Queensland is to become the first public corrections authority in the world to compete for prison contracts abroad. Its targeted market will include countries in the South Pacific and South East Asia. It will also bid for contracts in other  Australian states.

Corrections Corporation of Australia, one of the authority’s potential private sector competitors, recently announced that it regarded SE Asia  as a no-go area for the company until United Nations minimum standards applied there.  Mr Stan Macionis, currently  deputy director general of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission has said that there is clearly a market in the region  as some of the ‘tiger’ economies “look at improving their correctional services.”

In 1995, the first time it was allowed to compete with the private sector, the Commission won the contract to run the new Woodford prison.  The Prison Service in England and Wales is the only other authority to have competed against the private sector, winning one of two  bids. It is not in a position to compete for contracts elsewhere

From 1 July 1997, the existing Commission’s functions will be split.  Queensland Corrections - known as QCORR - will be the operator of the state’s publicly owned prisons, with its own board and chief executive officer. It will be responsible for ten prisons, three juvenile detention centres, and two community corrections centres as well as prisoner transport and escort services. It will also be able to compete abroad.

Meanwhile, the Queensland Corrective Services Commission will continue to be the policy, standards and purchasing arm of the system. Restructuring has come about as a result of national competition policy and the recommendations of the Queensland Commission of Audit.  

 

...Arizona to export Mexican prisoners

Arizona’s department of corrections is looking for a private operator to develop,  finance, design, build and run a prison across the state border in Mexico. According to  documents sent to over 100 potential contractors, the state wants to transfer up to 1,600 Mexican male prisoners who are currently held in Arizona jails and “who have entered the US illegally, have been sentenced for non-immigration offences, and have been ordered [to be] deported to Mexico upon completion of their prison sentences.” The documents also refer to the state as exploring “a very  original and fundamental departure from existing prison privatisation projects.”

It is common in the US for a state to send its prisoners to facilities in other states. But this is the first plan to send prisoners to another country. The state governor  believes that sending prisoners back to Mexico will save taxpayers’ money. Paying for prisoners to be held in a new private prison in Mexico would be cheaper than continuing to hold them in existing facilities in Arizona. A suitable site for the prison could be found in Sonora, the Mexican state that borders Arizona. The governor also thinks the proposal is “a good solution to a growing problem.”

But critics argue that the proposal is legally flawed because prisoners’ rights granted in the US cannot be guaranteed in Mexico. There are also fears about worsening tensions between Mexican and US law enforcement agencies. In April 1997, a new federal immigration law is being implemented. Borders are being tightened and the number of patrols increased. The Immigration and Naturalisation Service claims that the new law will not cause the mass deportation of aliens.

  

Home Affairs Committee report

       In March, the cross-party House of Commons Home Affairs Committee published the report of its inquiry into the management of the Prison Service in England and Wales. Its conclusions suggest a cautious approach to the future development of the private sector. However, they also reflect the general political convergence of the government  and the Labour opposition. Labour members of the committee justified their support for further privatisation on the basis “of the evidence heard.” If  elected on 1 May 1997, it is not clear whether an incoming Labour government would adhere to the Committee’s findings or remain committed to the party’s previously stated policy of honouring existing private prison contracts but not offering any new ones.

At the press launch of the report, the Tory chairman of the Committee, Sir Ivan Lawrence, said the report is “happily unanimous” and “may cause some embarrassment to one or two members of another political party.” He also said that “we can expect the private sector to lean on the [incoming] government to expect more,” although, he added, “it is important that future policy should continue to reflect the need to minimise anxieties over the [unresolved] points of principle involved.”

The Committee’s report states:

n While we accept that contracting out is not universally welcomed, we consider that the fears hitherto expressed over the principle of contracting out - that it would mean the abdication of state responsibility for public safety and the deprivation of freedom - have not proved justified, and that the idea of privately managed prisons is undoubtedly now more generally accepted, and should be allowed to develop further.

n Although we recognise the possible benefits to the management of a contracted out prison of giving the adjudication function to the director, we do not consider that the time has yet come for us to recommend that such a step be taken.

n While we accept the non-release of commercially confidential information in principle, we take the view that commercial confidentiality should be interpreted very narrowly and must not be used as an excuse not to publish information about performance which is necessary for proper and full comparisons to be made between public and private sector operations.

n After some early teething troubles, privately managed prisons are now operating well in terms of the quality of performance and the regimes they run; and their performance overall has been at least as good as that of publicly run prisons and in some areas better.

n  It is possible to conclude from all the evidence received and from our discussions that, at least in their early years' privately managed prisons have delivered savings to the Prison Service; it is, in our view, premature to be specific about the extent of such savings. It is arguable that these results could have been achieved within the public sector if the Prison Service had been managed more efficiently.

n The scale of the savings or costs in DCMF [design, construct, manage, finance] contracts makes it therefore all the more important that correct assessments are made in the award of these contracts as to the costs and benefits....We welcome the inquiry by the National Audit Office into the DCMF contracts and we are sure that our successor Committee in the next Parliament will await its conclusions with keen interest.

n We have no doubt that the presence of private sector competition has provided a valuable and effective spur to the public sector to increase its efficiency.

n There needs to be a continued expansion of the private sector if the full benefits of competition are to be obtained, though this should arise as a consequence of proven achievement and not as a result of the attainment of some artificial target.

n If the full benefits of competition are to be realised for more prisons then in due course a limited market testing programme should be resumed; we are encouraged to this conclusion by the success of the market testing process at Manchester (Strangeways). However, given the current degree of strain in existing establishments and in the system as a whole, this should be a medium term aspiration rather than an immediate option.

n While no absolute bar should be placed on the management of high risk prisons by private companies, progress towards this should follow a cautious, step by step, approach.

Second Report, Session 1996-97, HC 57-I. Home Affairs Committee, The Management Of the Prison Service (Public and Private), Volume 1, 19 March 1997.

 

UNITED STATES

 

CCA executives paid over $1m

       Corrections Corporation of America’s annual general meeting on 13 May 1997 will learn that the company’s  five executive officers will, between them, have earned over $1.06m in salaries and other compensation for the year ended 31 December 1996. However, they did not receive cash bonuses tied to quarterly earnings  since these targets were not met. Top earner was chairman of the board Doctor R.Crants, whose basic salary was increased from $313,461 in 1995 to $344,230 in 1996.

n The company is to change its state of incorporation from Delaware to Tennessee, its headquarters and principal place of  business. The move is partly designed to protect the company from “certain takeover attempts”.  CCA changed its incorporation from Tennessee to Delaware in the 1986 to take advantage of its then more favourable corporate legislation.

n The Washington DC administration has withdrawn a proposed $172m contract with Corrections  Corporation of America after the DC financial control board cited a lack of competition, the alleged appearance of impropriety, rising annual fees and a $142.7m cancellation fee. The contract will have to be retendered with a formal bidding process.

The contract involved transferring 1,500 DC prisoners to a CCA facility in Youngstown, Ohio. The DC control board was concerned about the process - there were no competitive bids invited by the government. The company apparently submitted its unsolicited proposal through a broker. The corrections department carried out a market survey to find out if other companies could come up with  1,000 prisoner places for immediate occupancy. CCA was given 90 days to locate sufficient beds while other companies were only granted one day.

Awarding a contract based upon an unsolicited bid was a violation of city contracting rules.

The board also questioned the “unreasonably high” cancellation fee contained in the proposed contract, saying that since CCA had previously decided to build the facility in Ohio, the government should not be liable for the company’s construction costs if the contract was cancelled. In the board’s view, the alleged appearance of impropriety in the deal arose as it came so swiftly after a much less generous contract between the government and CCA to run the DC Correctional Treatment Facility.

CCA is confident that it is still the only company in the US with the necessary  bed spaces available.

n  French services conglomerate Sodexho, which owns around 17 per cent of CCA, has bought shares in UK Detention Services Ltd. UKDS is owned by  CCA and runs Blakenhurst prison near Birmingham.

 

YSI loses out

       Youth Services International Inc. (YSI) has had two planning applications for  new youth detention facilities in New York State refused after community organisations campaigned against the company’s proposals. As well as standard lobbying, the communities tried a new  tactic. They contacted Wall Street  analysts who monitor the stocks of private corrections companies and warned them that profit forecasts  dependent upon the successful outcome of YSI’s plans in New York might be doubtful.

n Another company’s plan to build a 1,000 place private prison in Wiggins,  Colorado split the community 150-146 in favour when it came to the vote in February. Following the vote, however, local farmers organised a 50 vehicle ‘tractorcade’ through the town in opposition to the plan.

 

On the Rebound

     Rebound Program of Denver, a company  that runs juvenile rehabilitation programmes, has had a contract in Florida cancelled due to inadequate performance. The contract, which had been running for 18 months, was terminated on 20 March 1997.  In December 1995, at another Rebound-run facility in Brush, Colorado, a report by the University of Illinois at Chicago found “a consistent and disturbing pattern of violence, sexual abuse, clinical malpractice and administrative incompetence at every level of the programme.” At the time, Colorado’s corrections division admitted that it had to lower its expectations of contract performance as it was dependent on the company to provide places.

 

Bobby Ross Group sued

     The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Denver, Colorado has filed a class action lawsuit against private prison operator, the Bobby Ross Group. The action is on behalf of  several hundred sentenced prisoners from Colorado and  charges that, at the company’s Karnes City facility in Texas - where Colorado has sent the prisoners - they suffer overcrowding, insanitary conditions and delayed access to dental and medical care. The ACLU is also alleging that the company’s staff are inexperienced and inadequately trained. The lawsuit has been filed at the federal district court in Denver and the company is considering its response.

 

Wackenhut aspires

     Wackenhut Corrections Corp. continues to talk up its global aspirations. A company  advertisement in a recent issue of Privatization Watch, the newsletter of right wing think-tank the Reason Foundation, has the legend ‘complete correctional services throughout the world’ featured under its name. So far,  Wackenhut Corrections Corp.  still only has contracts in the US,  Puerto Rico, UK, Canada and Australia.

Meanwhile, back in its home state of Florida, Wackenhut is involved in  a proposal to privatise all of the state’s publicly run prisons. A Wackenhut consultant has forwarded plans to the speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives whereby the prisons would be taken over one geographical region at a time. Other companies would also be involved.

 n According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, during the 1995-96 election period Wackenhut and CCA together gave around $150,000 in federal and state political contributions. Most of the money went to  Republicans but some went to Democrats.

 

 

JAPAN

 

Just gathering information

      The Japanese Ministry of Justice is not considering private prisons at this time as Japan’s  legal system is  very different to that of the US, UK or Australia. But it is gathering information about the operation of private prisons in these countries and is particularly interested in the agency  status of the Prison Service in England and Wales.

Death at private women’s prison

        A prisoner  died at Victoria’s Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre in March. She was the first to die in a Victoria prison for over three years The prison opened in August 1996 and is run by Corrections Corporation of Australia. The company was aware that the woman had a history of medical problems and that she had previously attempted suicide. According to the Federation of Community Legal Centres (FCLC), prisoners  have made complaints about the standard of health care provision to the state Health Services Commissioner. They allege slow response to emergencies, over-prescription of sedatives and other tranquillisers and a high turnover of medical staff  affecting continuity of care.

According to the FCLC, the company’s contract allows one prisoner death per year before it is penalised. However, the lawyers’ group is calling for the contract to be terminated and the prison taken over by the state.

 

LOBBY WATCH

 

National Rifle Association

        Policies such as tougher sentencing measures,  more incarceration and more prisons do not come out of thin air. In the US, one of the key organisations promoting such policies is the National Rifle Association (NRA). Perhaps best known for its stance on the constitutional right of people to arm themselves, this 120 year old organisation has also thrown its considerable muscle - over three million members - into influencing criminal justice policy.

The NRA describes itself as a “vast and complex organisation” and has an annual budget of some $80m. Over 300 paid and unpaid staff work at its headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia and it has paid lobbyists in all 50 states. In November 1996, the NRA was approved as a United Nations non-governmental organisation (NGO).

In 1991, recognising “the devastating toll violent crime has taken on America and the freedoms of  law abiding firearms owners” it set up NRA Crimestrike as a separate venture to lobby in state legislatures and Congress. Through Crimestrike, the NRA campaigns for: mandatory sentencing; truth-in-sentencing; three strikes  - you’re out; trying juveniles as adults; limiting pre-trial detention; increased prison capacity; less luxurious prison conditions; blocking of early parole for murderers; victims’ rights and the death penalty.

It also produces ‘Crimewatch Weekly’ a fax bulletin for criminal justice opinion and policy makers. The 11 March 1997 issue, for example, berates a Justice Policy Institute study which claims that states without ‘three strikes and you’re out’ laws had more dramatic declines in both violent and non-violent crimes in 1993 and 1994. “We haven’t seen the study, but it puzzles us that anti-incarceration groups continue to attempt to convince the public that our prisons are full of  non-violent offenders, and that not locking up criminals can reduce crime,” said Crimestrike’s director Elizabeth Swazey. “These are preposterous propositions.”

The NRA argues, for example, that of the 5.1m criminals under correctional supervision in the US, 71 per cent are not in prison. According to the NRA, “failure to incarcerate is so often based on lack of prison capacity, officials have coined the expression ‘capacity-based sentence’ meaning the sentence and its length is governed by prison capacity, not severity of crime.” Crimestrike has supported increased prison capacity in Mississippi, Texas, Virginia and the US Congress.

In 1993, the NRA backed the first ‘three strikes’ policy in the US in Washington state, giving the Washington Citizens for Justice $50,000 to promote the legislation. The NRA later supported similar campaigns in Virginia and California. Also in Virginia, and in Mississippi, the NRA claims it was instrumental in securing truth-in-sentencing policies.

The NRA believes that the US can build its  way out of the crime problem. Its  Crimestrike Factsheet ‘Prison In America - Answers To The Top Ten Questions’ quotes a 1990 National Institute of Justice study which concludes that “doubling the nation’s corrections capacity ... would require less than a two per cent increase in overall government spending.”  The organisation  lobbied hard for the federal Crime Bill, which made billions of dollars available for prison building. In Texas, now the private prison capital of the US, the NRA’s campaign led to 76,000 additional prison places being built in two years. The NRA regards itself as “an American family committed to safety, responsibility and freedom ... we will do what we must and go where we must to protect freedom.”