The Government of South Africa has signed project development agreements for the finance, design, construction and management of two 3,000 bed private maximum security prisons (see PPRI # 13, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 23) .

A contract, valued at around R1.3bn over 25 years for a facility at Bloemfontein, is expected to be signed with the Ikhwezi consortium within three months. The prison is due to open by March 2001.

Ikhwezi comprises European firm Group 4 and South African firms Fikele Project, Ten Alliance Holdings, Murray & Roberts Construction and Investec Bank.

Murray & Roberts and Fikele and will share the design and construction on a 60-40 per cent basis. Group 4 will hold 51 per cent of the shares in the management company, with Ten Alliance holding 30 per cent and Vulinblela, a black empowerment organisation, 19 per cent.

US firm Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s South African consortium, South African Custodial Services (SACS), has signed a project development agreement for a 3,024 bed maximum security prison at Louis Trichardt in Northern Province. 

Terms are still being negotiated but Wackenhut anticipates a 25 year operating contract that will include provisions for annual cost of living adjustments.

The cost of construction will be financed through a combination of operator equity and debt from a South African banking consortium.

Wackenhut’s partner in South African Custodial Services (SACS) is Kensani Consortium Pty  Ltd, a black South African women’s empowerment company.

Kensani will also be the sub contractor for the operation of  inmate programmes and facility maintenance.

The prison will be constructed by SACS’s general contractor, CGM, a consortium of three South African building contractors, Concor Construction Pty  Ltd, Group 5 Construction Pty Ltd, and Makhosi Holdings Pty Ltd. The group’s financial advisor is the African Merchant Bank.

According to Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, the company  is also under consideration for a 1,500 bed pre- trial remand centre at Boksburg.

But the Government’s plans for any further private prisons have been suspended due to the current financial situation.

The Government argues that it needs the new facilities to deal with overcrowding - there are 155,000 prisoners in facilities with a capacity of 95,000 - and privatisation enables  new facilities without it having to find the capital.

 

 

TANZANIA

 

Justice for sale?

Tanzania could be the next African country to privatise its prison services.

It is rumoured that the Government is considering partial privatisation of its prisons by running them in collaboration with an, as yet, undisclosed private partner. The rising crime rate and delays in processing criminal cases through the legal system are causing severe overcrowding. Remand prisoners are suffering well documented human rights abuses. Meanwhile, some 40,000 sentenced prisoners are in prisons designed for just 20,000.

The Government says it has no money for new facilities and has asked the churches and community leaders to try and turn the population away from crime.

But when questioned recently by a newspaper journalist about privatisation, the Home Affairs Minister, Mr Ali Ameir Mohamed, did not deny that this was being considered.

Any move towards privatisation will come under scrutiny. As an editorial in the East African commented recently: “Should new capital lead to decongestion and improvements in prisoners’ welfare, well and good. But how far should the new arrangements go? What, at the end of the day, will the Government be left to manage? If punishment is ‘provided’ on commercial lines, will justice be up for sale as well?”

 

 

GERMANY

 

Hesse feasibility study

The Government of Hesse is keen to implement a private prison programme based on the UK model.

It is the only German state currently considering this policy although, seven months ago, the Government of North-Rhine-Westphalia decided against private prisons.

A working party within the Ministry of Justice is currently engaged in a six month feasibility study. It is expected to report at the end of 1999.

Although there are a number of privately run immigration detention centres in Germany,  the German constitution prevents  state governments from using private custody staff in prisons.

If Hesse decides that it wants to proceed then it will have to press the federal government to change the constitution.

The trade union representing prison guards has mounted a campaign to prevent privatisation. 

n A number of German states and city states are to introduce pilot projects for  electronic tagging.

 

 

KOSOVO

 

Proposal for Central Prison

       Private companies are being considered to run the former Serbian Pristina Central Prison.

According to Drum, a corrections industry news service, Group 4 and Securicor are among a number of international companies which have been identified as possible contractors  for the Central Prison in Pristina.

But the provisional government of the Kosovo Liberation Army is reported to be in favour of the facility being state run.

n The Los Angeles Times reports that police officers from Kenya, Germany, the US, Canada, Argentina, Nepal and Pakistan have arrived in Kosovo to join an international police force.

They are “ streaming in and out of the new UN police building ... some officers are paid by their departments at home and receive a living allowance from the UN. Others, including an expected contingent of 450 officers from the US, must resign from their jobs or take a leave of absence. The Americans are being paid between $85,000 and $100,000 by a private company that contracts with the UN for a year long commitment.”

 

 

NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

 

Wackenhut a winner

       The Government of the Netherlands Antilles is negotiating a contract with Wackenhut Corrections Corporation to finance, design  and renovate  the Koraal Specht prison in Curacao.

Wackenhut also hopes to run the 737 bed prison. A decision on the future management of the facility will be made before the end of the year. On 4 August 1999, a delegation from the Government and trade unions flew to Florida to visit Wackenhut facilities.

The new facility is a response to criticisms of the current prison regime by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. The Netherlands Antilles Government rejected a Dutch Government offer of $35m to finance the new prison, preferring privatisation instead.

Wackenhut’s rival bidders were Correctional Services Corporation of the US and a consortium of Group 4 and Ballast Nedam International.

Group 4’s parent company, Secom Investments II NV, is registered in the Netherlands Antilles tax haven. Ballast Nedam is a Dutch construction and engineering company which operates in East Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, South America and Europe.

 

 

UNITED KINGDOM

 

Comparative costs narrow again

      The comparative costs of running private and public prisons in England have narrowed for the third year running. Latest Home Office figures - which have not been independently evaluated - show that for the financial year 1997-98, the cost per prisoner in privately managed prisons was 11 per cent cheaper than their public sector comparators. But there was little or no saving when cost per baseline and in-use places were compared. The reasons given for the narrowing of costs in 1997-98 were:

n higher payments to privately managed prisons for overcrowding increased unit costs of prison places (ie, costs went up while the number of places remained broadly unchanged);

n in the public sector, increased capacity to house the increasing prisoner population has been opened at a low marginal cost, leading to reduced unit costs on all three measures;

n some publicly managed prisons made efficiency savings to reduce costs.  

The private prisons were Blakenhurst (UK Detention Services Ltd), Doncaster (Premier Prison Services Ltd),  Wolds and Buckley Hall (both run by Group 4).

A complex series of cost adjustments and special circumstances were taken into account in order to achieve comparisons.

None of the privately financed, designed, built and run prisons were included in this survey.

Home Office Offenders and Corrections Unit Review of Comparative Costs and Performance of Privately and Publicly Operated Prisons 1997-98, 28 July 1999.

n Further details on comparative wages and conditions for 1996-97 were published in a separate report. Contracted Prisons: Cost and Staffing Comparisons 1996-97, Carla Andrewes, Planning Group, HM Prison Service, June 1999. Contact: Research Development & Statistics Directorate, Information and Publications Group, Room 201, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, SW1H 9AT, England.

 

 

More penalty details

        Private prisons in England and Wales have incurred further penalties for contract failures (see PPRI #29).  Revised figures released by the Home Office show that at HM Prison Parc, at Bridgend, Securicor has had the following amounts withheld from contract payments:

n £54,782 for failing to meet standard contract requirements in February 1998. The reduction was made in March 1998.

n £751,309 for failing to meet standard contract requirements between 17 November 1997 and 30 November 1998. The reduction was made in May 1998.

n £835 for doubling cell occupation beyond the permitted level between April 1996 and October 1997.

n £2,287 for double cell occupation and failure to meet performance standards between 1 March 1999 and 30 June 1999 had accrued but had not yet been deducted.

Parc is also receiving special managerial attention from the Prison Service and no date has been set for this to be stopped.

Group 4's Altcourse

Further to the revelation that Group 4 had been penalised £28,089 for failure to meet performance standards at HMP Altcourse (see PPRI # 26 and 29), in reply to a Parliamentary Question, Junior Minister George Howarth said on 17 May 1999 that “negotiations are in progress between Fazakerley Prison Services Ltd [a Group 4 company] and the Prison Service about further deductions from payments due in respect of Altcourse for 1998-99. Details about the agreed figure will be announced.”

The reasons for the £28,089 penalty were stated as: 126 acts of concerted indiscipline; 61 visits starting after a 30 minute wait; 76 failures to provide a sentence plan; 31 cases of inadequate out of cell hours; eight failures to deliver a programme; 29 incidents of self harm; one failure relating to a contingency planning exercise; 16 items smuggled in; eight assaults on staff; nine assaults on prisoners; six cases of non compliance with a reporting procedure; and four failures to respond to prisoners’ complaints.

n Altcourse remand prisoner Gavin Pritchard hanged himself on 30 June 1999.

Group 4's Medway

The Home Office has withheld £679,882 from Group 4 subsidiary Rebound ECD Ltd.

This is for the non availability of places and failure to meet performance standards at Medway Secure Training Centre between 17 April 1998 and 30 April 1999 (see PPRI # 16-23, 25, 28 and 29).

Further payment reductions are yet to be determined for failures in performance from 1 May  to 31 July 1999.

n Rebound ECD Ltd opened Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre at Onley, Northamptonshire on 1 July 1999. This is the company’s second centre for 12-14 year old persistent offenders. A third centre, Hassockfield, in County Durham, is due to open in September 1999 and will be run by a subsidiary of Premier Prison Services Ltd.

There will eventually be five privately financed, designed, built and run Secure Training Centres for 12-14 year old persistent offenders.

n The Howard League for Penal Reform has published a report arguing that incarcerating children has failed to prevent reoffending and that “there are grave doubts about the competency of the private sector  to run [Secure Training Centres] and for the Home Office to oversee them.”  Child Jails: The Case Against Secure Training Centres, Howard League for Penal Reform, 708 Holloway Road, London, N19 3NL, England.

 

 

More private prisons on the way

       Four new privately financed, designed, built and run prisons will open in England during the next three years.

One is currently being developed by UK Detention Services Ltd (CCA and Sodexho), two by Premier Prison Services Ltd (Wackenhut and Serco) and one by Group 4.

The Prison Service also has three further sites at advanced planning stages.

There are currently four privately managed and four privately financed, designed, built and run prisons operating in the UK. A tendering process for the renewal of two of the management contracts is underway and the Prison Service has been allowed to bid (see PPRI # 21).

n A prison in South East England is to be closed for  redevelopment as a privately run immigration detention centre. A young offenders’ institution in the north of England could have a similar future. This would increase the number of privately run immigration detention centres to five (see PPRI # 18, 20 and 22).

Wackenhut preferred bidder

        Wackenhut’s Australian subsidiary, Australasian Correctional Management (ACM), is negotiating with the Government of New Zealand for a contract to manage the  Auckland Remand Centre (see PPRI # 23, 25 and 26).

 Construction of the 384 bed facility is underway and is expected to open under Wackenhut’s management in May 2000. The company’s revenues from the initial five year contract are expected to be US$58m.

 

 

CCA’s joint venture

        Corrections Corporation of Australia (CCA) has been negotiating with the Ngatihine indigenous people to propose a joint venture prison in the Northland area (see PPRI # 26).

This would be an alternative to the Government’s  plan to build a prison at one of three sites where local people have voiced strong opposition.

 While the Ngatihine/CCA prison would accept prisoners of all races, the plan is to staff it largely by Maoris trained by CCA and to focus on the rehabilitation of prisoners  by including their families in the process.

CCA would be willing to finance the prison but would require a management contract for at least ten years.

n Six companies have bid for a  Ministry of Corrections contract to supply home detention equipment and services.

 

CANADA

 

Back on the agenda in Ontario

       Following the re-election of the Conservative Government in June 1999, Mr Rob Sampson, Ontario’s  new Minister of Corrections, says that he will consider privatising the management of two new 1,200 bed superjails currently under construction (see PPRI #15-23 and 25).

In 1998 the Government said that the facilities would be publicly run. Mr Sampson was Minister for Privatisation in the previous administration.

 

AUSTRALIA

 

Auditor-General raises key issues

     The Auditor-General of Victoria, the state’s independent financial watchdog, was forced by the Government to omit key financial details about three private prisons from a report on the state’s prison system.

Figures such as original comparative benchmark costs, costs per prisoner per year, and a breakdown of payments to private contractors between August 1996 and December 1998, had to be deleted from tables published in the report on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

But the report raised fundamental concerns about the oversight and operation of private prisons, including:

n the mix of state managed and privately operated prisons, now requires a regulatory framework which features a truly independent Correctional Services Commissioner;

n contractual service delivery outcomes used to determine the level of annual performance remuneration paid to private prison operators do not encourage service excellence.

The outcomes “were established on the basis of average or, in some cases, less than average results achieved in the outdated prisons which had been identified for replacement.”

They are also “primarily quantitative ... and do not address the key areas of qualitative performance such as the results of prisoner rehabilitation programmes and the quality of staff training. These shortcomings, coupled with provisions which enable performance remuneration to be paid even where the service delivery outcomes have been only partly met, are not conducive to achieving the improvements in the quality of services which were expected to flow from the establishment of new prisons.”

n “the limited range of information dealing with the industry communicated to Parliament to date in the Department’s annual report falls far short of the level necessary to effectively meet its accountability obligations.”

n “on the basis of the latest reports issued by the Commissioner, progressive improvement in performance at Port Phillip has occurred to February 1999, but the prison operator is still to satisfy the Commissioner that it is meeting all required service delivery outcomes.”

n “financial penalties to the contractor responsible for Port Phillip Prison have been minimal even though serious deficiencies at the prison were not fully addressed for over a year and involved significant monitoring costs to the Government.”

n “there is still some uncertainty whether the cost savings expected to flow from the prison reforms [three private prisons] will be realised.”

n self  mutilations and attempted suicides and assaults on prisoners by other prisoners at Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre exceeded the specified acceptable limits by 91 and 20 per cent respectively.

The 224 page report also includes responses from the Department of Justice Victoria and Group 4.

Victoria’s Prison System, Community Protection and Prisoner Welfare, Auditor-General of Victoria, Special Report No. 60, May 1999. Victorian Auditor General’s Office, Level 14, 222 Exhibition Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia. Tel: ++ 61 3 9651 6012. Fax: ++ 61 3 9651 6050.

Victoria appeals against FOI order

     “It is obvious, in our view, that contracts which relate to matters as fundamental to the rule of law and to our system of justice as prisons, are entirely different to other contracts which privatise more commercial entities.  It is inherent in the democratic system that important issues of the nature of prisons and their management be publicly transparent so that there can be the best possible public understanding, awareness and, if need be, debate.”  - Mr Justice Murray Kellam, President of the Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal. 

    The Government of Victoria is to appeal to the Supreme Court against a ruling from the Civil and Administrative Tribunal to disclose existing contracts with private prison operators (see PPRI # 13, 23 and 25).

All specifications except those which may affect security at Fulham Correctional Centre, Port Phillip Prison and the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre were deemed to be in the public interest.

But the Government has obtained a stay on the release of the documents pending the appeal.

On 20 May 1999, the Tribunal found in favour of Coburg-Brunswick Community Legal Centre, which had applied for the release of the contracts under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI).

The Government, along with Group 4, Corrections Corporation of Australia and Australasian Correctional Management, had argued against publishing the contracts on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

In concluding that the “public interest override should be of a high order”, the President of the Tribunal, Mr Justice Murray Kellam also stated that: “There was evidence given to the Tribunal of prediction of adverse consequences for the future tendering process should commercially confidential material be released. On the face of it, that evidence is the opinion of a relatively small number of people and appeared to be largely speculative.”

The Government’s appeal has been adjourned pending the outcome of a Court of Appeal decision on another FOI case.

The Tribunal’s findings are in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, General List Nos. 96/49366 and 97/57595, 20 May 1999. The Federation of Community Legal Centres can be contacted at PO Box 1139K, Melbourne, Australia. Tel: ++ 61 3 602 4949. Fax: ++ 61 3 602 4948.

 

 

Task Force reports on suicides

       The Task Force appointed by the Government of Victoria to look into 18 deaths in public and private prisons between August 1997 and October 1998 has identified a range of shortcomings that increased the risks to vulnerable prisoners.

Although the Government took six months to release an edited version of the report, it has appointed a steering committee to consider the 176 page report’s 74 system wide recommendations for improvements.

The Task Force noted that privatisation had fragmented Victoria’s prison system, making cohesion  of policy, procedures and standards difficult. Many of the recommendations are aimed at  addressing problems such as inexperienced and poorly trained staff and communication breakdowns. The use of isolation cells was also called into question.

The Task Force found that consultants employed by Group 4 and Corrections Corporation of America to produce independent reports into the deaths of prisoners had not met the required standards.

Regarding Group 4's Port Phillip Prison in particular:

n “ ... failings that occurred in the events surrounding the first tragedy were repeated in subsequent cases.”

n “... the problems that arose in cases of suicide invariably related to failures in the implementation of procedures rather than to the procedures themselves.”

n both the Director of Business Development, Group 4, and the director of the prison told the Task Force that they considered that “the delivery of the service is satisfactory and that the care being taken of prisoners is exemplary.”          But the Task Force noted that: “As recently as early September 1998, an independent audit by PriceWaterhouseCoopers concluded that there remain ‘significant shortcomings’ relating to the control of prisoner self harm which included: inadequate training of prison officers; a lack of appreciation by prison officers of the importance of key procedures; and a lack of supervision and quality control of these procedures.”

n it was recommended that “the appropriate management training should be provided ... to all first line and other middle managers in team-building, human relations and personnel management” and that “there should be a regular review (at least annually) of the performance of middle managers by the senior executive ...”

Review of Suicides and Self Harm in Victorian Prisons, Victorian Correctional Services Task Force, Level 2, 35 Spring Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000, Australia.

 

Inquest into Port Phillip deaths

       Mr Graeme Johnstone, the state coroner investigating the deaths of five prisoners at Group 4's Port Phillip Prison near Melbourne between October 1997 and March 1998, has said that, in each case, information had gone missing or was not documented (see PPRI # 15-26, 28 and 29).

Mr Johnstone also said that guidelines for new cell design needed reviewing and that the overall standard for  investigating deaths in custody needed revising.

The inquest into four hangings and a suspected drug overdose began on 7 June and ended on 2 August 1999. Lawyers for all parties have a month to prepare final submissions.

Mr Johnstone’s findings are expected to take several  months to be published.

During the inquest the coroner heard that:

n Patrick Hughes, a part time prison officer, had not completed his first aid training and was in sole charge of up to 60 prisoners in the Swallow Unit when he found Vien Chi Tu on 4 January 1998;

n Mr Hughes said that, because of staffing levels, prisoners classified for suicide or self harm observation could not be observed every 15 minutes;

n prisoner Adam Irwin was showing signs of life when he was found hanging on 16 December 1997. According to a forensic pathologist, Mr Irwin might have been saved if appropriate procedures had been undertaken when he was first discovered;

n Richard Judge was the prison officer in charge of the Scarborough Unit on 30 October 1997 when he found prisoner George Drinken hanging. Mr Judge said that earlier in the day, he had been too busy to look at Mr Drinken’s file after the prisoner  became distressed. He did  not know that he should try resuscitation before seeking emergency assistance and he had never seen a summary of his duties as a unit officer;

n Mr Judge is now a duty supervisor whose job is to teach new officers about prisoner suicide and self harm. But he told the inquest that he had still only “browsed through” a training manual and had not yet read the prison’s entire operational instructions. He agreed that the situation was unsatisfactory;

n former prisoner Hasan Tasiyan told the inquest that he had felt sorry for the staff as they did not know what they were doing.  “They would pull us aside and ask what went on in another prison.”

n counsellor Mary Vyssaritis told the inquest that she was one of only five responsible for 600 prisoners and staff. “I think we are grossly understaffed,” she said. Ms Vyssaritis had been originally employed as a probationary psychologist but she had not yet attained that  qualification. Another counsellor listed as a probationary psychologist on a Group 4 document had also not attained the qualification;

n in Ms Vyssaritis’ view, the prison was “chaotic” around the time of Mr Drinken’s death. She  also believed that the prison should not have opened in August 1997 as proper counselling services had not been established. There were no psychologists employed and standard risk assessment forms were not in use at that time. There is now one psychologist employed;

n neither Mr Drinken nor Rodney Koers, who was found hanging on 19 March 1998, had been placed on suicide watch despite both being at risk;

n the suicide of Adam Irwin in December 1997 might have been avoided if his psychiatric condition had not been overlooked. Despite a magistrate’s order that he should receive urgent psychiatric attention, Mr Irwin was not seen by a psychiatrist during his 11 days at Port Phillip;

n Mr Kish Jude, a former prison officer, alleged that Port Phillip staff falsified log book records relating to checks on prisoners at risk;

n a lawyer’s concerns for his client Michael Filips were passed on to Group 4 staff but this was not documented and no action was taken to prevent Mr Filips from hanging himself on 19 March 1998;

n the company was warned before Port Phillip opened that hanging points in the cells should be removed as they posed a risk. But no remedial work was done until eight months after the first hanging;.

n Mr David McDonnell, the prison’s director, said, “there are things we could have done better but no, I don’t accept that we made mistakes.”  He blamed the high Australian suicide rate for the number of deaths at Port Phillip. When asked if the company took the suicide rate into account when they designed the prison, he replied: “Not in a direct sense, no.”

Eleven prisoners have died at Port Phillip since it opened in August 1997.

 

Strike averted at women’s prison

      A threatened 48 hour strike by staff at Corrections Corporation of Australia’s Women’s Correctional Centre was averted on 8 July 1999 after the company agreed to improved pay and conditions.

The Community and Public Sector Union, which represents the staff, had complained about staff shortages and inadequate sick leave. The company agreed to increased pay, penalty rates, higher duties allowances and better sick leave entitlement.

 

Women’s prison for NSW?

      The Government of New South Wales is planning to build a 300 bed women’s prison at Windsor.

This is in response to a 48 per cent increase in women prisoners since March 1998, despite the Government’s stated policy of seeking non-custodial sentences for women. The vast majority have been imprisoned for non- violent crimes.

No statement has been made as to whether the prison will be public or privately run.

A coalition is campaigning against the new prison and for alternative policies for women. Contact: Positive Justice Centre, LMB 18, Suite 317, 353 King Street, Newtown, NSW 2042 Australia. Fax: ++ 61 2  9664 3094. Message Bank ++ 61 2 8250 5582.

 

ACT prison causes rift

      Ownership of the Australian Capital Territory’s (ACT) proposed 300 bed prison at Canberra has caused a rift between a coalition of community organisations and the Community and Public Sector Union (see PPRI # 25).

The coalition’s position is that, regardless of whether the prison is public or privately run, they want strong community representation on the board or governing body and complete transparency around any  contract.

The union is campaigning against privatisation and argues that no amount of community representation can guarantee that a private prison would  be run properly.

At present, ACT prisoners are sent to prisons in New South Wales.

n The ACT Government is proposing that prisoners in the new prison should wear electronic tracking devices which would also monitor their pulse rates to prevent suicides. The  prison will also house male and female prisoners and different security classifications. The contract will include goals for rehabilitation and bonus payments to the operator will only be paid if prisoners do not reoffend within a given time.

n Home and workplace electronic monitoring of prisoners is being considered by the ACT Government.

 

WA Government gets its way

        The Upper House of the Parliament of Western Australia is to discuss enabling legislation for prison privatisation in August 1999 (see PPRI # 25, 26 and 28).

But the report of a Parliamentary Select Committee, which examined the issue in Australia and abroad  for over six months, could become irrelevant to the process.

The Democrats, who hold the balance of power in the Upper House, were previously against prison privatisation. But despite pressure from prisoner advocacy groups, they have agreed to change their position and vote with the Government in return for a commitment to introduce an independent prisons inspectorate.

Corrections Corporation of Australia has already been chosen as the preferred bidder for  the contract to finance, design, build and run the 750 bed Acacia Prison at Wooroloo South.  Acacia is being built by a consortium of CCA and Transfield Pty Ltd.         

The Government had stated that even if the Upper House rejected the enabling legislation, it would make alternative administrative arrangements to allow the management contract to go ahead.

New legislation will also enable court security and custodial services to be privatised.

n The Government is testing the market to see whether it  would be viable to contract out the medical services at all Western Australia’s prisons.

 

Detainees escape and riot

       Australia’s Immigration Department is launching an investigation after a total of 41 detainees escaped from the Port Hedland Detention Centre in three incidents between 27 June and 26 July 1999. Also, on 22 July 1999, rioting detainees at the Maribyrnong Detention Centre set fires and destroyed property.

Australasian Correctional Management (Wackenhut), which runs all of Australia’s immigration detention centres, is already facing penalties following another breakout from Villawood Detention Centre on 2 May 1999 (see PPRI # 14 and 29).

n The Federal Government will either expand the Port Hedland facility or build a new one nearby. All four  existing centres have almost reached their capacity.

n The Federal Government is allowing the sedation of detainees to continue at the Port Hedland Detention Centre.  The Government has rejected demands from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to seek legal advice about the practice. The Commission wanted sedation to be restricted to life threatening situations or where a detainee was prone to self harm.

 

Compensation for privatisation

      The Federal Court has ruled that contracting out cannot be used to reduce employees’ pay and conditions from agreed public sector levels.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions is now coordinating a national campaign to recover compensation for thousands of federal, state and local government employees who either lost their jobs or were reemployed by private firms at lesser rates.

 

 

UNITED STATES

 

Prison Realty’s AGM

       Prison Realty Trust (formerly Prison Realty Corp, see PPRI # 28 and 29) held its annual shareholders’ meeting in Nashville, Tennessee on 11 May 1999. Harmon Wray, Executive Director of the Restorative Justice Ministries, United Methodist Church in Nashville, attended the meeting. This is his report.

The market for the private for-profit prison industry is changing very rapidly in the United States, declared Doctor R Crants, chairman of Prison Realty Trust.

 Crants said that the company was unique in having anticipated - and restructured for - the almost stunning reversal in the industry whereby governments now wish for private companies to finance, build and own prisons which are then leased out to tenants which, in turn, operate them.

Crants assured stockholders that the company was exceptionally well positioned to continue its dominance of the now capital-driven market since, as a Real Estate Investment Trust [which must pay out 95 per cent of its earnings as dividends] it is so popular with investors that it expects to raise $600m this year to invest in new projects.

This would enable Prison Realty to build and own almost one third of the 47,000 prison beds “in the pipeline” which Crants estimated as needing over $2bn in capital.

Asserting that the company now has substantial dominance of the marketplace greater than at any time in its history, Crants promised to “exploit our advantage for as long as we have it” and to “grow as fast as we can”.

Crants likened CCA prison violence and escapes to the “dirty pots and pans” one has to deal with when one runs a restaurant. Stating [incorrectly] that most people in US prisons are now dangerous, violent criminals with non violent offenders being kept in community programmes, Crants brushed off questions from stockholders about bad press, claiming that critical media focus is good for the company since it intimidates potential competitors. He also claimed that the much criticised Northeast Ohio Correctional Centre in Youngstown (see PPRI # 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 28 and 29) “may be the finest prison in the CCA system”.

The huge US prison market coupled with the lack of well capitalised competing companies means that declines in the crime rate or even in the incarceration rate would not be much of a threat to the company.

Crants insisted that the company continues to be interested primarily in the US and secondarily in “other English speaking countries”. This is because while the US is a “free enterprise nation” most other countries in the world are, if not Socialist, at least socialistic. They tend to be against privatisation because they think it “interferes with the contract between government and workers”.

Regarding CCA’s failure in 1997/98 to take over the State of Tennessee’s prison system (see PPRI # 11,16, 20 and 24), Crants said that when they made the bid, the state was in a fiscal bind. But by the time the legislature stymied the proposal there was a budget surplus, and so saving money on prisons was no longer urgent. Now, helping Tennessee out of its 1999 budget shortfall problems is not a priority for the company since opportunities in other states are so great.

Amongst the new directors appointed to the  board at the meeting was Ned McWherter, former Governor of Tennessee and one time investor in CCA. As Tennessee’s Speaker of the House of Representatives, McWherter had supported CCA’s first bid to take over the prison system in 1985-86 and was supportive of prison privatisation during his Governorship.

Harmon Wray, Executive Director, Restorative Justice Ministries, United Methodist Church, 1008 19th Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37212, USA. Tel: ++ 1 615 329 2279. Fax: ++1 615 329 2215.

 

Prison Realty’s credit boost

        Prison Realty Trust Inc has increased its credit limit to $1bn after obtaining $350m in extended credit arranged by global investment bankers Lehman Brothers Inc.

The arrangement will allow the company to meet financial commitments such as a special dividend payment to shareholders of $180m due in December 1999 and to complete more than $250m of developments during the first half of 2000.

Although this was regarded as good news, analyst Christopher Haley of First Union Capital Markets told Bloomberg News that “the bigger issue of management credibility still hangs over the company.”

The credit boost caused the company’s share value to climb almost 50 per cent since hitting a low on 9 July 1999. But the price was still down 40 per cent over the year.

The company has not yet achieved status as a Real Estate Investment Trust, the vehicle which would allow shareholders to benefit from advantageous tax laws.

Prison Realty also faces class action lawsuits from disgruntled investors alleging that the company unlawfully concealed information from them at the time of the merger between CCA and Prison Realty (see PPRI # 28).

As well as the high profile problems at Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (see PPRI # 18 - 28), other recent concerns for the company have included:

n in November 1998, HSBC Holdings Plc (formerly Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp) agreed to buy up to $600m of Prison Realty stock, but the banking group stopped buying as Prison Realty’s shares fell;

n the company’s plan to raise $300m at an interest payment of 9.25 to 9.5 per cent failed. It was only able to raise $100 million at 12 per cent interest;

n in May 1999 two prisoners, one serving 220 years for murder and the other 50 years for robbery,  escaped from CCA’s West Tennessee Detention Facility. This  led to the Facility being brought under close scrutiny and the company having to repay the state’s costs of capturing the prisoners;

n construction of new prisons in Indiana and California had to be halted, the latter in response to new state legislation barring private prisons from housing out of state prisoners;

n the District of Columbia Zoning Commission refused CCA permission to build a 1,240 bed prison in one of the city’s poorest areas (see PPRI #28).

CCA is now being sued by a prisoner held at the company’s prison at Whiteville, Tennessee (see PPRI # 25). The lawsuit, filed in Nashville on 23 July 1999, alleges torture, civil rights violations and racketeering.

It accuses CCA’s SORT Team of spraying prisoners with mace, stunning their testicles, choking them and using obscenities and racial slurs.

Gaston Fairey, the lawyer representing Ottoway Murphy, alleged that CCA’s strategy to cut corners, boost profits and maintain order in its prisons by brute force was also evident in a juvenile facility it used to run in Columbia, South Carolina (see PPRI # 8).

“We are alleging that this is, in effect, a criminal conspiracy by the corporation,” Mr Fairey said.

Mr Ottoway’s is the first of some 30 lawsuits to be filed arising from incidents at Whiteville in August 1998.

 

 

Minnesota’s stark comparison

     A comparative study of Corrections Corporation of America’s medium security Prairie Correctional Facility (PCF) in Appleton, Minnesota with three similar facilities run by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) has revealed significant differences in service delivery and programme operations.

The authors conclude that, “taken together these findings pose serious questions about whether Minnesota taxpayers can have confidence that expanding the role of private corrections would not significantly lower the level of prisoner control, facility safety and correctional effectiveness now provided by the public system ... in making decisions regarding privatisation, cost savings cannot be the only concern for policy makers. Consideration about the price of correctional services must be balanced equally with concerns about maintaining the quality of correctional operations and programmes.”

The research included a review of DOC files and records including management reports and programme activity records, as well as similar documents from PCF. Site visits were made to observe programmes and interview prisoners. Interviews were carried out between 11 December 1998 and 5 January 1999.

Comparisons were  made of the number of prisoners involved and the intensity and quality of medical care, education and treatment programmes, work assignments, recreation, prison security and safety.

n While levels of medical care appear comparable, DOC prisoners receive significantly more dental care. They gave significantly higher ratings to prison health care services than PCF prisoners.

n The DOC provides significantly more instruction about general health issues, including provision of education to all prisoners about HIV/AIDS.

n General education classes are offered in both PCF and DOC facilities, and most prisoners who participate take classes five days a week. At PCF, most participating prisoners attended only one three hour educational class per day while more of those in DOC classes reported participation in a full day.

n The DOC education programmes produced a much higher annual rate of General Educational Diplomas earned by students - 74 per one thousand prisoners, compared to the 55 per one thousand  PCF prisoners.

n A similar contrast was found with vocational education classes. These are offered by both and most enrolled prisoners take classes five days per week. But, at PCF, participating prisoners took just one, three hour class per day, while a significant proportion of DOC prisoners  were enrolled in a full time programme of vocational training.

n Vocational education programmes at DOC facilities are provided through the state system which offers transferable classroom credits and authentic, recognised certificates upon completion. This gives DOC graduates an important advantage over those who graduate from the PCF training programmes.

n DOC chemical dependency treatment programmes meet state licensing requirements and give prisoners the type of treatment mandated under Minnesota law. Programmes at the DOC facilities provide a full day of treatment sessions, five days per week. Even though a comparable full time  treatment programme was required in CCA’s contract in 1997, no programme was provided at PCF until the spring of 1999 (after this study was carried out).

n The proportion of prisoners who perform a daily work assignment is significantly higher at PCF. But this is affected by the higher number of DOC prisoners enrolled in daily, full time education and treatment programmes - and who, therefore, do not have a prison work assignment.

n The PCF prisoners with daily work assignments were significantly more likely to report assignment to part time work than DOC prisoners.

n Important differences between how prisoners perceive the daily routine in the private and public systems suggest that the public system maintains a significantly higher degree of authority and control over the daily activities of prisoners than at PCF. Two thirds of the DOC prisoners agreed with the statement “prisoners are kept busy all day”, while at PCF 78 per cent judged this to be untrue.

n While 85 per cent of DOC prisoners agreed that they “must work, study or be in treatment”, only nine per cent of PCF prisoners asserted that this was so.

n Asked to rate their facilities on measures of safety and security, DOC prisoners gave them a significantly higher average rating and were more likely to agree that staff were doing their best to make a safe prison environment. Many PCF prisoners attributed their concerns about security control and safety to apparent disregard for classification standards.

n Classification problems at PCF have been repeatedly cited in documents and reports related to facility licensing.

n Perceived deficiencies in staff training and experience were another frequent complaint by PCF prisoners.

n The aggregate staff turnover rate from the three DOC prisons was 13.3 per cent. The PCF rate was 42.4 per cent.

From: Comparing Private and Public Prison Services and Programs in Minnesota: Findings from Prisoner Interviews, by the principal investigator, Judith Greene. This will appear in the forthcoming Privatisation of Correctional Services: Evaluating The Role of Private Prison Management in Minnesota by J Greene, S R Belenko, C Davies, M Jacobson and D Schultz for the Institute on Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School Law Center, Room 430, 229 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.

Contact: Judith Greene,Tel: ++1 718 857 3316. Email: greenej@interactive.net

 

 

Food giant settles racism claims

        Aramark Correctional Services Inc has agreed to pay $3.75m to settle racial discrimination claims of some 300 black employees. The company has denied any wrongdoing.

The settlement is due to be ratified by the US District Court. The lawsuit only concerns Aramark’s operations at Philadelphia’s city prisons, and, according to the company, is being settled to avoid protracted litigation.

In the lawsuit which started in 1997, the employees claimed that company supervisors used racial epithets against them, that they were paid less than white employees and denied promotional opportunities.

Black employees were allegedly “stuck in labour intensive and degrading jobs assignments such as mopping the floors, collecting rubbish and working the dishwasher and scullery area,” the suit charged.

Black mid‑level managers were allegedly  excluded from a supervisors’ office known as ‘the White House’ and forced “to carry out the unequal treatment of black hourly workers in order to insulate” white supervisors from allegations of racial discrimination.

Under the terms of the settlement, three black former Aramark employees who sued the company will receive $50,000 (but only 34,000 after legal fees). One of the three, James Royal, was fired in 1997 for giving a bag of potato crisps to a prisoner.

According to the claimants, it was an unwritten but pervasive practice to give food to prisoners for motivational purposes. “No whites were disciplined for doing so, and, to the contrary, the practice was encouraged,” they alleged.

Another of the employees has filed an objection to the settlement but has not opted out.  A letter to the court, described the settlement as “a good gesture but ... inadequate to cover the amount of racism, derogatory remarks, defamation of character ... and overall treatment” that black employees suffered.

Thirty two other black employees, all current or former Aramark prison workers who filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or who gave witness statements, will each receive $20,000 gross, or about $13,000 after legal fees.

The rest of the money will be allocated to other current and former workers who have filed settlement claims with the court, with the average pay out expected to be about $9,000 less legal fees

n The company is owned by Aramark Corp, a Philadelphia based multinational food services company with 145,000 employees worldwide.

According to the company’s website, “Aramark is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer” serving 95,000 prisoners in 150 institutions in 29 states in the US and, overall, 125,000 prisoners at 175 facilities in fifteen countries.

In the UK, Aramark describes itself as “Group 4's business partner at HM Prison Wolds”. As well as other catering contracts in prisons, the company also has 19 out of 31 contracts awarded so far to run prison shops in England and Wales.

 

YSI fires ‘dishwasher’ guard

      A sixteen year old youth has been charged with raping a female employee on 25 June 1999 at the Youth Services International (YSI) run Charles H Hickey Jr School, Baltimore, Maryland (see PPRI # 3). 

Despite the youth’s known violent past, he had been left unguarded with the employee.

Then on 27 June 1999, three youths escaped from YSI’s Victor Cullen Academy in Frederick County, and on  1 July, two youths escaped from Hickey.

A state inspector general’s report into the incidents found that staff at the two facilities were negligent and did not follow procedures.

In response, the company is reviewing its operations and has fired a number of staff, including Dwane Williams, a $7 per hour dishwasher and former outstanding employee.

He was assigned to guard duty because of staff shortages at the Charles Hickey facility. His dismissal papers state that, “On 25 June, Mr Williams failed to adequately supervise a youth which resulted in the sexual assault of a [member of] staff.”

Mr Williams claims that he has been made a scapegoat, saying that staff shortages had forced  employees to work double shifts and perform duties that they were not employed or trained to do.

YSI has run both maximum security juvenile detention centres since 1992 and is now owned by Correctional Services Corporation (CSC).

CSC has offered to pay damages to the state for allowing the escapes and has promised future payments if  further incidents occur.

 

Wackenhut’s share

     Wackenhut Corrections Corporation has contracts and awards to manage 54 correctional facilities and detention centres in North America, the UK, Australasia and South Africa with a total of 38,000 beds, according to a company statement on 5 August 1999. The company also claims 55 per cent of all private prison beds outside of the US.

The company also had contracts for mental health services, prisoner transportation, correctional health care services and electronic monitoring.

Revenue for the first half of 1999 was $203.5m compared to $145.9m during the first half of 1998.

 

ACLU sues Wackenhut

      The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against Wackenhut Corrections Corporation in Florida to compel the company to release results from internal investigations, evaluations, personnel files, warden memos and other records from South Bay Correctional Facility.

The lawsuit alleges also that Wackenhut is trying to cover up records of sexual harassment, abuse of prisoners and other allegations at the Facility by ignoring two written requests for the records.

The ACLU became concerned about South Bay  after it received  several complaints from prisoners.

 

Jena facility in serious condition

       Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s 276 bed Jena Juvenile Justice Center remained “in serious condition” six months after it opened, according to a court appointed prison expert’s report filed in US District Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (see PPRI # 23).

A near‑riot, allegations of physical abuse, inadequate teaching, lax security, high staff turnover and insufficient training have been documented in court reports since the facility  opened on 3 December 1998.

John Whitley has recommended that Wackenhut’s  staffing levels be reviewed and the  number  of juveniles referred to the Center reduced. But since May 1999, state corrections officers have been providing training and advice to Wackenhut staff at the company’s request.

In the summer of 1998, the company and state officials were warned by a US District Court judge not  to open the facility before problems that had been identified by a Justice Department lawyer were resolved.

In December 1998, after a disturbance involving over 100 youngsters  at the facility, Mr Whitley wrote “This is a typical private prison opening: the majority of the staff unfamiliar with institutions, staff being trained a few weeks before opening, intake going as quickly as possible, with problems and procedures being handled on the go.”

In a report dated 29 March 1999, Whitley noted some improvement in staff morale, but “many of the security officers did not seem to have a clue as to what their job function was.”

Following visits to classrooms on 19 and 20 May 1999, he wrote that “there was very little education taking place.”

Vocational education is almost non‑existent and, because of a lack of classrooms and tools, the carpentry, electrician and plumbing courses consist solely of showing  tool handling safety videos.

According to Mr Whitley, those problems should have been resolved by now.

 

Hobbs audit and another death

       A third prisoner has been killed at Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs, New Mexico (see PPRI # 29).

Prisoner Richard Garcia was stabbed to death in his cell by another prisoner on 17 June 1999.

Some state legislators are now calling for more scrutiny of private prisons, while the New Mexico Council on Crime and Delinquency wants the state’s public and private prisons to be studied “top to bottom” to compare costs and effectiveness.

A recent state Corrections Department audit found that the prison was not meeting numerous state standards or contractual obligations.

The audit, conducted in February 1999, but only recently released, found that out of 54 disciplinary convictions of prisoners for breaking prison rules, 21 did not follow Corrections Department policy.

The audit also found that Wackenhut was trying to charge native American prisoners $150 for wood for a sweat lodge, in violation of Corrections Department policies on religious practices. The audit recommended cancellation of the $150 debt assigned to the prisoners.

Some of the audit's other findings included:

n the prison did not have enough work or educational activities to meet a requirement of 20 or 25 hours of such activities for all prisoners;

n inmate work assignments, were “for the most part on  paper only.” Prisoners  reported that they “make their own hours” and work  when they want to instead of following a schedule. “There apparently is no expectation that inmates assigned to education should actually attend”.

n for 82 inmates held in segregation, the educational programme consisted of giving them all the same materials on primary‑level maths, crossword games and pronouncing consonants and vowels. No staff were assigned to assist the prisoners;

n the prison is supposed to have 280 vocational‑education slots but there were only 192. The company also failed to offer a college course in the spring term.

A riot at the prison on 6 April 1999 resulted in charges against numerous prisoners, including 12 native Americans. A few months earlier, about 40 native Americans had signed a letter complaining they were being illegally prevented from conducting religious ceremonies.

n Wackenhut Corrections Corporation  and its president have recently made political donations in New Mexico, including $9,000 to the Republican governor and $5,000 to the state Republican Party. Meanwhile, the Democrat senate chief has a consulting contract with the company.

n The Governor plans to have half of New Mexico’s 5,000 prisoners in private facilities by the end of 1999.

 

Colorado closes Boys Ranch

     The state of Colorado has closed the Rocky Mountain Boys Ranch for sex offenders and other troubled youths after learning that it failed to report 163 serious incidents in the past year.

The Florence facility is owned by American Pathways Inc and has operated since 1991. At the time of closure there were 18 boys aged between 12 and 18 at the facility.

According to the state Department of Human Services, some 40 victims have required medical attention in the past year. Investigators are looking into allegations that, in May 1999, staff restrained a youngster for three days after he was involved in a fight with another youth.

Among other concerns documented by state inspectors:

n misleading statements made by the director, Frank Patton,  who claimed that  staff who used restraints were trained. But inspectors found that  not all personnel using restraints were trained;

n Patton also said he was supervising a case manager for at least two hours a week. The case manager told investigators she sometimes did not see  Patton for two or three weeks. Inspectors did not find any documentation that the case manager was receiving regular consultation from a qualified professional;

n youngsters with mental and emotional problems were being admitted athough the facility was not qualified to treat such cases;

n the Ranch failed state child care sanitation licensing inspections in April and May 1999.

Earlier this year, legislators criticised state Youth Corrections officials for sending teenage offenders  to private facilities and then failing to monitor their care (see PPRI # 28).

 

CSC settles with ACLU

        Correctional Services Corporation (CSC), which runs  the Pahokee Youth Development Center for Florida’s  Department of Juvenile Justice, has agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The company is to release thousands of pages of records concerning the treatment of children held at the facility. It will also pay the ACLU and its co-operating attorney $11,400 in court costs and attorney fees (see PPRI # 3, 14, 21, 24 and 26).

The ACLU will use the documents as part of its investigation into the alleged mistreatment  of children held at the facility.

In October 1998, an independent monitor found that the Center had kept at least ten children in detention beyond their mandatory release dates solely for the purpose of securing additional funding from the state of Florida.

A number of staff  have been disciplined or fired for using excessive force and having inappopriate relationships with children.

 

Thomas fine not enough

        Florida’s Ethics Commission has decided not to ratify  the $2,000 fine agreed between Dr Charles Thomas, of the University of Florida’s Private Prison Project and the Commission’s advocate (see PPRI # 13, 21, 25, 26 and 29)      Dr Thomas was due to resign his university post on 13 August 1999 and pay the $2,000 fine.

But the Ethics Commission ruled that $2,000 was inadequate for a conflict of interest that brought him millions of dollars in compensation - including a $3m fee for consulting on the merger between Corrections Corporation of America and Prison Realty - and investment gains from private prison companies that had funded his research. The settlement now has to be renegotiated.

Dr Thomas admitted to three violations of the state’s ethics laws. Each carries a maximum $10,000 fine.

Ken Kopczynski of the Florida Police Benevolent Association, which filed the conflict of interest  complaints against Dr Thomas, said: “This finding is going to rattle the cages at the university  system. It’s telling professors that if they own stock in an industry they’re doing research in, it’s going to be a conflict.”

n The Thomas case is the basis for a discussion of the issues facing criminologists, their research and alleged conflicts of interest. See: Private Prisons, Criminological Research and Conflict of Interest: A Case Study, by G Geis, A Mobley and D Shichor in Crime & Delinquency, Vol 45 No.3, July 1999, Sage Publications.

 

At the trough in Las Vegas

       Las Vegas is the venue for the fourth annual Privatising Correctional Facilities Conference organised by right wing think tank, The Reason Foundation, and the World Research Group.

Subtitled ‘Grow Profits and Maximise Investment Opportunities in this Explosive Industry’, the event will be held at the Flamingo Hilton from 22 to 24 September 1999 (see PPRI # 6, 12 and 21).

The brochure states that, “this compelling three day event will feature industry experts ready to provide corporate and government executives with the tools to grow profits with privately managed correctional facilities.”

The organisers say that, “despite some poor contracts and resulting problems, most state and local governments are becoming more sophisticated in their contracting and are moving forward with privatisation .... 28 states now have a private prison and at least four more are considering privatisation this year, with the number likely to grow. The states’ needs for new beds and financing for those beds offers a tremendous area for revenue growth.”

Sessions include ‘industry trends and projected growth areas’, ‘bringing profits to the bottom line’, ‘government agency perspectives’, ‘managing costs and performance issues throughout the corrections continuum’, ‘private corrections in the litigious corrections environment’ and ‘trends in international contract awards’.

There will also be an exploration of why the differences between private and public sector prisons matter to decision makers.

Discussions will be led by executives from Corrections National Corporation, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Correctional Properties Trust, Cornell Companies, Civigenics, First Analysis Corporation, Mark Solutions Inc, Sun Trust Equitable, US Risk Underwriters Inc, Legg Mason Wood Walker Inc and Deland and Associates, as well as representatives from state corrections departments and the English Prison Service.