CONTENTS

 

Canada

United Kingdom

United States

Australia

 

 

Fresh doubts cast on US private prisons

Claims made for the benefits of private prisons in the United States have been seriously undermined by the findings of a new report. The General Accounting Office (GAO) of the US Federal government has analysed five recent studies comparing the operational costs and quality of service in public and private prisons. The GAO's report, published on 16 August 1996, found:

n no conclusions about cost savings or quality of service could be drawn as four studies assessing operational costs indicated little difference or mixed results;

n two studies that addressed quality of life reported equivocal findings or no differences between private and public facilities;

n the studies provided little information which could be applied to different correctional settings, since states may differ widely in terms of correctional philosophy, economic factors, and inmate population characteristics.

The GAO, while recognising the difficulties of making comparisons, was also critical of how some of the studies were carried out. It recommended that future comparative research should:

n focus on both operational  costs as well as quality of service;

n evaluate operational costs at existing comparable, not hypothetical, facilities;

n more objectively measure quality of service issues by employing multiple indicators or data sources;

n be based upon data collected over several years.

The GAO decided to carry out its study in order to assist in the Justice Department's deliberations over how far privatisation  should proceed. Between June 1995 and June 1996, its staff evaluated five studies completed since 1991 which compared private and public facilities. The GAO paid special attention to the evidence supporting the reported findings.

The studies

Texas, California and Tennessee had sponsored studies of prisons in their respective states, while the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons and the National Institute of Corrections had funded a comparative study that focused mainly on facilities in New Mexico. Washington  studied facilities in Tennessee and Louisiana as well as its own state.

The California, Tennessee and Washington studies assessed operational costs and quality of service. The Texas study analysed operational costs only and the New Mexico study analysed quality of service only.

One of the studies of comparative costs most often quoted by proponents of privatisation is the Texas study which, using 1990 data, found that private prisons were 14 to 15 per cent cheaper than publicly run facilities.  The GAO, however, questioned the validity of using hypothetical public sector comparators rather than facilities which actually existed.

The GAO credited the Tennessee study of three facilities - one private and two public - as the most sound and detailed comparison of operational costs. However, Tennessee found very little difference in average prisoner costs per day between the three facilities.

The Washington study of facilities in different states also found very little difference in costs, while the California study concluded that its findings should be viewed with some additional caution because of inconsistencies in the underlying supporting cost figures used.

Underlining the difficulties of accurately assessing quality of service, the GAO also remarked that although the American Correctional Association (ACA) sets accreditation standards for prisons, the actual quality of service of a facility with such accreditation can vary since the ACA only requires compliance with minimum  standards to qualify. 

Comments

As part of the exercise, the GAO submitted its own findings for independent scrutiny. The Bureau of Prisons commented that the GAO's report was "accurate, well done and useful." Dr Elisabeth Flynn of the College of Criminal Justice at Boston's Northeastern University, also reviewed the report and said the conclusion that the five studies offer little generalisable guidance for other jurisdictions  was "right on point." She also emphasised the need to focus privatisation research on crime prevention and various philosophical questions underpinning the privatisation debate.

n On 9 September 1996, the influential US stock market newspaper Barron’s referred to the GAO report as "noteworthy because it contravenes the conventional wisdom ... that companies like Corrections Corporation of America  automatically manage prisons more efficiently and economically." Barron’s also contacted Corrections Corporation of America who "scoffed" at the GAO report and referred the newspaper to a refutation by Charles Thomas of the Private Corrections Project at the University of Florida. Barron’s found Thomas' refutation "tendentious but not necessarily devastating to the GAO's argument" and concluded that the controversy  over private prisons is not yet over.

The GAO's full report, Private and Public Prisons: Studies Comparing Operational Costs and/or Quality of Service. Reference Number GAO/GGD-96-198, is available from the US General Accounting Office, Box 6015, Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015.

 

 

CANADA

 

Toronto Summit

On 10 and 11 July 1996, Toronto was the venue for a conference on the privatisation of correctional services organised by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based right wing think tank, and sponsored by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Wackenhut Corrections Canada Inc. and Youth Services International Inc.

Although there was some discussion on the pros and cons of privatisation, the conference was weighted in favour of how to privatise while providing a store front for a number of private operators. In the Ottawa Citizen, 15 August 1996, Michael Walker the Fraser Institute's executive director, described the conference as "two days discussing the unthinkable, an idea most people think, on the face of it, is ridiculous."  He said: "evidence from the US was simply overwhelming in its implication that private prison services are not only less expensive for the taxpayer but also provide a better environment for the inmates and a better work experience for the custodians. Evidence of superior performance was so compelling that questions from the sceptical audience mainly turned on the issue of values."

Walker also quoted Tim Wilson, head of the UK Prison Service's Contracts and Competition Group, who  had told the conference that the values expressed in a prison system "are of no concern to the operating companies ... they simply provide the services ... it is up to the public sector to specify the values they wish to reflect." According to Walker, Mr Wilson also apparently told the conference that "in the UK private prison providers not only saved the taxpayer from 13 to 22 per cent of the cost of prison services, but also provided inmates and guards with a superior experience."

Mr Walker ended his summary of the conference with: "Preliminary evidence from the US is that the prison experience is less dehumanising when services are privately provided and the recidivism rate is much lower - particularly for young offenders. This is the most important reason for opting for private prisons in Canada."

He might also have ended with a quote from another contributor to the conference, Maeve McMahon, assistant professor of law at Ottawa's Carleton University, who in her paper concluded that: "Privatisation deflects attention from, and distorts perceptions of, real social problems. Perhaps the greatest challenge ... is to maintain a humanitarian focus on the consequences of privatisation.”

 

Ontario's 'super jails'

Ontario's Conservative provincial government has announced plans to create five new 'super jails' to replace 14 existing prisons. Closure of the existing prisons, some of which are very old, is expected to take place over the next three years. Over 1,400 public sector jobs will be cut.

Two new jails costing around C$250m will be built while three of the existing prisons thought to be worth saving are to be expanded. Privatisation is being considered by the government. The new jails are to be 'no frills' prisons with electronic monitoring centres, replacing the need for labour-intensive operations. The cells, showers and common rooms will be simple facilities with concrete stools and concrete or steel beds covered with mattresses. The facilities will hold both men and women.

Announcing the plans on 12 September 1996, Ontario's corrections minister said: "I don't think that our goal is necessarily to increase the quality of life for people convicted of serious crimes. Part of that is a deterrent as well." The Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which represents existing corrections staff, and the Elizabeth Fry Society have attacked the plans.

In August 1996, leaked internal documents revealed that the government's original proposal was for 12 'super jails' to replace all 45 jails in Ontario with a loss of 2,100 jobs. The documents questioned whether the province should own its correctional facilities, recommending a range of private sector options, as well as calling for prisoner transport services to be privatised.

 

 

UNITED KINGDOM

Cheap labour

    Following a June 1996 consultants’ report claiming that private prisons were cheaper than their publicly run comparators, the director general of the Prison Service in England and Wales, Richard Tilt, said in an interview in September that "the great majority of the cost reduction comes from the payment of much lower wages and poorer conditions of service for staff working in the private sector." 

 

UKDS Profits

UK Detention Services Ltd only has one prison management contract in the UK  - Blakenhurst prison in the West Midlands - but it is profitable. Company accounts for the year ended 31 December 1995 show a pre-tax profit of £540,891. After tax, profit was £380,395. Fees from the Home Office increased from £9.1m in 1994 to £10.9m in 1995, while operating expenses were almost the same at £10.45m in 1995 compared with £10.44m in 1994. The Home Office plans to expand Blakenhurst by adding accommodation for a further 240 prisoners.

n In July 1996, construction firm  John Mowlem plc, one of the three founders of the UKDS joint venture, sold its one third interest. Shares in UKDS are now owned jointly  by Corrections Corporation of America’s subsidiary CCA (UK) Ltd  and Sir Robert McAlpine (Holdings)  Ltd.

 

Private deaths

    Neil Kay, a 29 year old prisoner under special observation at Group 4-run Buckley Hall prison in Rochdale, north west England,  was found hanging from the window bars of his cell on 29 August 1996. The prison's independent Board of Visitors 1995 annual report published in June 1996 criticised the design of cells and flagged the integral window bars as a potential problem. Group 4 was not responsible for the design of the prison. An inquest into Mr Kay’s death started in September but was adjourned.

 

    Meanwhile, INQUEST, an organisation offering advice and support to families and friends of prisoners who die in prison, has raised concerns about  Blakenhurst prison run by UK Detention Services Ltd, where five prisoners have died within the last year. The most recent was Gary Cowley who was found hanging on 7 August 1996.

 

Another 'how to' conference

    How to privatise prisons and aspects of other emergency services such as police, fire and ambulances under the UK government's Private Finance Initiative (PFI),  was the theme of a September conference in London. An array of senior public officials  - aided by management consultants and bankers - was on hand to explain the intricacies of their services  and how the private sector might best exploit the PFI to take them over. One Home Office official admitted that the decision to implement the PFI was political and that it was uncertain whether value for money over the long term would be achieved by this strategy.

Representatives from European-based prisons/security company  Group 4 and UK construction firm Tarmac also explained how they had successfully bid for and won a 25 year contract to finance, design, build and run a 600 place prison at Fazakerley in north west England, and then used this expertise to win two further contracts for secure training centres for young offenders.

Speaking about the future of private prisons in the UK Charles Erickson, director of business development (Prison Services) for  Group 4  suggested that an incoming Labour government might have difficulty adhering to its stated policy of honouring existing contracts but not offering new  prison management contracts. “If he [the likely future Home Secretary] thinks he can build a £40m prison on a cleaning contract he has another think coming,” said Mr Erickson.

n The Labour Party has announced that, if elected to government in 1997, it will keep the Private Finance Initiative  but with some revisions. Accepting that public-private partnerships will be the normal basis for future construction projects, Labour proposes to  implement a better division of risk between operators, contractors and investors.

 

 

UNITED STATES

August incidents at CCA jails

     Prisoners at CCA’s Eden Detention Centre, Texas caused a major disturbance lasting 12 hours on 22 August 1996. Fourteen prisoners  were hurt and  two  hospitalised after receiving buckshot wounds from guards. Pepper gas was also used to quell the disturbance. Three CCA staff were hurt, one suffering a broken jaw. Over 120 Federal prisoners, thought to be the ringleaders of the disturbance, were later transferred to a publicly run facility.  CCA was unclear as to why the disturbance happened but it was reported that prisoners were angry about the food, clothing and lack of access to crafts. CCA operates the facility for the city of Eden which in turn has a contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to hold convicted prisoners awaiting deportation. The FBOP has launched an inquiry.

    This disturbance followed an incident two weeks earlier at another CCA facility in Texas, at north Houston. Two sex offenders beat up a  prison officer and escaped. The facility’s 80 other sex offenders were transferred following community outrage. As a result of these incidents, a  Texas state senator has pledged to introduce legislation for more stringent regulation and control of private facilities

    Following the escape of seven boys  from its Columbia Training Centre for 400 juveniles in South Carolina on 11 August 1996,  CCA transferred the manager,  increased its staff from 170 to 190 and increased security measures.

 

 

AUSTRALIA

 

 

Victoria’s private intelligence

    The first private prison in Victoria, the Corrections Corporation of Australia-run Metropolitan Women’s Prison employs its own  intelligence officer, known as a collator, to collect information on prisoners, staff, visitors and “other persons of interest to the prison system.” 

    Collators are part of the government’s strategy to combat drugs throughout the state’s prisons. As well as having the power to monitor phone calls from prisons, collators  compile intelligence checks on prison visitors and have access to Justice Department criminal records.  Private prison operators have to record information they collect on the Justice Department’s computer. 

    Although publicly run prisons also have collators, it is the privately employed intelligence officers that have caused concern for the federal privacy commissioner, Kevin O’Connor. He told The Age newspaper on 29 August 1996 that this falls into a privatisation no-go area and that collators should be public officials. “Once you move the data into the hands of a private corporation, everything depends on the directions that the managing director issues. It just becomes an internal business matter, not exposed in any way to public view or oversight,” he said.

Women denied children’s visits

Ninety per cent of the women held at the Metropolitan Women’s Prison have signed a petition demanding that Saturday visits of prisoners’ children  be reinstated. At the former publicly run Fairlea women’s prison, it had been the practice for 16 years that mothers could spend six hours on a Saturday with their children. The Victoria government only specified the legally required one hour visit in the new contract. Anything above that is at the discretion of the prison operator who also has the power to use denial of children’s visits as a punishment.

n Prison officers at the new  prison are paid A$34,000 a year which, according to the State Public Services Federation, is less than the minimum set by the Employee Relations Commission. Staff  are also concerned about safety standards and other working conditions. Public sector prison staff are paid A$50,000.

 

New private prisons likely

    The Australian Capital Territory government is expected to approve a private prison to cope with a growing prisoner population.  Its convicted prisoners are currently sent to prisons in  New South Wales. Western Australia is to contract out a A$20,000 review of its prison system. The review will consider privatisation. The state expects its prison population to reach 2,500 by the year 2000 by which time a new 400 place prison will  be needed. Meanwhile, in Queensland, the Treasury is proposing further prison privatisation in a bid to force public sector trade unions to adopt workplace reforms.