No. 30 July/Aug. 1999 ISSN 1363-9552
Published in London by the Prison Reform Trust
IN THIS ISSUE
South Africa signs up for two prisons
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.
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?”
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.
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.”
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.
Comparative
costs narrow again
The comparative costs of
running private and public prisons in England have narrowed for the third year
running.
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).
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.
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.
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