any local government agency. There are currently 12 pre-trial detention facilities in the state.

Assembly Bill 1222 would prevent CCA from bringing out of state prisoners into their soon to be completed prison, built speculatively, at California City.  Lastly, Senate Bill 1313 would ban all private prisons in the state. The legislation, promoted by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, would not affect  Federal facilities.

 

AUSTRALIA

 

Death #11 at Group 4 Prison

        The death of an eleventh prisoner at Group 4’s Port Phillip Prison, near Melbourne,  has led to renewed calls for a public inquiry into Victoria’s private prisons.

A 23 year old man was found hanging in his cell on 17 April 1999. He is the fifth prisoner to have died from hanging; three others died from drug overdoses and three of natural causes (see PPRI #15-26 and 28).

The government has refused to publish the findings of a recently commissioned  review of deaths and self harm in custody in all of Victoria’s prisons until the 77 recommendations have been implemented.

The Catholic Commission for Justice Development and Peace, the Criminal Bar Association and the Labor Opposition have called for an inquiry.

But Corrections Minister Bill McGrath told the Age that “the Opposition are continually calling for public inquiries on any issue. We are in the business of running government and there will be no public inquiry into the private prison system.”

n Inquests into the first five unnatural deaths of prisoners at Port Phillip Prison are due to start on 7 June 1999. The  cases include four hangings and one drug overdose.

n Group 4 asked the Government of Victoria for an extra A$3.2m in November 1998 to cover the cost of recruiting 47 more staff to run Port Phillip, it was revealed in a leaked letter recently.

The company argued that it had incurred increased costs due to “external factors” beyond its control such as: the Community and Public Sector Union forcing it to increase staffing levels by 40 per cent; the prison accommodating 273 prisoners in a ten month period  rather than the 229 specified in the contract; and the number of prisoner transfers exceeding contract requirements.

The Corrections Minister told Parliament on 25 March 1999 that “the answer [to the company’s request] was in the negative then, and it continues to be in the negative.”

 

Victoria breaches ILO convention

       The employment of prisoners in Victoria’s three private prisons breaches the International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention on forced labour.

In September 1998, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) filed an official complaint with the ILO, claiming that the Victoria Government’s arrangements with Group 4, Australasian Correctional Management and Corrections Corporation of Australia contravene rules preventing private companies benefiting from the use of prison labour (see PPRI #23).

The ACTU also cited examples of prisoners earning between A$6.50 and A$7.50 per day compared with the minimum wage of around A$75 per day for similar work.

Prison labour is exempted from the ILO’s rules provided that it is supervised by a public authority and not hired out or placed at the disposal of private companies.

In its ruling, the ILO said that the legal prohibition on the use of forced prison labour for the benefit of private firms was absolute and applied to all work organised by privately run prisons.

Both the Federal Government and the Government of Victoria maintain  that private prison arrangements do  not breach the ILO convention.

 

Wackenhut’s troubles

       Within weeks of Wackenhut subsidiary Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) taking over the operation of Melbourne Custody Centre, a mentally ill prisoner was beaten so badly by other prisoners that he could be permanently brain damaged.

On 28 April 1999, Michael Tully, a 43‑year‑old schizophrenic on armed robbery charges, was attacked in a holding cell while awaiting transfer to a forensic psychiatric hospital.

His family has criticised the company for not recognising his disability and failing to segregate him. The Opposition spokesperson for Corrections, Mr Andre Haermeyer, said that the decision to hold Mr Tully with violent offenders was an act of “senseless stupidity”. Meanwhile, Liberty Victoria has called for the company’s contract to be made public in order to examine  ACM’s training standards.

In February 1999, when ACM was awarded the A$6m contract, Victoria’s Corrections Minister Bill McGrath said that penalties and incentives built into the contract would ensure that targets for safety and fair treatment would be met. ACM started the contract on 4 April 1999.

n Sixteen immigration detainees escaped from ACM-run Villawood Detention Centre in Sydney on 30 April 1999.  Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock said that the company will face significant financial penalties. There were also escapes from Villawood in February and December 1998. ACM has run the Centre since November 1997 (see PPRI #14).

 

Prisoners overdose at CCA prison

      Three prisoners overdosed on heroin on 1 April 1999 at Corrections Corporation of Australia’s Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (see PPRI #3-23).

The incident happened in a high supervision unit. The prison’s manager said, that although none of the prisoners involved had received visitors that day, the heroin was smuggled in by visitors despite the presence of sniffer dogs. Three other prisoners had suffered from drug overdoses in the preceding three weeks.

 

Victoria to increase prison space

          The Government of Victoria is to spend almost A$50m on 300 extra prison places over three years. The beds will be located at medium security facilities and could include the privately run Port Phillip Prison and Fulham Correctional Centre. 

    Both public and private sectors  will  compete through a tendering process. Corrections Minister Bill McGrath  said the fact that 45 per cent of Victoria’s prisoners are already in private prisons will be taken into account.  The average daily prisoner population could be 3,000 in financial year 1999-2000, up from 2,840 in 1998-99.

 

Beyond the walls in NT

      The Correctional Services Minister for the Northern Territory has announced plans to introduce casual staff into prisons during peak workload periods. The possibility of contracting out “beyond the wall” prison activities is also being considered.

Casuals could be used for jobs such as prisoner escorts, hospital guarding and supervision of community work. Details of services for possible contracting out have not yet been disclosed.

 

 

 

UNITED KINGDOM

 

Medway problems continue

                Assaults, staff resignations and financial penalties have continued at Medway Secure Training Centre for 12-14 year old persistent offenders (see PPRI #16-23, 25 and 28). The Centre is run by Group 4 subsidiary Rebound ECD Ltd.

              Between 9 November 1998 and 1 February 1999 there were 18 assaults on staff by trainees and 17 assaults by trainees on other trainees. There were two incidents of concerted indiscipline. A further ten staff have resigned although, according to the Home Office, two have been reinstated. Rebound ECD was fined £14,730 in the second quarter of financial year 1998 and a further £22,691 in the third quarter.

 

Prison operators’ fines 1994 - 99

                Figures released by the Home Office show that private prisons in England and Wales continue to default on their contracts long after the so called teething troubles of the post opening period.

                Securicor’s HM Prison Parc, in Wales (see PPRI #18-21 and 23) is the UK’s most heavily penalised private prison to date. Parc failed to meet performance standards in five areas: the volume of banned items smuggled in to prison; failure to provide a medical response to prisoners within 30 minutes; failure of visits to start within 30 minutes of the visitor arriving; assaults on staff and prisoners; and failures over compacts about prisoners’ behaviour.

 

Firm	Prison	Date	Amt £
Group 4	Wolds	Sept 98	23,855
	Altcourse	May 98	28,089
	Buckley Hall	Feb 97	526
UKDS	Blakenhurst	Feb 94	41,167
		Nov 98	25,000
Premier	Lowdham Grange	Jul 98	702
		Oct 98	45,080
		Jan 99	31,231
		Feb 99	6,334
Securicor	Parc	Mar 98	54,782
		May 98	1,309
		July 98	298
		Oct 98	306,747

 

Source: Hansard, 28 April 1999.

Notes:

1. UKDS is UK Detention Services Ltd; Premier is Premier Prison Services Ltd.

2. Securicor was penalised £54,782 for the “non reporting of an incident” (Hansard, 15 June 1998).

3. Excludes HM Prison Doncaster (run by Premier, which has received default notices but no fines), Medway Secure Training Centre (see above) and immigration detention centres.

4. Stated reasons for fines were “failure to meet performance standards” except for: Wolds - “reduction in service”; Blakenhurst - “temporary reduction in cell availability” and  “escape from escort”; Lowdham Grange July 98 -“one unavailable place”; Parc July 98 - “doubling cell occupation beyond permitted level”.

5. UKDS’s “temporary reduction in cell availability” followed a disturbance during which control of part of the prison was lost. The Prison Service did not consider that “UKDS fully delivered the required service during that month” (Hansard, 12 April 1994).

6. The above amounts have been deducted from payments  due to the operators.

7. The first privately managed prison opened in 1992.

 

Incident at Scotland’s new prison

    Some 150 prisoners at HM Prison Bowhouse at Kilmarnock, Scotland, held a demonstration and refused to work on the morning of 26 April 1999.

    According to the Scottish Prison Service, the incident was peaceful and was caused by grievances over visiting arrangements. The company did not require the assistance of staff from public sector prisons.

    The 500 bed prison opened in March 1999 and is run by Premier Prison Services Ltd. There are currently 200 prisoners, all of whom have volunteered to transfer from Prison Service run facilities in south west Scotland.

    Scotland, having embarked on a refurbishment programme of existing prisons,  has no plans for any further private prisons.

 

 

RECENT REPORTS AND PAPERS

 

Prison Privatisation: An Analysis of the Issues;  Private Prisons: Public Safety Threatened, A Summary of Recent Escapes; Corrections USA Looks At The Abt Report; Institute on Criminal Justice, Minnesota Conference Report, 28-30 January 1999, Corrections USA (CUSA), PO Box 394, Newton, NH 03858, USA. Tel: ++ 1 603 382 9707. Fax: ++1 603 382 1502. Web site: www.cusa.org These are the latest in a series of CUSA briefing papers.

n CUSA’s next conference will be in Washington DC on  10 and 11 June 1999.

 

Submission of the Federation of  Community Legal Centres (Victoria) to Reference Group Investigating the Benefits of Private and Non-Government Involvement in Building and Operating a Youth Training/Detention Facility, April 1999 from the FCLC. Tel:++ 613 9602 4949. “We submit that [the Victoria Government’s] move to build a private juvenile detention centre is overwhelmingly ideologically driven. Neither the Minister nor his department has provided the community with any evidence that ... privatisation will deliver any alleged benefits to young people in detention and to the community as a whole.”

 

Access of Lawyers to Clients in Private Prisons by Richard Edney, in Law Institute Journal, April 1999. “The current practices of some private prison operators [in Victoria]... disadvantage a class of persons whose vulnerability is well documented and understood. In addition they impose on legal representatives  requirements which are cumbersome, unnecessary, potentially unlawful and of such import that they interfere with the integrity of the relationship legal representatives have with their clients.”

 

A Dossier - Rights of Pasage: Vulnerable Young People Turning the Corner, Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace, Melbourne, March 1999. A collection of case histories contributed by various organisations which demonstrate that “how, with proper support and diversionary opportunities, young offenders can ... become responsible members of our community. The dossier is particularly important in the context of the proposed privatisation of juvenile justice centres in Victoria.”

 

HM Prison Wolds, Report of a Full Inspection, 2-6 November 1998, published 16 April 1999; HM Prison and Young Offender Institution Doncaster, Report of an Unannounced Short Inspection, 3-5 November 1998. Both available from the Home Office, 50 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AT, England. These are the most recent reports following inspections of privately managed prisons in the UK by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons,

 

US Exports Zero Tolerance: Penal ‘Common Sense’ comes to Europe, by L o’c Wacquant, in Le Monde Diplomatique, April 1999.  “Many of the remedies commonly proposed ... take their inspiration from the American model. And, as in the US, they are bound to lead to the extension of social control compounded with exploding rates of imprisonment.”

 

Electronic Monitoring in Europe: A Conference Report, by Dick Whitfield in The Journal of Offender Monitoring, Winter 1999, Civic Research Institute, 4490 US Route 27, PO Box 585, Kingston NJ 08528, USA. Report of the first European wide conference on electronic monitoring which took place in Holland, 15-17 October 1998.