Although some twelve companies operate adult facilities in the U.S., two dominate the market: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC). CCA has approximately 56 per cent and WCC 22 per cent of contracts respectively. Management and Training Corporation (MTC) has seven per cent; Cornell Companies and Correctional Services Corporation both have approximately six per cent.

Along with solving the problem of prison overcrowding in the public system, proponents argue that privatisation leads to cost savings. In August 1998, a spokesperson for the Ontario government said that: �The government has some financial targets, and additional savings may be achievable by involving the private sector in operation...�5

But the most recent studies show that claims for substantial cost savings still cannot be substantiated. The industry�s claims for savings have often been based upon flawed or even non-existent comparators and/or have excluded hidden costs from the equation.

A 1999 Corrections Corporation of America advertisement included the claim that �at least 12 separate independent studies show that privately managed prisons can save taxpayers up to 28 per cent on the cost of incarceration.�

But according to Professor Michael Jacobson of City University, New York and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, none of the studies currently being quoted accurately reflect per diem rates. Speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School�s prison privatisation workshop in January 1999, he said that: per diem rates are often based on projected costs and they need to be determined at the end of a fiscal year as a result of reviewing actual expenditures. When costing a new facility, companies calculate their labour costs on the basis that the majority of employees begin at the lowest end of the pay scale. But when comparing labour costs with the public sector, they use the higher salary scales and benefit packages enjoyed by more experienced staff; �cherry picking� the least difficult prisoners reduces the costs of private prisons while increasing public sector costs.

At the same event, Professor David Schultz, of the University of Minnesota, supported the findings of the Abt Report (see below), agreeing that virtually all studies being offered by the private sector as proof of cost savings and/or increased quality of services are flawed or suspect. He said that costs routinely ignored include: responses to unusual incidents, assaults, medical costs, workers� compensation, disability insurance, back filing, court costs, future costs of incarceration, monitoring and transportation.6

In September 1999, Dennis Cunningham of Oklahoma�s Department of Corrections, presented comparative cost data for public and for profit prisons in Oklahoma at the 4th Annual Privatising Correctional Facilities Conference. The analysis showed that, in 1999, the average cost of keeping a prisoner in a publicly run prison in the state ($41.57 per day) was less than the cost of housing a prisoner at any of the for profit prisons in the state.7

The Pratt and Maahs Study: private prisons for adult males in the U.S. are �no more cost effective than public prisons� a study of 33 cost effectiveness evaluations of public versus private facilities has revealed. Other institutional characteristics such as the economy of scale, the security level and age of the facility were the strongest predictors of a prison�s per diem cost.8

The Abt Report: In 1997 Congress mandated the Attorney General to �conduct a study of correctional privatisation, including a review of relevant research and legal issues, and comparative analysis of the cost effectiveness and feasibility of private sector and Federal, State and local governmental operation of prisons and corrections programmes at all security levels...�

The National Institute of Corrections issued a co-operative agreement to Abt Associates to carry out the study. The 200-page report was published in October 1998. The report�s main conclusions were:

 �Some proponents [of privatisation] argue that evidence exists of substantial savings as a result of privatisation. Indeed, one asserts that a typical American jurisdiction can obtain economies in the range of 10-20 per cent. Our analysis of the existing data does not support such an optimistic view.�

�Few studies have been conducted to compare the relative performance of privately and publicly operated prisons. Most are affected by a variety of methodological problems ... given these shortcomings and the paucity of systematic comparisons, one cannot conclude whether the performance of privately managed prisons is different from or similar to public operated ones.�

�With respect to public safety and inmate programming, the available data do not support definite conclusions.�

�The available surveys of either privately or publicly operated facilities do not provide the information needed to compare the quality of such programs or the extent of prisoners� engagement with them.�

�Bureau of Prisons officials assert that the private sector�s experience in operating higher security prisons or managing inmate populations with higher security needs is too limited to warrant the privatisation of such facilities within the federal system.�

In their summary, the authors also stated that: �It appears to us ... the private sector�s approach to corrections has been to build upon correctional practices that already exist in well-run public prisons. The private sector does not appear to argue that they run prisons in a dramatically different way based on different philosophies of managing inmates. However, there has been little attention given to documenting the private sector approach to innovation or to the impact of competition from the private sector on the practices of the public sector.�

In submitting the report to the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Acting Assistant Attorney General described the Abt Report as a �careful and thorough review of prior research� and �consistent with a Government Accounting Office report published in 1996.�10

Another argument for privatisation is that the private sector�s efficiencies and improved regimes deliver reduced reoffending. This, too, is unproven.

Only one study in the U.S. has been published. This study was carried out by researchers from the University of Florida�s Private Corrections Project (see below) and was partly funded by the Florida Correctional Privatisation Commission.

The study looked at 396 prisoners from two private prisons and prisons operated by the Florida Department of Corrections. The authors concluded that �the research findings presented here provide unequivocal empirical evidence of reduced recidivism (and therefore heightened public safety and financial benefits) among releasees from private facilities. The Florida Correctional Privatisation Commission and its independent contractors at Bay and Moore Haven deserve credit for their success. Clearly, of course, more research must be done...�11

But Professor Mike Maguire of the School of Social and Administrative Studies at the University of Wales, Cardiff, reviewed the study and suggested caution about its findings.

In his view, the study was professional, carefully carried out and quite convincing. But not totally so. For example, some of the language used by the authors such as �unequivocal proof� is an exaggeration. Also, they matched two groups of prisoner by type of offence, age, race and previous convictions. According to Professor Maguire, these are all proper criteria known to influence the chances of reconviction. But a possible flaw in the exercise is that the authors said nothing about the length of sentence imposed for the current offence.

�It may be that the authors have this data but they do not refer to it in the paper. In other words, are those in public prisons serving sentences of different lengths than those in private prisons? If they are, then this may explain the differences in reconviction rates which are observed,� he says.

There is also a problem in the section on programme completion. �Are those that drop out in any case more likely to reoffend? Programme completion may be correlated with reduced recidivism but may not cause it. Both could be caused by the prisoner independently deciding that s/he wants to give up on crime.�12

There is more attention being paid to the private corrections industry in the U.S. than at any time in the last 15 years. Courts, legislators, citizens groups, prisoners and their families, organised labour, professional organisations, academia and the media are all expressing concerns.

This situation has arisen due to a number of high profile incidents and ongoing systemic failures in privately run prisons. Set out below is not an exhaustive list of recent incidents and problems but it should be enough to question whether these companies ought to be invited to operate in Ontario.

It is important to point out that the incidents and problems set out below all occurred after companies convinced the respective contracting authorities that they could perform well enough to win and operate a contract.

These incidents, and the heightened scrutiny on the industry generally, have caused the value of stock in both of the two leading U.S. companies, Prison Realty Trust (CCA) and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, to plummet by around 80 per cent and 70 per cent respectively in the last year.

Announcing Wackenhut Corrections Corporation�s results for the financial year 1999 in February 2000, Dr. George C. Zoley, vice chairman and chief executive officer mentioned that �operational difficulties at several U.S. facilities had a negative impact on income in the fourth quarter...�13

Meanwhile, around the same time, The Tennessean set out the current financial difficulties facing Corrections Corporation of America and Prison Realty Trust. The newspaper reported that: Prison Realty Trust sprovided a bleak financial picture, as the Nashville-based owner of prisons detailed events that led to its financing deal with an investors group last December. The company has broken terms of its loan agreements with creditors. Auditors are concerned whether it can continue as a going concern, according to a Prison Realty filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 31, 2000, Prison Realty Trust�s shares hit an all-time low - down 80 per cent from a year ago - after reporting a $62m loss for financial year 1999. Operating company Corrections Corporation of America lost $203m. According to the Tennessean, both companies have broken terms of their credit agreements with lenders, and CCA has failed to make payments due to Prison Realty Trust from which it leases prisons.13a

The newspaper reported analyst Jerry Doctrow of Legg Mason Wood Walker as saying, �We assume bankruptcy filing is the most likely stand alone alternative if additional equity cannot be raised by midyear 2000.�

According to Prison Realty�s latest SEC filing, the company�s chief financial officer will resign on 30 June 2000; as at 15 March 2000, systemwide occupancy for all prisons managed by CCA for Prison Realty and others was just 86.5 per cent.

In response, Moody�s Investor service downgraded Prison Realty�s debt ratings and these remain under review for further downgrading. According to Yahoo, �these rating actions reflect uncertainty� regarding the company�s current financial restructuring proposals.�13b

Prison Realty�s filing was required to give stockholders more details on the company�s planned restructuring in which it plans to combine with CCA into a single company. It also plans to give up its structure as a real estate investment Trust. The restructuring reverses a merger deal a year ago under which CCA, the prison operator from which Prison Realty was created in 1997, became a private company owned partly by Prison Realty executives.

The resulting capital and management structure and a downturn in investors� interest in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) led to financial and other woes that led the company to pursue an investor last year and ultimately the restructuring. Under a related financing deal, included in the Dec. 27 restructuring announcement, an investors group that includes The Blackstone Group and Fortress Investment Group of New York and Bank of America has agreed to pump up to $350 million into the financially strapped company.

The financing deal has been criticised by several analysts and stockholders who contend it cedes too much control to the group. The investors could receive an almost 40% stake in a restructured company, which is expected to carry the Corrections Corporation of America name. A stockholders� vote has been set for May. Prison Realty needs a two-third approval before it can proceed with the restructuring. In its filing, Prison Realty said actions such as the restructuring violate certain terms of its agreement with lenders.

Meanwhile, Corrections Corporation of America, the private prisons operator from which it was created, continues to face difficulties amid problems such as lower occupancy at Prison Realty-owned jails it operates, according to the SEC filing. Last December, with a looming year-end deadline to come up with an investment required under its credit agreement, Prison Realty said it agreed to terms of the infusion of up to $350 million expected to be received from the investors group.

Initially, the company said it received four proposals after contacting 47 potential investors or buyers as it sought an investor to funnel $100 million into Prison Realty and another $25 million to its CCA unit to meets terms of the bank credit agreement.

In November, the company said it agreed with the investors group on a $250 million investment that would involve a purchase of company preferred stock that could be converted into common stock at a higher price than the final deal agreed upon in December. That investment would have been less dilutive to Prison Realty stockholders and would have allowed the company to keep its status as a Real Estate Investment Trust at least for 1999.

But the terms of that and a second deal fell apart after the company said it reported third-quarter results that were �significantly below� expectations and later expected yet-to-be-reported fourth-quarter results to be below projections.

Given the increase in concerns about its financial situation, the investors group told Prison Realty it would only proceed with the investment if the conversion price on the preferred stock and warrants were lowered to $6.50 and $7.50, respectively, the company said. Prison Realty accepted those terms, according to its filing.14

At CCA�s medium security North East Ohio Correctional Center (NOCC) there was an intake of high security prisoners, two murders and 17 stabbings. On 25 July 1998, six prisoners escaped. After five days of hearings, interviews with 51 witnesses and an unannounced tour of the facility Ohio�s Correctional Institution Inspection Committee published its report.

The Committee�s preliminary findings included: NOCC�s history of violence was directly attributable to CCA �improperly housing and co-mingling prisoners who comprised at least three different levels of security classification�; the District of Columbia Department of Corrections was �responsible for creating this improper and volatile mix of prisoners� and CCA staff were �operating in the dark�; �six inmates were able to escape ... in broad daylight without prompt attention� despite CCA�s Internet Web Site assuring investors that: �typical security features for a medium security institution include electronic video surveillance and exit/entrance controls, touch sensitive fencing topped with multiple strands of coiled razor wire, armed officers on a 24-hour-a-day patrol around the facility�s perimeter, a highly trained emergency response (SORT) team and an in house armoury;� contributory factors to the escape included: the suspicion that prison staff may have provided prisoners with a wire cutting tool; inadequate supervision of prisoners in the recreation yard; the misalignment of a high-tech motion detector; inadequate fence alarm testing procedures; and the prisoners� [but not CCA staff] awareness of an eight foot �blind spot� in the inner perimeter fence.

The Committee recommend to the Ohio General Assembly that for existing and future contracts: the Attorney General must review any contract and no private prison should �receive or house any out-of-state prisoner without first obtaining a written opinion ... acknowledging statutory conformity and compliance�; and private prisons be prohibited from accepting any out-of-state prisoner classified higher than medium security.

The Committee also suggest that contractors must: use a prisoner classification system identical to Ohio�s; meet Ohio state prison standards; pay all costs of the State conducting annual security, programme and prisoner classification audits; show proof of insurance; not accept prisoners with a record of violence; not employ or promote any employee who has not been trained to the Ohio curriculum; and forego tax relief for financing, constructing or operating a prison.15

The widow of Bryson Chisley, a prisoner murdered at CCA�s Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Ohio on 11 March 1998, has sued the company for $110m. Ms India Chisley alleges that CCA staff were not adequately trained and did not protect her husband. The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, also claims that the District wrongly sent maximum security prisoners to CCA�s medium security prison. Mr. Chisley, a medium security prisoner, was killed by a maximum security prisoner.16

In 1998, the Oklahoma Corrections Board terminated a contract with Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) following a dispute over the daily rate the State paid for 700 prisoners at the company�s North Fork Correctional Center. The Board felt that it had overpaid some $858,000 a year. The State Governor, Frank Keating, asked the Board to reconsider its decision. But some Board members found the Governor�s intervention inappropriate since CCA�s president Doctor C. Crants and Patrick McCoy, who acts as CCA�s liaison with the State, each contributed $5,000 to Mr. Keating�s 1997 election campaign.17

Jesse Baker, a former CCA prison officer at the company�s Cimarron Correctional Facility in Oklahoma, was found guilty in October 1998 of accepting a $140 bribe from a prisoner on 18 June 1998. Baker, who worked at the facility for nine months, was given a five-year deferred sentence as he was co-operating with an ongoing investigation at the prison. Baker admitted accepting a cash bribe to provide currency loans, picking up substances brought in by visitors on behalf of prisoners, turning his back on prisoners� activities and hiding contraband.18

CCA terminated its contract with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for the pre-release centre in Liberty County. The company also did not renew two other contracts as they expired. This followed CCA�s loss of one contract in a rebidding process year and the TDCJ introducing new performance guidelines and reducing the profit element of new contracts.19

Civigenics Inc of Massachusetts had its contract to run a 100 bed prison for Teller County, Colorado, terminated on 15 February 1999. Two suicides, an escape and general dissatisfaction with the company�s operation over the previous two years led county officials to end the contract, despite having signed a five year contract extension last May.20

Georgia�s first privately financed, designed, built and run prison was criticised by state officials just two months after opening. The medium security D. Ray James State Prison in Charlton County run by Cornell Corrections Inc. opened in October 1998. In November and December inspectors found lax security and filthy conditions. They reported inadequate medical facilities, non-certified personnel patrolling the perimeter, security lapses, poor record keeping and inadequate tracking of prisoners. On some days, staff had no idea how many prisoners were supposed to be in the areas they were supervising. The company attributed the problems to taking in prisoners too quickly and has assured the Department of Corrections that the facility will be run like a state prison. Cornell was receiving $45.13 per prisoner per day, some $13 less than the state spent at its own prisons.21

Doctor C. Crants, Chairman and Chief Executive of Corrections Corporation of America donated $4,000 to Wisconsin politicians over a period when the state was investigating alleged abuse of its prisoners held at a company facility in Tennessee. The donations were made between September and December 1998. The state Governor, Tommy Thompson, received $2,500 in September 1998. Republican Scott Walker received $500 in mid-October, three weeks before he was selected as a member of the CCA facility inspection team. Mr. Walker was also recently appointed Chairman of Wisconsin�s Assembly Corrections Committee. He is now sponsoring legislation that would let the state contract with private prisons in Wisconsin. Dean Kaufert, another Republican member of the inspection team, also received a donation.

On 5 August 1998, a guard at CCA�s Whiteville Correctional Facility, Tennessee was assaulted and seriously injured by prisoners from Wisconsin. Nine prisoners face criminal charges arising from the assault. But prisoners alleged that, in retaliation, they were beaten, shocked with stun guns and sexually abused by CCA staff investigating the assault.

One prisoner told his lawyer that, several days after the 5 August incident, at least eight individuals dressed in black took him to a room, stripped him, kicked him in the ribs and shocked his penis with a stun gun. He claimed that those who allegedly assaulted him were trying to find out who attacked the CCA guard. Another prisoner told Wisconsin legislators that, twice on 11 August, he and a cell mate were handcuffed, beaten, sprayed with mace and shocked with a stun gun and stun shield by members of a tactical squad. He also alleged that he was stripped, forced to kneel on the floor and while bent over his bunk a guard sexually assaulted him with a shampoo bottle, shocked him with a stun gun and hit him on the head.

The company denied the prisoners� allegations and assured the state that nothing untoward had taken place. A visit by state officials to the prison on 19 August 1998 found no evidence of abuse. But the state subsequently decided to carry out a further investigation and, in November 1998, a five member legislative team found that: between 15 and 20 prisoners were abused; the prisoners were abused by members of CCA�s SORT [riot control] teams brought in from outside the prison; at least two prisoners had injuries inflicted by electric shocks from stun shields or guns; prisoners were banged against walls; the abuse took place over a four day period; seven CCA staff, including the chief of security, were fired after the incidents; and prison officials had withheld information about the incidents from state officials.

Michael Sullivan, Wisconsin�s Corrections Secretary, had previously been convinced that no abuse had taken place. But he requested that the Memphis FBI fully investigate what he described as �the cover up of these incidents� by CCA employees.

Susan Hart, a spokesperson for CCA, said that the company has �a zero tolerance policy for anything inappropriate inside an institution, including the failure to report and including inappropriate use of force, and that policy is certainly indicated by our behaviour to dismiss those employees who did not appropriately follow policy.�

Gaston Fairey, a lawyer in Columbia, South Carolina represents 26 prisoners and is preparing to file lawsuits on their behalf. Another lawyer in Milwaukee is representing three other prisoners.

Despite the inspection team�s findings, the four Republican representatives concluded that there was no reason to stop sending Wisconsin prisoners to CCA prisons. In December 1998, three Finance Committee members who received donations from Crants voted in favour of sending an additional 357 Wisconsin prisoners to a CCA facility in Sayre, Oklahoma.

CCA�s Susan Hart told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that there was no connection between Crants�s giving and the problems at the Tennessee facility. Scott Walker said that �quite frankly I was surprised that if he [Crants] was going to give, he hadn�t given earlier. I�ve been a private prison advocate for some time.�22

Alaskan prisoners, many of whom are Native Americans, were allegedly being mistreated at CCA�s Central Arizona Detention Center in Florence, Arizona, according to a monitor appointed by Alaska�s Superior Court. The monitor�s report, published in April 1999, found: food problems were severe and have continued to be so for several years; telephone conversations with lawyers were being recorded, in violation of a court order; the prison�s telephone system and the phone contractor�s billings procedures were so complex that it was difficult for prisoners to make collect calls to their families. �The prisoners who are suffering the most are ... those from rural areas, especially Native Alaskans.�

The staff�s ability to respond to serious emergencies was a concern - in one incident recorded on videotape, staff used broom handles, which are non-approved non-lethal weapons, to remove prisoners from cells. Pepper spray was also used inappropriately. A videotape showed a subdued and restrained prisoner being pepper sprayed by a CCA guard.

The monitor, Mr. John Hagar, a San Francisco based lawyer, revisited the facility in February 1999. He stated that conditions had improved since his last inspection a year ago. There was now a system in place that separated stronger, more organised prisoners from weaker prisoners. Until that was implemented, there was an increasing trend in demonstrations and prisoner-upon-prisoner assaults. But he also noted in a separate, undisclosed report that the FBI was investigating alleged use of excessive force.

Mr. Scott Taylor, a prisoners� rights lawyer, told the Anchorage Daily News that the problems in Arizona were consistent with what one might expect to find in a privately operated prison. �From what I have seen, I can�t really criticise CCA too much for Central Arizona. They have such a rapid turnover with staff. It is hard to keep good, trained staff on site. And new poorly trained guards pose a danger to inmates.�

On 4 May 1999, Alaska�s Department of Corrections filed a rebuttal of Mr. Hagar�s criticisms in the Superior Court, arguing that he had gone beyond his remit and that his report consisted �primarily of [his] conclusions and opinions.�23

Tennessee�s Department of Corrections served a written warning that the operators of Hardeman County Correctional Facility failed to report two serious incidents to the state�s Assistant Commissioner of Operations. The Facility is run under contract by Corrections Corporation of America. On 17 January 1999, several prisoners assaulted a guard who required facial surgery as a result. Eight prisoners were segregated for their involvement. On 21 January 1999, an incident involving construction workers and prison maintenance staff led to three injured people requiring hospital treatment. Neither incident was reported to the state despite a contract requirement to do so.

A letter dated 11 February 1999 from Tennessee Corrections Commissioner Donald Campbell to the Hardeman County Correctional Facilities Corporation states: �The above described policy violations constitute breaches of Hardeman County�s obligations under the contract ... As corrective action, within ten days, please forward ... a full report on these incidents and any responsive action taken. In addition, please see that incident reports are entered in accordance with policy. Please be advised that ... any future breaches of this nature will be considered successive and repetitive, and may result in the assessment of liquidated damages without notice and an opportunity to cure.�24

A riot at the Correctional Services Corporation (CSC)-run Crowley County Correctional Facility at Olney Springs, Colorado on 5 March 1999 required public sector riot control teams from four states to help regain control of the prison. During the incident, in which prisoners flooded cell blocks and caused some $10,000 worth of damage, one prison guard suffered a fractured jaw and four prisoners were injured by rubber bullets fired by the riot control teams. Five hundred prisoners in two cell blocks were subdued by CSC guards using OC spray while awaiting reinforcements to arrive.

According to a Colorado Department of Corrections �after action� report, the air in the cell blocks remained �saturated ... throughout recovery operations.� It also noted that the �indications are [that] the [CSC] staff were not as well trained as they could have been.� Since the riot, between 20 and 25 per cent of the 260 staff, including the deputy warden, have left. An investigation into the riot has recommended that CSC and Dominion Correctional Properties, the facility�s builder and owner, make 29 improvements to procedures, training, equipment and design. CSC is to be charged for the cost of deploying 56 state riot control officers. This was the second major disturbance at the 1,200 bed facility since it opened in October 1998. Within a month of opening, there was a two day lockdown and troublesome prisoners were transferred. Two CSC staff were fired and three others resigned as a result of the incident. At the time, the facility�s warden told the Denver Post that roughly 70 per cent of his staff had no previous experience, although they underwent four weeks� training.25

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had to file a lawsuit against Wackenhut Corrections Corporation in Florida to compel the company to release results from internal investigations, evaluations, personnel files, warden memos and other records from South Bay Correctional Facility. The lawsuit alleged also that Wackenhut was trying to cover up records of sexual harassment, abuse of prisoners and other allegations at the Facility by ignoring two written requests for the records. The ACLU became concerned about South Bay after it received several complaints from prisoners.26

Wackenhut Corrections Corporation has lost a $12m per year contract to run the 1,033 bed Travis County Community Justice Center at Austin. The company said that it had withdrawn by mutual agreement. But State officials say that they cancelled the contract.

During the last two years, the company had been fined a record $625,000. Staff shortages, described as �chronic� led to required rehabilitation programmes not being provided. In order to attract staff, Wackenhut twice raised starting pay to $8.50 per hour. But this was still less than city and county correctional staff were paid. There were also allegations that guards were having sex with prisoners (see below).

The contract was scheduled to end on 3 January 2000. But on 1 November 1999, the State sent in 130 of its own officials to take over security and food service operations with a full takeover planned for 8 November. The State had contracted with Travis County to operate the Travis County Community Justice Center. The county had, in turn, contracted with Wackenhut Corrections Corporation to operate the facility. The State has now hired 56 Wackenhut officers and they will be retrained.

Travis County prosecutors and sheriff�s staff are investigating complaints of physical and sexual mistreatment of prisoners at the Travis County Community Justice Center. As part of a grand jury inquiry, subpoenas have been filed for the records on 21 current and former staff and 28 prisoners in connection with these complaints. In the meantime, all female prisoners have been transferred to state run facilities.

A woman who alleges that she was raped while serving a sentence at Travis County filed a lawsuit against two staff and the company on 20 October 1999.

Demetrious Redmond, a former Wackenhut correctional officer at the Travis County facility, also filed a lawsuit on 27 July 1999 claiming $3.5m damages in which he alleges that a supervisor ordered that a videotape be erased. The tape showed a handcuffed prisoner lying on the floor being restrained by a guard using a knee on the back of the prisoner�s neck. The prisoner eventually lost consciousness. Mr. Redmond also alleges that the supervisor ordered a number of correctional officers who witnessed the incident to change their accounts.

Former Travis County prisoner James Prater filed a lawsuit against Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on 2 August 1999. Following a beating by gang members in December 1998, Mr. Prater is alleging that he was denied adequate medical attention.27

Also in Texas, Robert Moreno, a former Wackenhut Corrections Corporation lieutenant at the company�s Lockhart facility, has been sentenced to five years� probation for improper sexual activity with a person in custody. The sexual activity allegedly occurred several times with a female prisoner over a four month period. According to the federal lawsuit filed in July 1998, Wackenhut allegedly took no action against the correctional officer over the repeated incidents. He eventually resigned after being implicated in another sexual harassment case.28

Correctional officers employed at the Cornell Companies Inc.�s Great Plains Correctional Facility at Hinton, Oklahoma, are being investigated by the Department of Corrections for alleged drug dealing. On 6 July 1999, a maintenance employee was arrested for allegedly bringing 1.2 pounds of marijuana in. Officers have also been accused of taking payments from prisoners to allow sex during visits. On 9 July 1999, four staff were placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation. Three have since resigned but the fourth has resumed duties.29

Colorado Department of Corrections is investigating allegations that between five and 15 correctional officers at Corrections Corporation of America�s Kit Carson Correctional Facility engaged in drug trafficking, sexual misconduct and brutality. On 4 August 1999, the warden was placed on administrative leave. So far, one correctional officer has been charged with bringing contraband into the prison.

�We�re talking about multiple allegations involving multiple people,� said a spokesperson for the Department of Corrections. She added that �a number� of the 200 staff had quit or been fired.

One former corrections officer, Shanna Turpin, 29, has been charged with introducing contraband into the prison. It is also alleged that she carried on a sexual relationship with a prisoner while she worked at the prison between 12 January and 21 May 1999. Tasha Moore, another officer formerly employed at the Facility had a criminal record for first-degree trespassing in 1995, but this was only discovered after she left CCA�s employ.

The 647- bed prison opened in November 1998. The State�s investigation was launched in July 1999. The prison is now so short-staffed that CCA is offering guards $100 bonuses if they recruit friends and family for jobs and a further $100 if the new recruit stays for three months. State monitors are spending two to three days per week at the prison.30

Four deaths at Wackenhut prisons in New Mexico since December 1998 prompted an investigation into the State�s prison system.31 Ralph Garcia, a Wackenhut Corrections Corporation correctional officer, was killed on 31 August 1999 during a four-hour riot by prisoners at the company�s Guadalupe County Correctional Facility. Three prisoners have also been killed at this and the Lea County facility in Hobbs. During the 31 August incident, prisoners caused damage to one third of the facility.32

A riot by 400 prisoners at Wackenhut Corrections Corp�s 1,057 bed Lea County Correctional Facility, Hobbs, New Mexico left 13 guards - including two state employees - and one prisoner injured on 6 April 1999. Four of the guards have returned to work, but fifteen have resigned since the incident. Hundreds of state and local corrections and law enforcement officers from around New Mexico responded to the riot. Wackenhut�s contract stipulates that it has to reimburse the state for the cost of such assistance.

The facility opened in May 1998 and has suffered a series of incidents, including: in August 1998, Wackenhut disciplined guards for allegedly kicking a handcuffed prisoner in the groin; in January 1999, Wackenhut disciplined six staff for allegedly conspiring to cover up an incident on 21 December 1998 in which a prisoner was kicked in the head while restrained. Two guards were fired, one was suspended, two supervisors were forced to resign and a third was demoted.

A recent state commissioned study into levels of violence at public and private prisons found that Hobbs had the highest number of injuries that had to be treated away from the facility. A trade union representing guards at the facility has filed a formal grievance about unsafe work conditions and other issues. Guards have to work double shifts, which they claim is causing stress.33

� The family of slain prison guard Ralph Garcia alleges that negligence on the part of officials responsible for the private prison in Santa Rosa resulted in his death. Garcia�s wife filed a wrongful death lawsuit 10 February 2000 in the 1st Judicial District, Santa Fe, against the state Department of Corrections, Guadalupe County and Wackenhut Development Corp., a Florida corporation running the prison. Rachel Ann Garcia is seeking unspecified monetary damages individually and for the couple�s three children through her late husband�s estate.

Meanwhile, about 136 lawsuits were filed by state inmates in the 1st Judicial District Court in Santa Fe in the past two weeks. The suits allege that state corrections officials, Wackenhut, and the counties of Guadalupe and Lea are violating the Duran Decree, a federal court order governing prison operations in New Mexico. The Duran Decree was reached after the February 1980 prison riot at the Penitentiary of New Mexico near Santa Fe, which killed 33 inmates.34

A guard at CCA�s prison in Cushing has been fired after he was accused of trying to smuggle marijuana to inmates in Cimarron Correctional Facility. Officer David Andre Denizot, 21, faces charges of possession of marijuana in a penal institution, conspiracy to deliver marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Court records show that officials found marijuana hidden in Denizot�s uniform during a random employee search last month. Four ounces of marijuana were found. Two inmates and the brother of one of the inmates face charges of conspiracy to smuggle marijuana into a penal institution.35

At CCA operated Hernando County Jail in Florida, it was reported that, in 1998, there was a 76 per cent turnover rate of corrections officers. The St Petersburg Times also reported that 44 per cent of current officers had not been certified by the state. While the practice is legal, other west-central Florida jails require officers to be certified before handling inmates one-on-one. One uncertified officer hired in August was a former inmate who admitted to committing a burglary, court records show. The prison warden blamed the high turnover on low salaries, which he has since raised by $5,000, to $23,100 a year.36

According to Robert Runciman, Ontario�s former Minister for Corrections, the province had (and, presumably, still does have) high standards of public safety. Why jeopardise that with privatisation?

Public safety is an issue both within and beyond prison walls. Between January and December 1999 there were 38 escapes from privately run prisons in the U.S. with a total prisoner population of 121,482. The escapees had been convicted of offences including murder, rape, robbery and burglary. For the same period, in the state of California which had an approximate prisoner population of 162,000 in its publicly run system, there were no escapes. Since 1995, there have been at least 135 escapes from private prisons throughout the U.S.. These occurred from secure facilities and do not include additional escapes from non secure facilities.37

The private sector operates with lower staffing levels and lower wages and benefits than the public sector. Add inadequate training into this equation and this leads to high stress levels which, in turn, causes high turnover rates. In 1998, staff turnover rates in the public sector were 14.9 per cent compared with 41.2 per cent in the private sector.38

� According to Tulsa World News, the short history of private prisons in Oklahoma includes a number of troubling security lapses, including escapes, accidental releases and one disturbance in which inmates set fires and assaulted guards. Three of the private prison companies operating in Oklahoma have been fined a total of $158,000 since 1998 for a variety of contract violations, state Department of Corrections records show.

The most serious violation occurred 28 July 1998, and involved a large disturbance among inmates at the North Fork Correctional Facility in Sayre, according to DOC records. The prison is operated by Corrections Corporation of America. In a 13 January memo to prison officials, DOC�s private prison coordinator, Dennis Cunningham, pointed out numerous security lapses during the 1998 disturbance.

�Videotape review clearly shows the chief of security surrounded by crowds of inmates while loosely carrying the 37 mm gas gun,� the memo says. �This use of the 37-mm gas gun without sufficient backup made the chief of security vulnerable to inmate takeover. Administrative and line staff appeared to be unorganized and unfamiliar with the facility emergency plans,� it states.

Eighteen months after the disturbance, the memo found �there still has been no provision or revision in the emergency plan to address the vulnerability of armed employees on facility guards.� The memo states that the facility�s special operations team �was not deployed to restore the security and control of the facility in an emergency situation.�

Instead, top staff members including the warden and deputy warden �were in direct contact with the disruptive inmates inside the institution.�

�The potential risk is that inmates could have taken control of key administrative staff members. Consequently, the entire security and control of the facility was jeopardized.�39

Crants [Doc Crants, former chief executive officer and co-founder of CCA] told the Tulsa World News that problems at a private prison are to be expected in the first year of operations. He said CCA facilities typically lose one-third of their staff members within the first month. �This is a very scary job . . . when you actually have to confront a person who is 6-foot-6 and tell them they are not going to get breakfast if they don�t make their bed,� Crants said. �It takes about two months to get the person trained, so it�s very, very likely in the first month you would have had 200 of the 300 doing overtime.�40

A recently published report which includes a study of CCA�s West Tennessee Detention Facility found that �accountability has been minimal� and CCA�s cost savings techniques have allegedly resulted in �under staffing, high turnover rates and dangerous conditions for staff and inmates.�41

The most recently published research in the U.S. compared CCA�s medium security Prairie Correctional Facility (PCF) in Appleton, Minnesota with three similar facilities run by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC).42 It revealed significant differences in service delivery and programme operations.

The authors concluded that, �taken together these findings pose serious questions about whether Minnesota taxpayers can have confidence that expanding the role of private corrections would not significantly lower the level of prisoner control, facility safety and correctional effectiveness now provided by the public system .� (I)n making decisions regarding privatisation, cost savings cannot be the only concern for policy makers. Consideration about the price of correctional services must be balanced equally with concerns about maintaining the quality of correctional operations and programmes.�

The research included a review of DOC files and records including management reports and programme activity records, as well as similar documents from PCF. Site visits were made to observe programmes and interview prisoners. Interviews were carried out between 11 December 1998 and 5 January 1999. Comparisons were made of the number of prisoners involved and the intensity and quality of medical care, education and treatment programmes, work assignments, recreation, prison security and safety.

While levels of medical care appear comparable, DOC prisoners receive significantly more dental care. They gave significantly higher ratings to prison health care services than PCF prisoners.

The DOC provides significantly more instruction about general health issues, including provision of education to all prisoners about HIV/AIDS.

General education classes are offered in both PCF and DOC facilities, and most prisoners who participate take classes five days a week. At PCF, most participating prisoners attended only one three hour educational class per day while more of those in DOC classes reported participation in a full day.

The DOC education programmes produced a much higher annual rate of General Educational Diplomas earned by students - 74 per one thousand prisoners, compared to the 55 per one thousand PCF prisoners.

A similar contrast was found with vocational education classes. These are offered by both and most enrolled prisoners take classes five days per week. But, at PCF, participating prisoners took just one three-hour class per day, while a significant proportion of DOC prisoners were enrolled in a full time programme of vocational training.

Vocational education programmes at DOC facilities are provided through the state system which offers transferable classroom credits and authentic, recognised certificates upon completion. This gives DOC graduates an important advantage over those who graduate from the PCF training programmes.

DOC chemical dependency treatment programmes meet state licensing requirements and give prisoners the type of treatment mandated under Minnesota law. Programmes at the DOC facilities provide a full day of treatment sessions, five days per week. Even though a comparable full time treatment programme was required in CCA�s contract in 1997, no programme was provided at PCF until the spring of 1999 (after this study was carried out).

The proportion of prisoners who perform a daily work assignment is significantly higher at PCF. But this is affected by the higher number of DOC prisoners enrolled in daily, full time education and treatment programmes - and who, therefore, do not have a prison work assignment.

The PCF prisoners with daily work assignments were significantly more likely to report assignment to part time work than DOC prisoners.

Important differences between how prisoners perceive the daily routine in the private and public systems suggest that the public system maintains a significantly higher degree of authority and control over the daily activities of prisoners than at PCF. Two thirds of the DOC prisoners agreed with the statement �prisoners are kept busy all day,� while at PCF 78 per cent judged this to be untrue.

While 85 per cent of DOC prisoners agreed that they �must work, study or be in treatment,� only nine per cent of PCF prisoners asserted that this was so.

Asked to rate their facilities on measures of safety and security, DOC prisoners gave them a significantly higher average rating and were more likely to agree that staff were doing their best to make a safe prison environment. Many PCF prisoners attributed their concerns about security control and safety to apparent disregard for classification standards.

Classification problems at PCF have been repeatedly cited in documents and reports related to facility licensing.

Perceived deficiencies in staff training and experience were another frequent complaint by PCF prisoners.

The aggregate staff turnover rate from the three DOC prisons was 13.3 per cent. The PCF rate was 42.4 per cent.

Rather than engaging in a broad public debate about criminal justice policy and the future shape of the Ontario system, it is worth noting that the Ontario government has relied upon the private sector to assist in the formulation of policy.

Jim Robinson is an Ottawa consultant, formerly with Partnering and Procurement Inc. and, more recently, director of procurement practice at the Halifax Group. In December 1997, he told Now that he was contracted by the Ontario Government to provide an evaluation plan plus an actual request for proposal. �I provided a selection process for them and a set of documents for design, build, finance and private operation. Virtually for any privatised operation, it will have to come from the U.K. or the U.S. because there�s no credible Canadian company.�43

Mr. Robinson also told Now that he was involved with a private U.S. company that is interested in making a bid and, although he had intimate knowledge of the evaluation material he did not think that there was a conflict. He said: �I�ve terminated my relationship with the Ontario government and they�re not necessarily going to utilise our strategy.� But he admitted that it was unlikely that the government would seek procurement documents from another company since �we�re virtually the only one in existence.�

In the same article, Mr. Robinson stated that he had enlisted Dr. Charles Thomas, then professor of criminology and director of the Private Corrections Project at the University of Florida, to assist with devising the procurement documents.

At the time, Dr Thomas was regarded as the �guru� of prison privatisation and his Private Corrections Project was used by media, stock analysts and governments as a prime source for research and analysis.

In an interview with Now Thomas was critical of the Ontario government for insisting on its own more costly and less efficient prisons design compared with the pared down designs built by the private companies.

As Prison Privatisation Report International reported, in October 1999, Charles Thomas was fined $20,000 by the Florida Ethics Commission in settlement of two conflict of interest complaints brought by the Florida Police Benevolent Association.44

Thomas has ceased all evaluative research on the private corrections industry through his position at the university, and he resigned as director of the Private Corrections Project with effect from 13 August 1999.

Following two complaints by the Florida Police Benevolent Association (FPBA), the Florida Commission on Ethics found that there was probable cause to believe that Dr. Thomas�s financial interest in the corrections industry impeded his ability to evaluate objectively the industry through his research at the university.

As well as his work at the university, Dr. Thomas was a paid consultant to Prison Realty Corporation as well as being a board member and shareholder. He also owned shares in Correctional Services Corporation, but this was not an aspect of the conflict cases.

In June 1998, the Commission found probable cause for a conflict between Dr. Thomas�s work for the Florida Corrections Privatisation Commission, his relationship with CCA and his role at the University of Florida. Thomas resigned his position with the Privatisation Commission but the case was not fully settled.

Last December, the FPBA filed a second complaint after it emerged that, in 1998, Dr. Thomas personally received $3m for consultancy to CCA Prison Realty Trust. The work related to the company�s merger with Corrections Corporation of America which resulted in the formation of Prison Realty Corporation.

The FPBA alleged that Thomas violated Florida�s Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Dr. Thomas strenuously denied any wrongdoing. But as part of the settlement of both complaints announced on 19 April 1999, Thomas finally accepted the Commission�s findings.

The Commission�s report of the investigation into the second complaint was published on 17 March 1999.45 Mr. Eric Scott, of the Attorney General�s Office, concluded that �it appears [Thomas�s] contractual relationship with PRC [Prison Realty Corp] created a situation which could tempt dishonor. Because the results of [his] research can have such a profound effect on the private prison industry [he] is in a position where his private economic interests and his public duty overlap in a manner which could lead to a disregard of his public duties. In other words, [he] could be tempted to alter the results of his research in an effort to maintain or increase his private economic benefit.�

But Mr. Scott also pointed out that �there is no evidence that [Thomas] has ever actually disregarded his public duties for a private benefit. However, violations [under Florida statutes] are based upon the fact that a conflict exists, not whether or not [Thomas] succumbed to the temptation.� The report also noted that, despite the University of Florida recognising the potential for a conflict and entering into a Monitoring Plan for Potential Conflicts of Interest, the plan �did not eliminate the conflict.�

Dr. Thomas has been regarded as the �guru� of private corrections. He has conducted and/or directed research comparing private and public prisons and advised government departments. The Private Prison Project website features Thomas�s Weekly Stock Report, which tracks the share prices, trading records and developments of the publicly traded corrections companies.

In evidence to the Ethics Commission�s investigation into the first complaint, Mr. Irv DeGraw, a Sarasota-based stock analyst, referred to the Blue Book, Thomas�s annual industry census, as �the Bible.� He also stated that information provided by Thomas to stock analysts could �greatly influence the markets� and that Thomas was �widely recognised as the expert on privatisation nationally, in fact, worldwide.�

But Mr. DeGraw also said that he had been �concerned� about Thomas�s directorship of CCA Prison Realty Trust as �economic interest in your research and work creates a bias.�

Since 1989, the University of Florida Private Corrections Project has been funded entirely through donations from private corrections companies.

Thomas receives a University salary of $84,000 per year.

In April 1997, Thomas became a board member for CCA Prison Realty Trust;

On 1 January 1999, CCA Prison Realty Trust merged with Corrections Corporation of America, creating Prison Realty Corporation (PRC), a Real Estate Investment Trust that provides financing for private correctional facilities.

Charles Thomas is a Director of PRC and owns 30,000 shares valued at $660,000.

Thomas received a $3m consulting fee for services performed in connection with the merger.

Thomas receives $1,000 per month as a retainer plus travel expenses and stock options.

Evidence to the first investigation also revealed that:

According to Mr. Michael Garretson, Chief Operations Officer for Correctional Services Corp (CSC), his company began donating money to the Project �because he [Thomas] took the lead in trying to get privatisation accepted by state and local governments. Until he [Thomas] became involved, only the Federal Government had utilised the private corrections industry.� Mr. Garretson said that CSC expected Thomas�s Project to �document the successes in private corrections and to prepare factual reports about the industry, even if it�s about one of our competitors, because their successes are good for the industry.�

Wackenhut Corrections Corporation no longer donates money to Thomas�s project. Mr. George Zoley, the company�s Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, alleged that Dr. Thomas had �crossed over the line of impartiality� by joining CCA Prison Realty Trust although he had found the work of the Private Corrections Project fair and impartial.

According to Thomas, following the filing of the first complaint by the FPBA, the ensuing investigation by the University of Florida and the withdrawal of funding from Wackenhut Corrections Corp, �there was a flood of calls and letters ... from the CEOs of many of the firms in the private corrections industry (e.g., Alternative Programs Inc, Avalon Community Services, the Bobby Ross Group, Correctional Services Corporation, Correctional Systems Inc, the GRW Corporation, Management and Training Corporation, Maranatha Production Company, Securicor Custodial Services Ltd, Securicor New Century Corrections and Youth Services International ...�

He also stated that firms �that had never previously provided as much as a dollar of research funding stepped up to the plate (e.g., Alternative Programs, Avalon, Bobby Ross Group, Securicor Custodial Services and Securicor New Century)� and that the financial community �weighed in with strong support and confidence in both my integrity and objectivity (eg, Legg Mason Wood Walker Inc., Montgomery Securities and Stephens Inc.).�