Prison Privatisation Report International

No. 43, Sept/Oct  2001

Published by the Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU), University of Greenwich, London, England. 

www.psiru.org/justice

This publication is supported by a grant from the Foundation Open Society Institute.

IN THIS ISSUE

Lesotho	Israel
Brazil	United Kingdom
Thailand	United States
South Korea	Australia
Germany	Recent Reports and Articles
Netherlands	***Announcement***

 

Lesotho: A plea against privatisation

    The director general of the Lesotho Prison Service is calling for help to defeat plans for prison privatisation currently being negotiated by the government and Group 4 Corrections Services SA (Pty) Ltd (see PPRI # 41). The company is proposing to build a 3,500 bed prison at Maseru to replace Lesotho’s existing facilities and bring in its own management for the prison service.

    But in an open letter dated 17 September 2001, Mr CL Siimane asks the criminal justice community for help to “do anything in your power and means to frustrate the wishes and efforts of Group 4 and its proponents ... we desperately look forward to international support ...”

    He adds: “ we wish to inform you that we are under a terrible pressure to have the entire Lesotho Prison Service privatised by Group 4 from the UK. Our stance as prisons management team regarding the above has been indicated in very categorical terms. We unitedly stand opposed to the prison model suggested by Group 4. Right now Group 4 is conducting a little research which will help them make a proposal to the ministry of justice quite soon. Presently there is no outright formal opposition to the proposed regime at the ministerial level and we strongly feel this proposal is very likely to be approved. Our formal position, which has been communicated to the ministry is herewith attached.”

 

Position Paper of the Lesotho Prison Service - Private Prison as an Alternative Regime to Lesotho Prison Regime

Lesotho Prison Service management is totally opposed to privatisation of its services on account of below-mentioned grounds:

 

n    Lesotho is a member of the United Nations, Commonwealth Organization of African Unity and Southern African Development Community. These bodies fully promote and protect democratic principles and human rights culture in correctional services. Over and above, she [Lesotho] is a signatory to International Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights of a Child and most importantly has acceded to the guarantee of prisoners’ rights on the basis of United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for non-custodial measures. All these instruments have no accommodation for privatisation of prisons.

 

n It should also be noted that a new global concept - penal reform - has ushered in a new approach and trend in the treatment of offenders. The concept entails restorative justice, alternatives to imprisonment, reduction of prison population, accessible justice, alternatives  to conflict  resolution and open prisons, all of which receive a very low recognition in privatised prisons.  Private prisons are motivated by profit and any sign of loss is avoided at all costs. Minimal use of penal reform initiative would be the only way to maximise profit for a private prison. Parole system will obviously pose a serious threat to proprietors running a private prison.

 

n The public expects to see every prisoner corrected: prison regime opts for shorter sentences through parole and amnesty which private prison would be reluctant to fully utilize these alternatives for the fear that they may run at a loss. Regional conventions and declarations such as the Kampala Declaration on Prison Conditions, Kadoma Declaration on Community Service Orders, Abuja Declaration on Alternatives to Imprisonment are all proponents of diversionary measures and all forms of non-custodial options as well as post sentencing dispositions for prison regime. Lesotho has acceded to all aforementioned instruments. Our constitution, parent legislation, policies and practice are all in line with these instruments; and for all the past five years, a headway is noticeable due to recognition and full utilization of these instruments.

 

Private prison and democracy

nA proposed private prison to be initiated and operated by Group 4 would pose a terrible threat to fundamental principles of democracy especially to a fledgling democracy like Lesotho.  The danger of maintaining one big private prison which can house all inmates from around the country cannot be overemphasised.

 

nIf this happens the notion of local government, decentralization of powers and prison services, community participation in the correction of inmates and crime prevention are going to be in serious jeopardy.

 

Global standards highly subscribe to a very relaxed and free atmosphere for correction of behaviours, and this cannot be guaranteed by a private prison since a conducive atmosphere is often compromised as long as maximum profit can be accrued by commercially inclined proprietors of such a proposed prison.

 

nSince this is a dangerous and unpredictable move, few countries have opted to privatise at least one prison to see if a private prison can be a viable model.

    In all countries where the latter model is in use, the cost-effectiveness of this model has not been conclusively verified. The model is said to have been a shameful failure in the U.S.A. and is apparently now very unpopular with Americans and their governments.

 

nPrinciples of transparency, accountability and openness as basic tenets of good governance and administration are due to be sacrificed even if the Lesotho Government may have a stake in privatized prisons.

    We should not overlook the fact that, practically, the economically advantaged usually have more power and, as such, visible and humane management of a proposed prison will progressively vanish as proprietors of the same develop more particularity in profit-making through confinement of human beings.

 

n Our prison regime is relatively autonomous in terms of administration, but can in no way function independently.  Prison regime is an integral part of Lesotho’s criminal justice system. None of the components of this system can do without the other.

    It would probably be more apt to privatise the entire criminal justice system, as privatisation of prisons and centralization of the regime would occasion a great inconvenience to the courts, prosecution and judiciary which are highly decentralized.  Privatisation as a concept is ostensibly meant to professionalize the service and to optimise profits and not necessarily to reduce public expenses on public institutions.

 

nThis would not serve the above purpose as the public would travel over long distances at terrible expenses to visit their next-of-kin in such a prison; remandees and convicts in Qacha’s Nek and Mokhotlong would travel over a great distance at an unbearable public cost in a country whose economy is already shaky.

    So, more expenses will be incurred by the taxpayer/public or the Government to run this model.

 

nThe Speedy Trial Bill would no longer serve a purpose as the judicial process will be more delayed than ever. So, a proposed private prison’s primary mission will unavoidably be defeated.

 

nInternational Models on Inter-Agency Co-operation cannot work effectively with the introduction of an over centralized big private prison in Maseru. Our prison system is being systematically alienated from adequate co-operation with other justice agencies. This suggested model cannot ensure such co-operation which is critically necessary for efficient judicial process.

 

nLesotho has recently ratified the Extradition Treaty as well as Mutual Legal Assistance on Criminal Matters. These developments have brought forth the agreement on the modalities of effectuating these treaties.

    Amongst other things, President Mbeki’s recent state visit to Lesotho has ushered in a commitment to draw a plan/programme of action which can form a basis of co-operation between our prisons and South African correctional services.

    South African Prisons are state owned, and we may not be able to collaborate with them fully while we maintain one big private prison.

 

Recommendation

nThe LDF [the army], NSS [the national security service], and LMPS [the mounted police] have on a number of occasions been subjected to vigorous review and reform championed by the Government in consultation with internationally recognised specialists and organisations, as such their administration, level of service provision and professionalism have improved very positively.

    As a disciplined force/service this has never happened to us. We strongly feel that a vigorous penal reform with special and particular attention to prison reform would be enough to effect visible change in so far as the efficiency of our prisons is concerned.

nPrivatisation of prisons is too extreme as a reform measure.

 

nFinalisation of a prison draft bill should be urgently effected as it incorporates UN standards. This draft already received commendation from the United Nations Centre for Human Rights in 1998. Open commendation also came from Penal Reform International and a renowned global consultant in penal reform.

 

nWe fully subscribe to all views voiced by Penal Reform International consultancy reports; and we hereby beg to attach it for ease of reference [not included here].

 

nOver and above these recommendations, we humbly request for an audience so that we can make our position more clear. Perhaps our involvement in this exercise as technocrats in the service may bring forth a more viable option which will appeal to us all.

 

nThe consultancy comprising penal reform experts under the aegis of the British High Commission examined Lesotho prisons regimes and came up with the attached report and recommendations [not included here].

    A more specialised penal reformist from Penal Reform International has incorporated his views relating to private prisons. The entire prison management categorically dislikes the private prison model.

 

nWe are not against privatisation as a concept within a certain ideology. We only feel it cannot be a viable model for Lesotho’s context,  Lesotho being a mixed economy country may strategically accommodate privatisation of certain institutions and services.

    Privatisation of the entire prison service would be tantamount to commercialising the police service or the entire ministry of justice and human rights, given the complexity and the size of the Lesotho Prison Service.

Contact: Mr CL Siimane, Director of Prisons, Lesotho Prison Service, PO Box 41, Maseru-100, Lesotho. Tel: ++ 266 32 57 31 Fax: ++ 266 32 50 60

 

 

BRAZIL

 

Two experiments for Humanitas

    Two prisons in Brazil are experimenting with a mixed management system. The prisons are both 300 bed medium security facilities. One is in the state of Parana, in southern Brazil and the other is in Ceara, in the north east.

    Both have directors employed by the state but all other staff and services are contracted to Humanitas, owned by Pires Security, a large Brazilian firm.

    Although the experiment is supposed to compare costs of public and private facilities, the government is paying 80 per cent of the costs. In 1996 Pires Security hit the headlines after a court ordered the company to pay one million dollars to the family of a bookseller who was shot and killed by one of its bank guards. The killing was deemed a racist attack.

 

THAILAND

 

Pattaya City Prison first of 11?

    Thailand’s corrections department is calling for tenders for the operation of the recently opened Pattaya City Prison (see PPRI # 42 and 40). The prison currently has 300 prisoners but it has the capacity to hold up to 1,000.

    The department’s deputy director general says that this will be a one year trial project to compare the efficiency of the public and private sectors.

    Initially, the private sector will only be allowed to run prisons holding prisoners convicted of minor offences and those serving sentences of less than five years. But, according to the Bangkok Post, 3 September 2001, “ ten more prisons are earmarked for privatisation.” This would appear to mean that the government is already convinced that new prisons will be privately financed, designed, built and run.

    Thailand currently has 134 prisons with a total population of around  240,000.

Group 4 interested

    A spokesperson for Group 4 Securities (Thailand) Ltd told the Bangkok Post that, because of his firm’s international experience, it is interested in the contract and “could do the job”. He also suggested that new prisons could be built with connecting underground tunnels to courts to prevent prisoners escaping.

    This year, Thai corrections officials visited private prisons in the UK and Australia.

  

SOUTH KOREA

 

Bidding process starts

    Religious groups as well as private companies are being allowed to bid for a contract to build and operate a new prison costing around $23m being commissioned by South Korea’s ministry of justice (see PPRI # 28). The facility, with between 300 and 500 beds, is aimed at helping to reduce overcrowding which is currently running at 12 per cent.

    Bidding will close in December and the ministry will announce the preferred bidder early in 2002. The ministry would like the new facility open by 2004.

    Speaking on the BBC’s World Service programme East Asia Today 28 August 2001, the head of the private prisons project at the ministry of justice, Mr Yoo Byung Chul, said that the government does not have enough money to build new facilities in a short period of time to deal with overcrowding so contracting out is one of the best options. He also said that the ministry had carried out “a lot of case studies from the US, England and Australia.”

    South Korean human rights organisations have expressed concerns about prison privatisation but the ministry claims that prisoners’ rights will be protected by new legislation and the monitoring of contracts.

nAs a help to UK firms, the British Embassy in Seoul is  holding copies of the bidding documents which have to be  completed and submitted in Korean.

 

GERMANY

 

Hesse decides on Hünfeld

    The Hesse government will locate a semi-private prison at Hünfeld, 130 kilometres north east of Frankfurt, (see PPRI # 37 and 30). For some years the town had been competing for the prison with the town of Schlüchtern, the state government’s first choice location. But residents of Schlüchtern opposed the prison,  forcing the government to either engage in protracted legal proceedings or find an alternative site.

    A referendum in Hünfeld on 12 August 2001 resulted in a 51 per cent vote in favour of the prison being built.

 

NETHERLANDS

 

Detention as a product

    A report on ‘autonomisation’ of the Dutch Agency for Correctional Institutions and an ‘independent study of public/private partnerships in prison management’ was presented to the Dutch Parliament on 24 August 2001 (see PPRI # 38). On the issue of privatisation, the report refers to “detention as a product ...”.

    The authors conclude that: “the comparison with the savings realised in the UK shows that anticipated savings for the Dutch situation are lower. Nevertheless, the public private partnership is still expected to deliver added value, especially through repetition of the same concept in different projects.”

    However, the report also states that “the exact level cannot be determined at the moment because the form of the public-private variant is still unknown and pricing will take place in an open market in the future.”

    The authors also conclude:“The framework of a public-private partnership is only attractive if a large enough part of the detention system is organised along these lines in the long term. This way there will be enough performance incentives for private companies and enough competition between the players, while the start-up costs can be spread over enough projects.”

n The report Public Private Comparator Gevangenissen was prepared for the ministries of finance and justice  by NEI Kolpron Finance, WS Atkins and JSI.  NEI is a Dutch economic consultancy involved with public/private partnerships.  WS Atkins benefits from the expertise of Tim Wilson. He is formerly head of private finance policy in the UK’s Treasury task force and PFI (private finance initiative) prison programme and is now on secondment to WS Atkins Investments Ltd.

    WS Atkins is a UK based facilities management company involved in PFI projects in the UK. It is Securicor’s partner in HM Prison Parc in Wales (see PPRI # 42, 38, 34, 30, 29, 23 and 21-18).

    In a press release announcing the consultancy work for the Dutch government on 9 March 2001, the managing director of WS Atkins Investments said: “We are particularly pleased that, as part of WS Atkins’ strategy for increasing business in other parts of the EU, this work is in partnership with the Dutch market leaders in their field.” 

    JSI is Justice Solutions International, a US based consultancy which claims to have  “successfully led teams undertaking the first privately operated prison projects in the United Kingdom and the Republic of South Africa.”

 

n PPRI #44 will include an analysis  of the NEI report.

 

ISRAEL

 

A step closer?

    Israel’s potential as a market for private prisons  has long been identified by analysts and prison companies alike. But years of hype could be turned into policy soon. In a recent interview with Globes the minister of public security, Uzi Landau, said that the entire prison service should be privatised and he would like to see private prisons.

    In 2000,  Israel’s former minister for public security met with Britain’s then home secretary and prison service officials to discuss prison privatisation (see PPRI # 34). Since then, Israeli officials have continued to monitor developments in the UK.

 

UNITED KINGDOM

Problems at Premier’s STC

    A privately operated secure training centre for 40 offenders aged between 12 and 17 years old has “experienced disruption and turbulence throughout its life” according to a recently published inspection report.

In all, the inspectors recommended 32 improvements.

    Hassockfield Secure Training Centre in northern England was the third privately financed, designed, built and operated STC to open (see PPRI # 40 and 37). It is run by Medomsley Training Services Ltd, a subsidiary of Premier Custodial Group Ltd, which is Wackenhut Corrections Corporation’s joint venture company with Serco PLC in the UK.

     The inspectors noted “significant personal strengths ... which reflects great credit on the staff groups’ commitment to try to provide the best possible service in unsettling circumstances...” and “ ... sound foundation stones upon which further progress can be built.” But the findings also included:

ndirector and assistant director of finance and administration left without notice on 2 February and 5 March 2001 respectively. Their departures followed the resignation of the assistant director of programmes and  there was now a third director in post;

nan injection of experienced staff and a review of service conditions were needed in order to retain staff - 46 of the 127 staff resigned in the year ended 31 March 2001.

nquality assurance systems were absent and a review of recording systems was required;

nthere was insufficient childcare knowledge and experience to deliver to the required level of the objectives of the centre;

nthe management of challenging behaviour was problematic and a broadly based initiative to create a rounded, positive, regime was required;

nthe examination of records revealed a number of inconsistencies;

ncultural awareness within the STC was not well developed;

nteaching in literacy and numeracy was unsatisfactory and in half of all lessons observed, teaching was unsatisfactory ... often absent ... work was often not matched to young people’s needs ...;

nthe needs of teaching staff should be considered;

ndue to limited resources, the nurses’ shift pattern incorporated two weeks of nights and two weeks of days;

nthere was a large agenda of works required to bring living units to the required standard.

The inspection was the second since the facility opened in September 1999.

Inspection of Hassockfield Secure Training Centre, May 2001 (published August 2001), Social Services Inspectorate, Department of Health, Hannibal House, Elephant & Castle, London SE1 6TQ England.

 

Semi-privates on the way?

    “It is now very possible that at some point we will have a prison designed, financed and built by the private sector but run by the public sector,” according to the director general of the prison service for England Wales, Martin Narey.

    In an interview with the Financial Times, 2 October 2001, Mr Narey also said : “We are pretty good at running a prison service but we are not good at contracting and design. At the moment I anticipate that all new prisons will be built by the private sector.”

    He praised the effects of competition from the private sector on the prison service but also noted that “they [companies] have become, in running prisons, a bit complacent. They have not been as imaginative as this [public] service has had to become in terms of utilising staff - and of course they have to take a profit out of this. It may be that one or two of them are looking backwards to the days of very much higher profit margins.”

 

Kilmarnock safe from the SNP

    The opposition Scottish National Party’s (SNP) annual conference has resolved to halt further private prisons in Scotland. But, if the party wins the next election in 2003, legal and financial implications would prevent it from taking HM Prison Kilmarnock back into the public sector (see PPRI # 40, 37 and 36).

    By then, they might have at least another one to contend with as plans are being discussed by the Labour controlled Scottish Executive for new private prisons to replace existing outdated facilities.

    Although Kilmarnock has been criticised in two reports by Scotland’s chief inspector of prisons, the Executive regards the prison, run by a subsidiary of Premier Custodial Group Ltd,  as a successful model.

�Premier opened its second facility in Scotland on 3  September 2001. The company is managing a detention centre for asylum seekers at Dungavel in Lanarkshire.

 

 

UNITED STATES

 

CSC subsidiary fined $600,000

    Youth Services International (YSI), which operates Victor Cullen Academy in Maryland is to pay a penalty of $600,000 to the state after auditors found that the facility was severely understaffed, the staff were poorly trained and the company provided inadequate mental health care, education and financial controls (see PPRI # 42, 36,30, 26, 24, 21,14 and 3). YSI is owned by Correctional Services Corporation (CSC).

    The audit was ordered more than a year ago after four escapes in 18 months. In November 2000 the auditors recommended that the company should be fined $2.2m and increase wages to attract staff in order to fill vacancies. Negotiations over the settlement took nine months.

    The department of juvenile justice is also discussing problems at another YSI-run juvenile detention centre, the Charles H. Hickey Jr. School where two staff were fired recently following allegations that they ran a ‘Saturday Morning Fight Club’.

More trouble in Las Vegas

Meanwhile, two former YSI youth correctional workers, both women, have been charged with having sexual relations with teenage male prisoners at the maximum security Summit View Correctional Center for 13-18 year olds in  Las Vegas.

    It is alleged that the incidents took place between August and December 2000 and that the staff threatened sanctions against the prisoners if they did not comply. A complaint has been filed in North Las Vegas Justice Court.

    In June 2000, YSI  hired a former Clark County probation officer who was awaiting trial on six felony counts of having sex with a juvenile. A background check failed to disclose his history because he had not been convicted of the charges, and two county agencies failed to inform Summit View of the applicant’s  history when contacted.

CSC evaluating its market position 

    Correctional Services Corporation’s (CSC) profit margins for the quarter ended 30 June 2001 fell to 6.48 per cent from 11.61 per cent for the same quarter in 2000. Losses for the quarter were $421,000. Revenues for the half year were $89.48m compared with £106.06m for the same period in 2000.

    The company stated that second quarter’s results were due to lower than anticipated occupancy rates. It is now evaluating its market position, cost structure, growth strategies and each facility’s financial and operating results.

It could also discontinue operating what it describes as under performing facilities.

    Through its YSI subsidiary, CSC claims to be the leading private provider of programmes for adjudicated youths in the US with 29 facilities and over 4,100 juveniles in its care. CSC also operates 12 facilities for adults with 4,500 beds.

 

 

 

AUSTRALIA

 

CCA pension fund wound up

    Corrections Corporation of Australia’s Staff Superannuation Fund has been wound up after losing 23.21 per cent of its value in the year ended 31 December 2000. This has left around 880 private prison and prisoner escort staff with losses to their pension entitlements. According to the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), which represents the staff, losses range from A$4,000 to A$24,000.

    The fund is one of 30 loss-making pension funds being investigated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) for alleged bad management. The APRA was concerned that the CCA fund, like a number of other pension funds, had put their members at risk through an investment strategy lacking in diversity. But the APRA has since announced that an audit of the CCA fund found that “there appears to be no evidence of impropriety or fraud.”

    CCA’s fund had a total investment exposure to just one commercial building which was purchased for A$5.1m but subsequently sold for A$3.95m. The Superannuation Fund’s final statement noted that, as a result of the company losing two contracts - the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre in Victoria (see PPRI # 42, 38, 37 and 35) and Borallon Correctional Centre in Queensland (see PPRI #38-36)  “a significant and unexpected number of members” left the corporation’s employment and, consequently, the fund. This forced the trustees to realise the fund’s property assets.

    The CPSU is considering what action can be taken on behalf of its members.

nIn 2000, Corrections Corporation of Australia (CCA) became 100 per cent owned by Paris-based Sodexho SA. CCA’s name was changed to Australian Integrated Management Services Ltd (AIMS, see PPRI # 38).

 

AIMS escort contract dispute

    The government of Western Australia and Australian Integrated Management Services Ltd (AIMS) are in dispute over the company’s performance of its court security and custodial services contract (see PPRI #42, 38 and 34).

    Consultants KPMG audited resource planning, management and reporting processes and reviewed the existence and accuracy of the company’s reported service hours for May 2001, ten months after the contract started.

    KPMG  noted  that AIMS management and staff were “committed to providing  ... a delivery of service to the best of their ability” but that  “a number of critical findings were noted in this review, with the fundamental issue being that AIMS do not appear to have a satisfactory resource management framework in place to manage their resources efficiently.

    KPMG  made seven critical recommendations for improvements as well as 21 described as significant.  On 31 July 2001, management asked AIMS for comments on the findings by 28 August 2001but  the company failed to respond in time.

    The state’s director of court security and prisoner transport noted that “many of the issues raised in the report have been the subject of discussion and correspondence between the parties for some months without resolution.”

    KPMG did not test the entire contract specifications but based their audit on the government’s definition of service delivery hours as being ‘directly and unequivocally attributable by the contractor to the provision of services’. However, AIMS did not agree with this definition and was recording and reporting service delivery based on a definition of service resource hours rather than service delivery hours.

    This allegedly led to AIMS claiming payment for staff training as a service delivery, something  which is prohibited under the contract.

n In early June 2001, AIMS reported 31,114 service delivery hours for May, representing a 28 per cent increase over the average monthly budget calculated from the agreed amount for May, June and July. KPMG described this as a “significant variance”;

n due to AIMS’ time recording process KPMG was “unable to give an accurate indication of how much time related to service delivery and service resourcing;

n AIMS management had not agreed to the government’s April schedule detailing service delivery requirements; 

n examples of discrepancies at the Broome court included:

10 May 2001 - 52 hours were recorded for court security although the court only sat for 0.5 hours;

18 May 2001  - 51 hours were recorded for court security although the court only sat for 0.5 hours;

23 May 2001 - 22.5 hours were recorded for court security, although there were no court hours recorded;

28 May 2001 - 47 hours were recorded for court security although the court only sat for three hours;

n AIMS supervisors had not been given formal training on how to make best use of their staff ;

n staff were allocated to sites based on out of date manuals which did not reflect actual staff resources at each site;

n the operational staffing plan was out of date and no longer accurate;

n the risk management plan had not been reviewed even though it was a requirement of the contract;

nthere was a reduced onus on officers to correctly and accurately report the number of hours they had worked.

Increased costs unacceptable

    In a statement issued on 29 August 2001 the attorney general, Mr Jim McGinty, said that the contract signed by the previous administration was supposed to cost A$11.725m but the actual cost paid to AIMS for the first year was A$15.875 and that the company was now claiming a further increase to A$18m.

    “This increase is totally unacceptable and, as a result, no agreement has yet been reached on the AIMS budget for the year now under way. I think this contract was rushed into, driven by an ideological obsession with privatisation, and I think we are now paying the price for that,” he said.

    The company has a five year contract which started on 31 July 2000. It has already been fined for allowing six escapes from custody.

    A government spokesperson told PPRI that AIMS has not been penalised for alleged contract breaches identified by KPMG.

    The company has rejected the report, stating that it contains “significant errors of fact” and recommendations that are already being implemented.

AIMS Resource Management, KPMG, Department of Justice Internal Audit Branch, July 2001.

 

 

Victoria Police Contracts

    Victoria’s ministry for police and emergency services is considering the future of two contracts with Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) and Group 4.

    ACM currently receives around A$3.5m per year from Victoria Police for its contract to provide prisoner custody services at the Melbourne Custody Centre.

    But the company is claiming that, due to an increased  workload, it needs more money. The three year contract is due to expire in March 2002.

    Victoria Police also pays A$1.5m per year to Group 4 for its prisoner transport contract which expires on 29 September 2002. The original three year contract was extended.

 

Victoria: three to be publicly run

    The Government of Victoria is commissioning three new prisons, additional prison beds and significantly upgrading  a number of existing prisons. There is a four year A$334.5m budget for major redevelopment of the corrections system including “the largest prisoner rehabilitation and prison diversion programmes ever undertaken” in the state.

    The nature of any public private partnerships for the  new prisons is still  to  be decided but management will be in the hands of the state corrections service, CORE, with services such as health care likely to be contracted out.

    Companies are being asked to bid for contracts to assist the government with programme management and cost control services for infrastructure programme.

    Victoria currently has two private prisons, run by Group 4 and Australasian Correctional Management (ACM). These are currently being expanded by 34 and 68 beds respectively.

nACM, which provides health care services to  Victoria’s prisons, is negotiating an extended contract.

 

Deaths under investigation

    A death by hanging at Group 4-run Mount Gambier prison in South Australia is under investigation. It is the first death in custody reported at the prison since it opened in 1995.

    Meanwhile, at the ACM-run Arthur Gorrie Remand and Reception Centre in Brisbane, the hanging death of a remand prisoner on 28 August 2001 is also being investigated. This is the 13^th death from unnatural causes at the facility (see PPRI # 41).

 

 

 RECENT REPORTS AND ARTICLES

 

‘Repatriating’ Low wage work: the political economy of prison labour re -privatisation in the post industrial United States. Robert P. Weiss, in Criminology, Vol. 39, No.2, 2001.

Examines recent initiatives to expand the labour force participation of federal and state prisoners and privatisation’s ideological rationale and its political strategy of foreign job repatriation. Focuses on the southern United States.

 

Private Benefit from forced prison labour: Case studies on the application of ILO Convention 29, by Colin Fenwick, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations, Law School, University of Melbourne, June 2001.

This report for the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions includes studies from Australia, Cameroon, China, the Russian Federation, UK and the US.

 

Bailing Out Private Jails, by J Greene in The American Prospect, Vol 12, Issue 16, 10 September 2001.

This article deals with the current contracting strategy of the Federal Bureau of Prisons which is helping to sustain  the private prison industry in the US (see PPRI # 38).

 

Profits & Convicts by John Lorinc, in Report On Business Magazine, Globe & Mail, Canada, 28 September 2001.  Http://www.robmagazine.com/story-Prison.html

An in-depth look at the Ontario government’s prison privatisation policy, a profile of Management & Training Corporation, which opens Canada’s first privately managed  prison in October (see PPRI # 40, 38, 37, 35, 34 and 32), and current prison privatisation issues in the US.

 

Report On A Full Announced Inspection of HM Prison Blakenhurst, 22-26 January 2001, Chief Inspector of Prisons, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmipris/insrep.htm

An inspection conducted ten days before staff at this UK Detention Services Ltd-managed prison found out that the company had lost the contract to a Prison Service bid. See this site also for recent reports on privately managed Wolds and Doncaster prisons.

 

Private finance on an international scale (31 August 2001);  Asylum prison campaign hots up (3 September 2001); Criminal justice reshaped and Liverpool’s profitable prison (both 6 September 2001) all published on the Internet by BBC News Online. Http:// news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/business/2001

Part of a series of articles looking at recent developments in prison privatisation and the private finance initiative.