The Government intervened under Section 8F of the Corrections Act (Emergency Powers) and the Prison Services Agreement to stabilise the prison pending long term resolution of the status of CCA’s contract with the government.

     This action is unprecedented and was taken to ensure the security of the prison and the safety and welfare of the prisoners and the staff.

          It followed what the Commissioner described as “numerous formal and informal meetings between the Department of Corrections, prison management and the operator” which attempted to identify remedial action.

          But lawyers, community organisations, church groups and trade unions had for years been arguing against privatisation and calling on both the former and current administrations to assume control of this prison in particular.        

          On the day of the takeover, the company was still running newspaper advertisements attempting to recruit correctional officers, a recreation officer and a doctor.

          Under the terms of the contract, the government can proceed to terminate following three material defaults.

          In a statement also issued on 3 October 2000, Corrections Corporation of Australia’s managing director, Mr Terry Lawson, said that the company had been trying to comply with changes requested by the government and was seeking legal advice on the situation.

          “CCA has been the victim of a concerted campaign by the Victorian Minister for Corrections who has gone on record as saying that he does not believe in private prisons,” he said.

          “There is no reason for the Government to claim ‘step in’ rights. There is no emergency and the prison is operating efficiently and peacefully.”

          Speaking on ABC radio on 4 October 2000, the Minister reiterated his position that the Government was  “not actually interested in owning the facility.”

          But he also said that he did not intend handing the management back to Corrections Corporation of Australia.

          On 3AK’s Melbourne Magazine radio programme on 4 October, Julian Kenneally of the CPSU said that his union was “pretty disappointed that many of the issues that the prison were defaulted on since the change of government were in existence under the previous government and there seemed to be a lack of willingness by the previous government to act on many of the concerns that were being raised.” 

          CCA’s facility was the first of three privately financed, designed, built and operated  prisons to open in Victoria. An early  CCA brochure proclaimed that: “the arrival of the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre marks a significant advance in correctional services for women in Victoria, and a model for the rest of Australia.”

          The two other private prisons in Victoria are run by Group 4 and Australasian Correctional Management Ltd. Lawyers and church groups have called on the government to take over their management also.

n Corrections Corporation of Australia is now 100 per cent owned by Sodexho of France. Until recently, Sodexho owned 50 per cent and Corrections Corporation of America owned the other 50 per cent.  The change in ownership was agreed as part of the restructuring of Prison Realty Trust and Corrections Corporation America (see page7).

n The independent audit into Victoria’s three private prison contracts is expected to be presented to the Minister for Corrections by the end of October 2000.

 

The Commissioner’s Report

          The basis for the Government’s decision to take control of the prison was a report dated 13 September 2000 by the Victoria Correctional Services Commissioner on CCA’s contract non compliance.

          The report was tabled in Parliament on 5 October.

          The Commissioner stated that MWCC was a troubled prison during its fourth performance year (August 1999 -August 2000). This was characterised by:

n an unacceptably high number of prison incidents;

n a disproportionate number of prisoners being classified as Protection Prisoners ... up to 29 per cent of the prison muster [the industry norm is 20 per cent] being held in the  overcrowded protection unit where access to work, programmes, education and recreation have all been minimal;

n poor performance against its Prison Operations Service Delivery Outcomes (SDOs).

          In 1999/2000:

n the levels of attempted suicide/self mutilation were more than double the maximum allowed benchmark [9.7 per cent per 100 receptions compared with a benchmark of 3.8 per cent];

n prisoner assaults on staff were almost double the maximum allowed benchmark [19 per 100 prisoner years compared with a benchmark of 10];

n prisoner on prisoner assaults were significantly in excess of the maximum allowed benchmark [45.3 per 100 prisoner years compared with a benchmark of 30];

n there was an illicit drug rate of 8.75 per cent compared with a benchmark of 8.26 per cent.

          The 1999/2000 results were the worst for each category in the prison’s four year operation which, according to the Commissioner, “clearly demonstrates an inability by the prison to implement strategies to ensure the welfare and safety of prisoners and staff.”

          Two external bodies also issued sanctions against the prison: in January 2000, the Office of Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment suspended CCA’s registration as a registered training operation for a month; and the Victorian Workcover Authority issued a Prohibition Notice and an Improvement Notice in May.

          On 9 August 2000, Victoria’s Department of Human Services advised MWCC that a recent examination of the prison’s health services “identified significant issues in respect to the delivery of health services at MWCC which could compromise the health of women in the prison.”

          The Commissioner stated that “establishing the root causes of these troubles is difficult. The nature of the difficulty appears, however, to be a collective result of:

n inconsistent management practices and poor leadership at the facility since the resignation of the then general manager in July 1999;

n lack of operational procedures, guidelines and on the job support and training for staff;

n staff shortages and budget constraints and;

n poor prison design.

Makeshift arrangements and fundamental problems

          The report stated: “Despite CCA’s repeated assurances that its remedial actions would ensure that the service deficiencies would be identified and addressed, OCSC [Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner] has assessed that both CCA and MWCC management fail to appreciate the full range of their contractual obligations.”

          And that: “Too many of their improvement strategies are implemented by the deployment of resources from existing functions. Rarely are additional resources or new efforts deployed. Often, compromises are made to less pressing functions in order to address more glaring deficiencies.”  

          According to the Commissioner, two examples demonstrated “a propensity to employ makeshift arrangements even though they may compromise other aspects of the prison’s performance”. These were:

n the decision to close down the horticultural programme for protection prisoners and deploy the staff resources of that programme to enhance security functions in the prison;

n the decision to honour the commitment made as a result of Default 3 (see below) to provide 24 hour staffing in the Management Unit (A2) by deploying night shift security  and escort officers to the unit on rotation across the shift rather than establish a dedicated roster for this purpose.

Failed in most fundamental operations

          On 18 July 2000, a default notice with nine components was issued to the company.  The seven day cure period expired on 25 July. Four components were subsequently complied with.

          But the Commissioner found that “the areas in which MWCC remains non-compliant cover five of the most fundamental aspects of the prison’s operations.”

          The failures covered the following categories of service delivery:

n provision of sufficient security systems to ensure security and safety of prisoners and staff;

n containment and supervision of prisoners at risk;

n provision of adequate staffing to ensure close prisoner surveillance and maintenance of security/safety of staff and prisoners and breach of prison management specifications due to lockdowns;

n management of programmes and security procedures for illicit drugs.

          A further breakdown of the third Default Notice reveals:

n 38 prisoners were subject to self harm, almost double the benchmark level of 20;

n the failure to comply with suicide prevention procedure resulting in no timely referral of prisoners;

n non compliance of management of prisoners at risk;

n a reduction in counselling staff from four to 1.8 in an environment where prisoner numbers increased by 67 per cent;

n the failure to properly manage non-conforming prisoners resulting in eight prisoner instigated fires during April/May and 21 fires since February 1999;

n there were 12 assaults by prisoners on staff during April/May 2000 bringing the yearly total to 24, double for the same time last year;

n the failure to provide adequate staffing which led to Workcover notices being issued;

n the prison was locked down 75 times - 50 per cent due to staff shortages;

n the management unit was not staffed at night or at lunch breaks;

n the Special Emergency Services Group was required to ensure safe operations of the prison;

nthe failure to ensure prisoners have 12 hours out of their cells each day;

n unauthorised staff (recreation officer) were used for prisoner transfer;

n the failure to comply with Victorian Prison Drug Strategy - in May the prison recorded 16.7 per cent positive drug tests against the benchmark of 8.26 per cent;

n the failure to conduct mandatory weekly drug testing;

n the failure to comply with strip search procedure;

n the failure to provide adequate surveillance of visitors;

nthe failure to implement systems to detect and confiscate weapons, drugs and contraband;

n the failure to develop a drug detection system;

nthere was inadequate identification and storage of urine samples.

Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner, Department of Justice: Correctional Services Commissioner’s Report on Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre’s Compliance with its Contractual Obligations and Prison Services Agreement, 13 September 2000, No.40, Session 1999-2000.

Copies from: Felicity.Ryan@parliament.vic.gov.au

n  “The future of the prisons and corrections industry will not be with private operators,” said Hans Engelberts, the General Secretary of Public Services International, the global federation of public sector trade unions with 20 million members in 150 countries.

          In a statement issued on 5 October 2000, Mr Engelberts referred to the decision by the Government  of Victoria  to take back control of the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre from private operators.

          He said that the main factors in reimposing public control were the close scrutiny maintained by the government and the involvement of unions and community groups.

          “The drive for profit in prisons is particularly repugnant,” he  said,  “PSI affiliated unions in Australia, South Africa, the UK, the USA and Canada are working with community groups to deal with this new industry.”  

          He welcomed the return of public management in Victoria and hoped for better care for women prisoners, better training for staff and the easing of prisoner/staff ratios.

          Mr Engelberts also called on the Government of Victoria to “…follow the examples of North Carolina, Texas and Louisiana where private prison operators had their contracts terminated for failure to provide adequate services.” 

Public Services International,  BP 9, 01211 Ferney- Voltaire Cedex, France. Tel +33 (0)4 50 40 64 64; Email psi@world-psi.org Internet www.world-psi.org

n The Executive Board of Penal Reform International, a leading NGO working to achieve penal reform and to reduce the use of imprisonment, has agreed to work to put the issue of prison privatisation onto the agenda of international human rights bodies.

Penal Reform International, London Head office, Unit 114, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London , SE1 7QY, England. www.penalreform.org

 

 

Queensland “fobbed off” by CCA

          Within weeks of the announcement that Corrections Corporation of Australia (CCA) had lost its contract to run the 492 bed Borallon Correctional Centre, near Ipswich, Queensland, the Government criticised the company for hindering investigations into allegations of corruption, theft and  intimidation of staff at the prison.

          In September,  Management & Training Corporation (MTC) was declared the winner of a tendering exercise for a five year contract to run the facility which CCA had managed since 1990.

          CCA’s contract expired on 30 September 2000. The handover of the prison is expected to take three months.

          But on 3 October 2000, in a statement to Parliament, Queensland’s Minister for Police and Corrective Services, Mr Tom Barton, said that on 11 September 2000, the government’s Corrective Services Investigation Unit had launched an inquiry into allegations of property theft from Borallon’s prison industries programme.

Twenty four allegations

          He also said that CCA had so far “fobbed off” government investigations into “no less than 24 allegations of unauthorised or dishonest matters that need to be addressed ... such as allegations of  secret commissions, theft, threats and intimidation of staff who resisted these alleged illegal activities.”

          Mr Barton added: “The management of this company is of the opinion that the matters are not serious enough to necessitate CCA proceeding with a full investigation. Management is refusing to lay a formal complaint. This is the dilemma for the police: since the allegations involve theft from a private company, it requires either a complaint from the company or the people involved before the police can carry out investigations and possibly lay charges.”

          “The allegations also relate to corruption and misconduct but, since the Criminal Justice Commission does not have jurisdiction over privately run prisons, the matters cannot be referred to the CJC”, he said.

          “Every time we have raised these concerns with CCA and its board of directors we have been fobbed off with weak and pathetic excuses. The Department [of Corrections] has given CCA every opportunity to fix the problems identified and allow a full police investigation, but it has failed to do so.”

          CCA responded to the government’s allegations by commissioning accountants Arthur Andersen to carry out an internal audit.

          CCA also wrote to the government stating that “should any criminal activity be uncovered during this process ... this company will take the necessary response.”

          As a result of the case, the government is extending the power of the Criminal Justice Commission to cover private prisons.

nThe A$83m five year Borallon contract is Management & Training Corporation’s first outside of the US. The Utah based company calls itself ‘America’s premier operator of job corps centres and private correctional facilities.’

n Queensland has one other privately operated prison, the Arthur Gorrie Remand and Reception Centre at Wacol, Brisbane. 

          Police and internal investigations were launched in August 2000 after two hangings and an alleged gang rape occurred.

          The facility is run by Australasian Correctional Management (ACM,Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s Australian subsidiary).

 

Woomera: secrets and lives

          Earlier this year, a United Nations (UN) working group was to inspect Australia’s immigration detention centres which are all run by Australasian Correctional Management (see PPRI # 36, 32, 30, 29 and 14 ). But the Federal Government subsequently denied the UN access to the centres.

          On 5 October 2000, Australia’s SBS TV showed  the Insight programme’s report of its own investigation into conditions at one of the centres, at Woomera, South Australia.  Set out below is an extract from the transcript of that programme.

          ... and so the secrecy around Woomera is maintained. It`s clear that conditions are harsh, but to verify allegations of abuse is almost impossible.

          Scott Litchfield, of the Uniting Church in Adelaide, is worried at the lack of transparency.

SCOTT LITCHFIELD, UNITING CHURCH: I`ve done enquiries on a couple issues that the Church has been concerned about. We`ve been met with a wall of silence by the management company, on the basis that all employees have signed contracts.

          Like most of Australia`s detention centres, Woomera is run by the American company Australasian Correctional Management, or ACM. They`re contracted by the Department of Immigration to manage all aspects of the camp.

          In Woomera, the Eldo Hotel is the favourite watering hole of ACM staff. This is where they come to relax off-duty. They’re barred from talking to the media, and all our requests to interview the director of the company were refused and passed back to the Department of Immigration.

          Scott Litchfield contacted ACM to ask about conditions in the camp, and to query why ACM had requested donations of clothing from the churches. [These] faxes from ACM show that they’d asked for hundreds of tracksuits, jackets, skivvies and even curtains.

          Yet according to the contract between ACM and the Immigration Department, the company is required to provide adequate clothing suitable for the climate. When Scott Litchfield queried ACM about this, they told him they were bound by commercial confidentiality and could say nothing.

SCOTT LITCHFIELD: The degree of secrecy is a difficulty in any relationship between a commercial company and the Government, and it does bring into question the ability of Australian people and the taxpayers of the country to have any control over the situation.

          But it`s not just the ACM staff who must sign confidentiality agreements before working at Woomera. Every lawyer who visits here to work on refugee applications must also agree to silence. Those who’ve spoken out in the past have been swiftly dismissed and refused further entry into the camp. Lawyer Julian Gormley is one of them.

JULIAN GORMLEY: I just got to the point where it’s just immoral to stay quiet. To enforce that silence is...it’s just immoral, and people are not happy about it. The ones who do keep their mouths shut aren’t happy about it.

          Julian Gormley spent two months this year, working with Woomera detainees. His colleague, Nick Poynder, has worked for 10 years as a refugee lawyer, with extended periods at the Port Hedland and Curtin detention centres. They say that human rights abuses within the camps are rife.

NICK POYNDER: These people were being severely mistreated in detention, that they were being in some cases beaten up by the guards, being refused access to legal advisors, being refused access to means of contacting their family back home.

          First of all, detention alone, the UN has said, is in breach of all the international human rights covenants. Incommunicado detention is also in breach of that. Returning people to places where they`re going to be killed and tortured is an absolute gross breach of international human rights. Those three things are happening in the detention centres, and no-one is speaking out about it, because they’re all too scared to.

A full transcript of the programme is available on the internet at:www.sbs.com.au/insight

n The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Federal Ombudsman has investigated an increasing number of allegations of the use of excessive force and chemical restraints in Australia’s immigration detention centres.

 

WA: Labor watching closely

           “The situation that developed in Victoria will not happen here because we have established a totally different and more effective management structure. Any emerging difficulties will be identified and dealt with much earlier,” said Peter Foss, Western Australia’s Attorney General, in a statement on 3 October 2000.

          But, if it wins the next state election, the Labor Party of Western Australia will be watching Corrections Corporation of Australia’s operation of the new Acacia prison “like a hawk”, said Jim McGinty, the Opposition Legal Affairs spokesperson.

          The Labor Party is opposed to prison privatisation and  has pledged to be “severe” with the company in the event of any contract breaches.

          The opening of the prison has been delayed (see PPRI #36, 34, 32, 30, 28 and 26).

 

 

UNITED STATES

 

Industry discusses new strategy

          The leading private corrections companies in the US are to form a single industry voice with the dual aim of combatting bad press coverage and restoring confidence in the industry.

          The companies are also discussing funding ‘independent’ research to prove that prison privatisation works. This is likely to be carried out in conjunction with the Reason Foundation’s Public Policy Institute (RPPI).

          These plans were revealed at the World Research Group/RPPI’s Fifth Privatising Correctional Facilities Conference held in San Antonio, Texas, on 25 and 26 September 2000 (see PPRI # 30, 21, 12 and 6).

Analyse this

          James McDonald, a corrections industry analyst with First Analysis Corporation, said that the industry “had gone from being the market darling to something lower than dirt” and needed to regain the stock market’s trust.

    Due to Prison Realty Trust/CCA’s recent problems the industry “lacked a leader” and “needed a success story.

    Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC) had “deteriorated domestically” but had been buoyed by international growth.

     His view was that there is still room for growth both in the US and internationally. But he also complained that the media is biased against the private sector and that, due to the current level of scrutiny, the industry must maintain strong operations as it cannot afford to be in the news. But, he argued, “the relative record is still good.”

     He also called for the industry to pay for “really neutral research,” although he admitted that “it’s hard to pay and still be neutral.” 

    Financing for the industry’s expansion remains “a major, major issue,” he said. “The industry needs a new financing mechanism.”

Access to capital

          Chuck Jones of Correctional Properties Trust, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), argued that there was still “plenty of capital out there” but the cost is high, around 12.3 per cent.

          Lisa Cohen of Summit Bancorp also stressed that adverse media reporting “is a bigger issue with the banks than you might think” and that it “underscores the need for getting a global privatisation voice out there.”

          Her advice to the companies was “take the credit guys out, give them tours and explain the issues” and “under promise and over deliver as much as you can.”

          In her view, speculative prisons (where a prison is built before the company has a contract to hold prisoners there) were “too much for the banking industry to absorb.”

          Another banker, Michael Harling of Municipal Capital Markets Group said that, because of  investor demands for higher and higher profits, “some operations had suffered due to the need for profits.”

          His concerns as a lender were: the source of prisoners; the management team at the facility; the duration of contracts; governmental participation; geographic location; and political stability.

          “They (lenders) don’t care what it is operating as, as long as it is spinning off cash,” he said.

          It was generally agreed that public sector borrowing was cheaper than the private sector and that municipal financing of new prisons creates true public/private partnerships.

Corporate growth

          Wayne Calabrese of Wackenhut Corrections Corporation said that the industry “needs to be proactive in promoting privatisation to legislators and executive branches - that’s how we got started 15 years ago.”

          He also argued that the industry needs to work with the public sector to refine the terms of the RFPs/RFQs/SOWs. Although he recognised that it would be hard for companies to talk in a group as “they have issues”.

          On  securing and expanding existing contracts, it was, he said,  “most important to maintain a relationship with the contract monitor, key client representatives and elected officials” and to provide “an additional level of meaningful information to the client.”

          Companies needed to organise “not as a lobbying group but as a voice for the whole industry” as “when attacks are made and the stories are selling papers, the truth is not always adequate” and “public perception matters.”

          Mr Calabrese’s view of growth was to continue to not only  meet the needs but also to “anticipate the needs”, mentioning alternatives to incarceration, therapeutic communities, specialised services and education as  examples.

          Overseas, particularly in Central America, there are “a  number of opportunities brewing,” he said.

          “Our market is any stable, non-corrupt government with decent [correctional] officer wages.”

CCA’s view

           Corrections Corporation of America’s director of special projects, Laurie Shanblum, said that CCA was “going to get out of the ditch” and that the company’s strategy was “under development.”

          “Arrogance is deadly” she said, and when mistakes happen companies need to “get out in front” and go to clients “before you get called in.”

          It was important to “know the fabric of the community, the state and local universe.”

          She also called for greater flexibility in contracts, arguing that “we need to rethink the framework of the contracts, given the growth and evolution of the whole business” so that in the event of unforeseen circumstances “we can come back and discuss the variables.”

MTC

          Since 1 January 1998, Management and Training Corporation has increased its contracted adult beds from 3,034 to over 10,400 - a 329 per cent increase.

          It claims to have never lost an existing contract and has 15 significant marketing projects throughout the US, Canada, South Africa and Australia.

          The company is not publicly traded, a decision “based on the potential danger of being forced to reverse our present long-standing corporate values and priorities ... because of potential pressures from stockholders.”

US - local jails the target

          A future trend identified by Charles Turnbo of Correctional Systems Inc, a Colorado based company specialising in community detention and correctional programmes, was that local jails “will likely replace prisons as the target for private operators.”

          According to Mr Turnbo, in 1999 there were 605,943 prisoners in local jails and only 1.7 per cent of local jails are privatised. Fifty per cent of jails have 50 beds or less; the second largest group has 100-500 beds.

          He also suggested that “the market will explode” for  city jails.

          The use of offender paid programmes would increase, he said, as his company had “talked to judges about alternative sentences” and, as he put it, “to tell them what they need.”

          Offender paid programmes are where those convicted  ask the judge for alternative sentencing. If this is approved by the court, the offender pays his/her own way through the scheme. If an offender then fails to pay for whatever reason, the courts can pay the cost and the company does not lose out.

Attack on the legal front

          “There needs to be a concentrated effort to establish defences that will benefit the private sector in the long term,” argued Robert S. Lafferrandre, a lawyer with the Oklahoma City law firm Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, LLP.

          Speaking about the rights of prisoners and detainees in public and private facilities, he argued that “it is clear that the private sector does a better job” and, in his view, “the attempt to assail privatisation of imprisonment for crime ...  as an unconstitutional delegation, fizzled.”

The summary of this event will continue in PPRI # 38

 

Nader says no to prison business

    US presidential candidate Ralph Nader has criticised the private prison industry and his opponents for encouraging its growth.

He called on Al Gore and George W. Bush to tell corporations to “get out of the prison industry”.

    Speaking at Youngstown State University, Ohio,  on 27 September 2000, Mr Nader referred to the prison industry as “one of the most ill-conceived ventures corporations have ever entered into.”

    He also challenged Vice President Gore and Governor Bush to return more than $100,000 that private prison companies have donated to the democrats and republicans.

    CCA’s Northeast Ohio Correctional Centre  (see PPRI # 18, 19, 23-26, 28 and 35) is inYoungstown. The company is planning more facilities in the area. 

    “The goal of the criminal justice system should be to increase public safety,” Nader said. “For-profit prisons make a mockery of this goal. By treating inmates as profitable commodities, corporate prisons obscure a public policy that should be aimed at  reducing the incarceration rate through treatment and rehabilitation.”

          He added: “So-called cost saving techniques have resulted in reductions in human rights and health care quality for inmates, and under-prepared staffs unable to deal with violent  criminals or even inmate escapes. For those interested in the economics, studies have shown that private prisons are just as expensive to the taxpayer as public ones, without factoring in the manifold costs to society of a poorly run correctional system.”

          “It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out what drives this industry. Politicians pander to fears of crime, the prison population booms, and corporations view what should be considered a national crisis as a profit-making opportunity.”

          Nader also noted that communities like Youngstown which have suffered from the loss of manufacturing jobs and high unemployment rates are especially vulnerable to corporate prisons moving in.

          “CCA sold this prison as a valid form of economic development, received tax breaks and free utilities from gullible public  officials, and is now underpaying its own workers.”

          Mr Nader is the only presidential candidate to oppose private prisons. While he is unlikely to win the election, he has substantial support.

 

Prison Realty becomes CCA again

          Prison Realty Trust has merged with its ‘primary tenant’ Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), and the largest owner and operator of private prisons in the US has reverted to the CCA name (see PPRI #35 and 34).

          Some 75 per cent of shareholders approved the merger and restructuring on 12 September.  This means that Prison Realty Trust is giving up its tax advantageous status as a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) beginning with the company’s 2000 tax year.

          A January 1999 merger with Prison Realty, a REIT formed in 1997 to own and lease company prisons, proved disastrous. The company incurred financial losses; it was unable to raise new capital or fill prison beds; it was sued by disgruntled investors; and its stock price crashed.

           Doctor C. Crants, a founder of CCA and the chief executive officer was fired and replaced by John D. Ferguson who was most recently the State of Tennessee’s Commissioner of Finance and Administration.

          On announcing the latest restructuring, Mr Ferguson said: “The merger of Prison Realty and CCA is the first step in streamlining our corporate structure. The reconsolidation allows our management team to improve operations, enhance customer service and reduce costs.’’

          He plans to increase prison occupancy levels, improve profit margins, sell non-core assets, and strengthen the company’s capital structure.

n The Prison Realty/CCA shareholders meeting was the focus of a demonstration by the Public Safety and Justice Campaign, a coalition of faith groups, human and civil rights organisations and labour unions  (see PPRI # 34).  Over 100 people protested in front of the  Union Station Hotel in Nashville to try and  persuade shareholders not to vote for the merger. A ‘no’ vote would have left the company’s future in doubt.

 

Sodexho: in or out?

    Sodexho SA is giving mixed messages about its future plans for investing in Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).

    The French company owns around eight per cent of CCA’s shares and has come under pressure from students at 50 campuses in the US demanding that it divests itself of its involvement in the prison industry.

    Sodexho also owns 47 per cent of Sodexho Marriott Services a company which provides food services at 500 college campuses (see PPRI # 34).  But in a message posted recently on Sodexho’s website, chairman Pierre Bellon stated:

          “Today, we face a challenge in North America over the issue of for-profit prisons. A handful of activists have called into question the integrity of Sodexho Alliance and Sodexho Marriott Services with a series of baseless and inflammatory accusations. I want to address this issue clearly and openly.

          In June 1994, Sodexho Alliance made an investment in Corrections Corporation of America, which today amounts to less than eight per cent of the company’s outstanding shares, after the restructuring.

          Sodexho Alliance has obligations to its shareholders to manage its investments prudently, and with CCA shares at historically low price levels, and the company in the midst of a turnaround effort under new management, now is not the right time to sell that stake. However, we commit today that once the contemplated recovery plans have been carried out by the new CCA management, Sodexho will divest its shares.

          I want to assure the clients, customers and employees of Sodexho Marriott Services that Sodexho Alliance understands what’s at stake and will fulfill this commitment.”

          But, in addition to its investment in Corrections Corporation of America, the French multinational now also owns 100 per cent of Corrections Corporation of Australia and UK Detention Services Ltd, acquired as a direct result of CCA’s restructuring plans.

          It also  operates non custodial services in  prisons in France and Belgium and is looking to expand this business. It is also involved in controversial voucher schemes for asylum seekers in the UK and Germany.

          In response to Mr Bellon’s statement, Kevin Pranis, a spokesperson for Not With Our Money Campaign said:

          “Sodexho Alliance must divest itself completely from the for-profit private prison industry including, but not limited to, the company’s shares of Corrections Corporation of America, Corrections Corporation of Australia and UK Detention Services Ltd by 1 April  2001.        Until we receive a letter from Pierre Bellon pledging to divest by the April deadline, students will continue to work to kick or keep Sodexho Marriott Services off of our campuses.”

Contact: Not With Our Money! Campaign c/o Kevin Pranis, Grassroots Leadership/Prison Moratorium Project c/o DSA 180 Varick Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10014, USA. Tel ++1 646 486 6715; Email: kpranis@nomoreprisons.org

n Pierre Bellon’s full statement is on the internet at www.sodexho.com/sodexhoAnglais/informer/ display/dcs/l3.htm     

 

Securicor’s troubles in Florida

          Securicor New Century, the US subsidiary of the British company Securicor PLC, has been criticised by monitors for its operations at Sago Palm Academy in Florida.

          Richmond, Virginia based New Century has run the 350 bed facility for boys aged 13-18 years old since October 1999.

          According to Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice, “some of the issues of most serious health and safety concerns include: security practices, behaviour management, staffing, incident reporting, lack of internal communications, and the fact that the fire marshal’s report for this facility has not been provided.”

          The monitoring review was conducted between 19-24 July 2000 and published in August.

          The report noted that: “the monitors were given full access to the facility, however, on one occasion youths were reprimanded after talking to us. Youths should be assured that they may converse with the monitors without fear of reprisals.”

          Other findings included:

n the monitors’ overall impression of this facility was unfavourable;

n there was a lack of good order, control and discipline;

n there was a general lack of constructive activity;

n Securicor did not have counselling or social skills enhancement programmes operating as required by contract;

n security problems were evident;

n facility administration was poorly structured and organised;

n it was unclear who was in charge of Sago Palm Academy;

n penalties had been imposed on the vendor for not reporting incidents to the Inspector General on a timely basis.

          Incidents of abuse included:

n March 2000 - a youth suffered a broken arm due to the use of excessive force by staff: two staff members were fired as a result.

n March 2000 - a youth was handcuffed and shackled to a medical bed for approximately 14 hours following an attempted escape. Two high ranking staff, one of whom was the facility administrator, received written reprimands.

n May 2000 - excessive force was used. One staff member was fired.

n June 2000 - unnecessary force was used, a choke hold was unauthorised. One staff member was fired.

nJuly 2000 - physical abuse by staff. One staff member was fired and arrested for aggravated battery.

          The monitors also noted that: “after a review of medical data reported in the Emergency Care Log, it appears that there was a significant under reporting of use of force for the 1-21 July period reviewed ...”

n Although no off-site radiographs were listed for May, three fractures are reported as a result of use of force by staff.

Follow up security audit

          A comprehensive security audit was conducted on 10 August 2000.  The facility was found to be non-compliant in the following areas:

n physical and electronic security;

n medical and toxic item control;

n supervision and count;

n riot and disturbance plan “practice was lacking for the most part”.

          The monitors’ overall impressions were that “the facility had made some security improvements ... however, more improvements are needed in the practice of operating procedures by line staff.”

Florida Dept. Of Juvenile Justice, Monitoring Report, Sago Palm Academy, July 2000 by Monitoring, Marketing and Consulting Inc, PO Box 14002, Tallahassee, Florida 32317.

Sago Palm Academy Security Audit Summary, 10 August 2000.

See also: www.djjstate.fl.us

n “It’s pretty evident from the reports that we need to take

strong action to turn this facility around,” said Department of Juvenile Justice spokeswoman Diane Hirth on 4 October 2000.

          This was after an inspection carried out in September  found similar problems to the consultant’s earlier report on Sago Palm Academy.

          According to news-journal online the Department is considering not making new referrals to the facility.

n Sago Palm was formerly known as the Pahokee Youth Development Center.

          It was  renamed after Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) lost its contract to run the facility after failing to meet contractual standards in 1999.

In 1998, CSC was exposed for holding ten juveniles beyond their release dates in order to increase the company’s income from the state (see PPRI # 30 and 26).

 

Ohio food taken back

          The Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA) has engineered a state takeover of an ARAMARK prison food services contract (see PPRI # 30).

          The savings are expected to be around  $1m a year.

          Under a new agreement between officials of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) and the OCSEA, state employees will replace the company at the Noble Correctional Institution (NCI) in eastern Ohio beginning in November 2000.

          OCSEA and Noble prison managers had criticised the

ARAMARK arrangement, alleging that the company had been overpaid by  $2m . The results of an investigation  by the State Auditor are pending.

          State employees were providing food services at costs lower than ARAMARK at 30 other DRC managed prisons.

          “We developed a plan that tracks costs according to actual meals served to inmates and that will save 20 per cent per meal,” said Jim Nixon, the union’s vice president at Noble. “This is very different than the ARAMARK arrangement that was based on possible meals served. In fact, records indicate, on average, inmates consume meals only 65 percent of the time, not 90 or 100 percent which was the rate ARAMARK was billing DRC. There is no reason taxpayers should be paying for meals that aren’t being served.”

          “For years we have been fighting the propaganda that privatisation provides savings to taxpayers. In fact, there has been very little evidence to support those claims. Our example shows that state workers can and have cut costs when given the proper opportunity and information,” said Darrell Mummey, the union¹s chief steward at NCI.

 

CUSA’s Privatisation Update

    The fourth edition of Corrections USA’s Prison Privatisation Update covering January - July 2000 has been published. It provides comparative figures for assaults, escapes, staff turnover, training and American Correctional Association accreditation, as well as extracts from press coverage of “what the prison privatisation industry doesn’t want you to know.”

Contact: CUSA, PO Box 394, Newton, NH 03858, USA. www.cusa.org

 

 

GERMANY

 

Semi private prison for Hesse

          The town of Schlüchtern in Hesse, Germany, has been chosen by the state government as the site for a semi-private prison (see PPRI # 30).

          At present, the German constitution prevents employees of private companies serving as prison officers.

          A feasibility study carried out by the government in  1999 concluded that the ‘concession model’ was most suitable. A contract to finance, design, build the facility and operate all non-custodial services is likely to be let.

          But the proposal has split the town.

          Several thousand people signed a petition against it, but some local businesses are lobbying for the prison due to the claimed potential economic benefits.

          The site is also controversial as it is an area of  environmental importance.

          The town council has voted against the proposal and argues that, unless it grants permission, the prison cannot be built.

          The State government, however, owns the land and believes that it already has planning permission. This could become the focus of a protracted legal wrangle.

          If  the proposal does go ahead, Sodexho has been identified as one of the leading contenders for the contract.

          The company has claimed to have been influential in advising the Hesse government on its prison privatisation strategy.

 

 

UNITED KINGDOM

 

Child jail fails to stop reoffending

          The UK’s first privately financed, designed, built and operated Secure Training Centre for 12-14 year old persistent offenders has been unable to prevent reoffending, a study has found.

          A report on the first two years of the operation of Medway Secure Training Centre, run by Group 4 subsidiary Rebound ECD Ltd, was published on 6 October 2000 (see PPRI # 16-23, 25, 28-30 and 34 ).

          The Centre opened in April 1998. The cost of keeping each teenager in the facility is £125,000 per year.

          By March 2000, Rebound had been fined at least £663,000 for contract failures.

          The researchers concluded that “while secure child care provision was generally adequate or good, the follow up results for young people leaving the Centre were very disappointing. There was little success in providing an intervention that successfully prevented reoffending, but this was not surprising as it is often the case with these types of very persistent young offenders.”

n 85 per cent of trainees breached their Secure Training Orders (STO);

n67 per cent of trainees committed criminal offences leading to arrest before the STO expired, half of these within the first four weeks of release;

n one fifth of trainees were given a new custodial sentence before the end of their STO for offences committed during the [community] supervision period.

          As for the implementation and management of the intervention:

n the regime struggled to address offending behaviour. There were also early disruptions to provision of education and training;

n there was, at the outset, confusion about a number of issues, such as: the purpose of the Centre; the theoretical model on which the intervention was to be based; and the likely characteristics of the young people;

n staff were ill prepared to deal with the trainees;

n adding to the confusion were inadequate record keeping systems and deficiencies in both internal and external communications;

n staff were not adequately trained or supported and turnover was high, the result being an inevitable dip into crisis management and ‘fire fighting’;

n considerable advances were made over the period of the evaluation to address some of the initial problems, particularly management. The one area of implementation that was still at an early stage - despite its importance - was work to address reoffending behaviour.

Evaluation of Medway Secure Training Centre, Hagell A,  Hazel N, and Shaw C (2000), Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 50 Queen Anne’s Gate London, SW1H 9AT, England. Tel : ++ 44 20 72273 2084.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ-medway.pdf

 

Unions regroup

          The Trades Union Congress (TUC), the federation of British trades unions, passed the following resolution at its annual conference in September: Congress condemns the government’s continued commitment to the market testing  and privatisation of prisons in the United Kingdom. Further, Congress expresses its severe condemnation of private custody companies who continue to provide profit at the expense of serious assaults on staff and prisoners. Congress calls on the government to remove the ill-conceived attempt to enforce cost effectiveness at the expense of violence against members of prison communities.

          The resolution was proposed by the Prison Officers Association, the union representing most correctional officers in the UK.

          In September, a number of unions representing  Prison Service employees agreed to revive the ‘Prisons Are Not For Profit’ campaign and are planning a series of initiatives against privatisation.

 

Company pay and conditions

          A non-TUC affiliated union, the Prison Service Union (PSU) has won recognition from UK Detention Services Ltd (UKDS, now owned by Sodexho) and Premier Prison Services Ltd (PPS, Wackenhut and Serco).        It is also in the process of seeking recognition with Securicor.

          Mr Phil Hornsby, general  secretary of the PSU, believes that the companies prefer to deal with his union as it is regarded as “more moderate” than the Prison Officers Association.

          But UKDS has just been forced to the bargaining table and is expected to agree a pay settlement for around 220 prisoner custody officers and auxiliaries at HMP Blakenhurst:

nstaff on less than £12,500 per year will receive a £500 per year increase;

nother staff will receive increases of between 4.5 and five per cent;

novertime will be paid  - for the first time - at a rate of 1.5 times basic pay;

naccrued Time Off In Lieu (TOIL) will be paid off except for 10 hours per person which will be carried over.

According to Mr Hornsby, the private sector generally is characterised by turnover rates of around 30 per cent. At Blakenhurst, he claims that there is “an acute shortage” of staff and those who remain cannot take their  four weeks’ annual leave. The company compensates for this with TOIL but, due to staff shortages, this cannot be taken either.

          The company’s failure to provide meal breaks was one of a number of issues raised recently with the Health and Safety Executive.

          Mr Hornsby also notes that the starting salaries for staff at Blakenhurst have been cut from £13,500  per year when the prison first opened, to £12,500.

          At UKDS run HMP Forest Bank, which opened in January 2000, the prisoner population is about to be increased from 800 to 1,100 and  Mr Hornsby says that staff have no meal breaks.

          Staff shortages mean that one officer is often left alone on a wing with 60 to 70 prisoners.

          “The company is desperately trying to recruit and is paying staff overtime to keep them there,” he  says.

          The company’s practice of requiring staff to arrive for an unpaid briefing 15 minutes before their shift started has been scrapped after the PSU intervened.

          At Premier Prison Services (PPS) run HMP Kilmarnock, Mr Hornsby says that staff have no meal breaks, there is a high turnover, and the staff/prisoner ratio is about one to 85.

          Hassockfield, the PPS run Secure Training Centre for persistent young offenders, is also understaffed (see PPRI # 34).

 

Working group suggests review

          The government’s programme of privately financed, designed, built and run prisons and market testing of existing prisons should be reviewed to advise ministers on how best to use private sector resources to provide greater choice and additional capacity.

          That was one of  the conclusions of a working group commissioned by the Prisons Minister in January 2000 to identify failing prisons, improve performance in the public sector and to develop effective partnerships with the private sector and other agencies.

          The report noted that “it is still early days for private sector prisons and it would be misleading to say that their development has been problem free ... we feel that the achievements ... deserve encouragement.”

          It was also stated that the private sector “would consider bidding for any establishment which the Prison Service was prepared to market test.”

          Whether the public sector management of prisons identified as failing should be allowed to bid in a market testing exercise was declared “a principle that needs consideration. It may not be in the interests of the service to have in place a system which could retain the existing management structure which led to an establishment’s current failings.”

          Other recommendations included the introduction of service level agreements in public sector prisons and the appointment of compliance monitors similar to those in privately run prisons.

Modernising the Management of the Prison Service, An Independent Report by the Targeted Performance Initiative Working Group.

Contact the Home Office Communications Directorate, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/dob/cd.htm

 

Scottish report rewritten

          The print run of the original version of an  inspection  report on HMP Kilmarnock by Scotland’s Chief Inspector of Prisons had to be halted and copies destroyed following a threat of legal action if printing went ahead (see PPRI #36).

          The Chief Inspector had originally included references to staffing levels which were between 30 and 50 per cent lower than Scottish Prison Service run prisons.

          Kilmarnock’s  operator, Premier Prison Services Ltd, threatened the legal action as, under the terms of the contract, staffing levels are commercially confidential.

 

 

CANADA

 

Ontario’s parliamentary exchange

          The following exchange took place during Question Period in the Ontario legislature on 2 October  2000. 

DALTON McGUINTY MPP, LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION AND LEADER OF THE ONTARIO LIBERAL PARTY: Minister, I have a question about your dangerous plan to privatise jails in Ontario. When I travelled the province this summer, I had the opportunity to speak with many Ontarians on many topics. One of the recurring issues was your plan to privatise jails.

          Police told me that they're against it. Communities which might serve as hosts for these private jails told me they were against it. People who work in our correctional services told me they were against this plan. Victims, victims of violence, told me they were against this plan.

          They’re all against it because it is clear from the international experience that private jails are more dangerous than public jails.

          So can you tell me, Minister, why it is that you are insisting on proceeding with a plan which experience has shown will be dangerous to the Ontario public?

HON. ROB SAMPSON, MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: We are making reforms in corrections because it’s a business of this government that has not had the attention of previous governments.

          What has happened? A lack of focus on how to properly rehabilitate inmates; a lack of focus on whether or not we have the appropriate institutions in the appropriate parts of this province to house inmates and deal with the responsibilities of the criminal justice system as laid at our feet; a lack of focus on safety and security for those not only inside the institution and outside the institution.

          These are problems with the publicly operated system in this province, I say to the Leader of the Official Opposition. So to stand in this House and say, “The challenges of corrections across the globe should be laid solely at the feet of a private operator” is inaccurate. It's inaccurate here in this province; it's inaccurate across the country; it's inaccurate in every jurisdiction in this country. When will you-

THE SPEAKER: The Minister’s time is up. Supplementary?

MR McGUINTY: Minister, your first priority is to public safety. That’s what it’s all about. The international experience tells us that publicly owned and operated jails are considerably safer than privately run jails. That's the experience. The jury is in. We don’t need to conduct a dangerous experiment here in Ontario.

          Take a look at some of the facts. Assaults on correctional officers in private facilities in the States are 50% higher than in public jails. California has shown that prisoners are 37 times more likely to escape from private prisons than they are from government run facilities.

          Minister, you might want to consider the economic aspects of this. The US General Accounting Office has reported in 1991 and 1996 that private jails have not saved money.

          They are more dangerous, they don’t save money, our police don’t want them, our communities don’t want them, our correctional services people don’t want them, we don’t want them. Who in Ontario wants them?

HON. MR SAMPSON:  What the people of Ontario want is a correctional system that will indeed have some impact on the lives of the individuals who go through that system.      The member wants to speak to the experience south of the border. What I think he’s trying to say is that we intend to import the failed private experiments south of the border. We’re not. I said that many times. I agree with him; we don’t want to do that here.

          What we want in Ontario is a correctional system that will deal with its job, which is to incarcerate and properly rehabilitate individuals.

          The Leader of the Official Opposition believes that today’s correctional system in this province is a model for the rest to follow. That model is allowing 80 per cent of those who come in the front door to reoffend when they leave the correctional system in this province.

Source: Ontario Hansard, 2 October 2000

n Expressions of Interest in the Government of  Ontario’s contract for the operation of a new prison in Penetanguishene were due by 6 October 2000. The Request for Proposals  is due out at the end of October (see PPRI #15-23, 25, 30, 32, 34 and 35).

n The Law Union of Ontario is the latest organisation in the province to raise its concerns about prison privatisation. It has organised a symposium in October  at the University of Toronto to debate the issues. The Minister for Corrections, Mr Rob Sampson, declined an invitation to attend and defend his policy.

What’s Wrong with the Tories’ Plans for Prisons? 21 October 2000, Bennett Lecture Hall, 78 Queens’s Park, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. Contact: Tel: ++ 1 416 926 8043x151. Email:bob@lawunion.on.ca

 

 

NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

 

Wackenhut wins more

         

    Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC) has negotiated a one year management contract with the Government of the Netherlands Antilles for the refurbished Koraal Specht prison in Curacao (see PPRI #30).

   The company will bring in some 20 management personnel but the majority of staff will be existing staff who will remain government employees.

          WCC already has a contract to design and renovate the old facility.

 

 

SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

 

Puerto Rico pro privatisation

          Corrections Ministers and officials representing governments in the Caribbean, Central America and South America met in San Juan, Puerto Rico at the First Correctional Summit of the Americas 10-14 September 2000.

          It was essentially a marketing opportunity for US corporations such as Corrections Corporation of America (a ‘gold’ sponsor) and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), whose representatives gave keynote presentations, and Cornell Companies Inc and Maranatha Private Corrections who had exhibition space.

          There was also a presentation of both sides of the privatisation debate.

          But within hours of the contribution from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME, the trade union which represents correctional staff in the US and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico), which was critical of Prison Realty/CCA’s operations, the company had arranged helicopters to take ministers and their staff to tour CCA facilities on the island.

          This forced a schedule change since only Wackenhut and government run facilities were due to be visited.

          The Government of Puerto Rico was keen to promote privatisation, claiming that it had made substantial savings.

          But, when challenged, the figures could not be substantiated.

          There were also presentations about existing prison conditions and future plans from El Salvador, Argentina, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Belize, Costa Rica (see PPRI #32), Panama, Colombia, Jamaica and Chile (see PPRI #36).

          The most common themes were: under funding; overcrowding; the need for new facilities, training of correctional officers and to raise standards; and to look at alternatives to incarceration.

          None of the delegates mentioned that they were implementing full prison privatisation although there was reference to schemes involving private finance, construction and/or non-custodial services such as food and building maintenance.

          Argentina’s new prisons, for example, will have privatised food services and buildings maintenance. In Belize, a private security company guards the prison entrance and perimeter fence.

n Exhibition space at the event was taken up by companies offering a wide range of products and services, including: weapons manufacturer Winchester International  (Nothing Hits Harder Than A Winchester); Ruger, which offered their handy MP-9 sub machine gun specially designed for SWAT teams, VIP protection, special security and counter terrorist operations; and Narc-Bomb Detect Sales Group Inc.

          There was also the ‘Spartan’ brand of detention furniture and mattresses, while the Dick Corporation offered construction services.

          The next Summit will be jointly sponsored by Puerto Rico and the Organisation of American States (OAS, see PPRI # 34).