Unfortunately, the situation is not so clear cut.

Two of the U.S. companies that would likely bid for contracts in Ontario also operate in the U.K. Wackenhut Corrections Corporation is a partner in a joint venture company, Premier Prison Services Ltd (PPS). PPS now has the most prison contracts in the U.K.. Corrections Corporation of America is the joint owner, with Sodexho SA (which, in turn is a major shareholder in Prison Realty Trust) of U.K. Detention Services Ltd, which has two contracts.

There are currently four privately managed prisons and six privately financed, designed, built and run prisons holding adults and young offenders operating in England, Wales and Scotland.

The only independent academic research comparing public and private sector prisons carried out in England to date concluded that: “... comparable achievements were to be found in some public sector local prisons. There was, therefore, no evidence that Wolds’ achievements were necessarily related to its contracted out status.”47

As for improved recidivism rates, in answer to a parliamentary question asking for comparative reoffending rates of former prisoners of public and private prisons in England and Wales in the last three years, the Prisons Minister, Paul Boateng, replied on 9 March 2000 that “since prisoners may move between privately owned and publicly owned prisons on a number of occasions during their sentence, it is not possible to calculate the reoffending rates as requested.”48

On the question of cost savings, according to the Prison Service,49 in financial year 1997-98 comparative costs between private and publicly run prisons narrowed for the third year running.

The study concluded that “privately operated prisons offered an operational cost saving over publicly operated prisons of 11 per cent in 1997-98, in terms of cost per prisoner, but little or no saving when cost per baseline and in-use places are compared. The difference between the cost ... has reduced substantially compared with 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97.” Also, “ ...the performance of privately and publicly operated prisons were similar, although privately operated prisons tended to provide more purposeful activity and out of cell hours than their comparators, and more flexible visiting hours.”

The reasons given for the narrowing of costs in 1997-98 were: higher payments to privately managed prisons for overcrowding increased unit costs of prison places (i.e., costs went up while the number of places remained broadly unchanged); in the public sector, increased capacity to house the increasing prisoner population had been opened at a low marginal cost, leading to reduced unit costs on all three measures; and some publicly managed prisons made efficiency savings to reduce costs.

The private prisons included in the comparison were Blakenhurst (U.K. Detention Services Ltd), Doncaster (Premier Prison Services Ltd), Wolds and Buckley Hall (both run by Group 4). None of the privately financed, designed, built and run prisons were included in this survey.

These findings, however, should be treated with care as the study has not been independently evaluated; exact “like with like” comparisons were unavailable and the results were “sensitive to adjustments made within the model and to unusual events at individual prisons, particularly to overcrowding and to refurbishment.”

Regarding performance under the terms of their contracts, companies which privately manage and privately finance, design, build and operate prisons in England and Wales have been financially penalised for contract failures.

Her Majesty’s Prison Parc at Bridgend, run by Securicor, has had the following amounts withheld from contract payments: £54,782 for failing to meet standard contract requirements in February 1998; £751,309 for failing to meet standard contract requirements between 17 November 1997 and 30 November 1998; £835 for doubling cell occupation beyond the permitted level between April 1996 and October 1997; and £2,287 for double cell occupation. Parc was also receiving special managerial attention from the Prison Service and no date had been set for this to be stopped.50

For the period 1 March 1999 to 31 December 1999, further financial penalties totalling £199,950.48 had been withheld from Securicor. The reasons for these further penalties included: 211 incidents of prisoner self harm; 29 incidents of concerted indiscipline; 19 assaults on staff and others; 13 assaults on prisoners; 39 failures to complete 90 per cent of mandatory drug tests; 17 incidents involving class A drugs and opiates; 165 incidents involving other drugs; one escape; 65 failures in procedure [in the category Keep Prisoners in Custody]; 178 failures of prisoners seeing a medical officer on arrival; 122 failures to respond to prisoners’ complaints; 44 failures to deliver required hours of activities; 158 failures to provide sentence plans; 80 failures to start visits within 30 minutes of an appointment; 20 failures to provide pre-release job searching; 18 failures to provide prisoners with a discharge report; nine failures to implement [Prison Service] audit report recommendations; and eight failures to report on performance measures.51 (Two suicides in four days in December 1998 have brought the number of deaths at Securicor’s HM Prison Parc, in Wales, to four since the prison opened in November 1997).52

Further to the revelation that Group 4 had been penalised £28,089 for failure to meet performance standards at HM Prison Altcourse, in reply to a parliamentary question, Junior Minister George Howarth said on 17 May 1999 that “negotiations are in progress between Fazakerley Prison Services Ltd [a Group 4 subsidiary] and the Prison Service about further deductions from payments due in respect of Altcourse for 1998-99. Details about the agreed figure will be announced.”

The reasons for the £28,089 penalty were stated as: 126 acts of concerted indiscipline; 61 visits starting after a 30 minute wait; 76 failures to provide a sentence plan; 31 cases of inadequate out of cell hours; eight failures to deliver a programme; 29 incidents of self harm; one failure relating to a contingency planning exercise; 16 items smuggled in; eight assaults on staff; nine assaults on prisoners; six cases of non compliance with a reporting procedure; and four failures to respond to prisoners’ complaints.53

Financial penalties incurred by private prison operators between 1994 and 1999 were revealed in April 1999 in answer to parliamentary questions.54 The figures were:

Group 4

• HM Prison Wolds £23,855, September 1998.

• HM Prison Buckley Hall £526, May 1998.

U.K. Detention Services Ltd

• HM Prison Blakenhurst £41,167, February 1994 and £25,000, November 1998.

Premier Prison Services Ltd

• HM Prison Lowdham Grange, £83,347 between July 1998 and February 1999.

Aside from having the worst problems during its opening period of any of the four privately managed prisons in England, HM Prison Doncaster, run by Premier Prison Services Ltd, has continued to have problems. For years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, the prison recorded 288, 599 and 479 incidents of prisoner self harm respectively, the worst record of any prison in England and Wales.55

Also, the Observer reported that, since 1997, six prisoners have hanged themselves - one of the highest suicide rates in the country.56 The newspaper quoted a Home Office spokesperson as saying that “Doncaster has for some time been commended by the Chief Inspector of Prisons for its excellent strategy on the management of the suicidal.”

A Coroner determined that four prisoners who died in 1998 at Premier Prison Services Ltd-run HM Prison Doncaster, north east England, all committed suicide. The inquests took place between 18 and 22 January 1999.

Michael Arliss, a remand prisoner accused of murder, hanged himself with a bed sheet tied to bars in his cell on 23 March 1998, after watching a film with other prisoners. The Chamber, a rented film, featured a man facing execution in an American prison after failing to clear his name for a murder he did not commit.

During the inquest, the Coroner, Mr. Stanley Hooper, told the director of the prison, Mr. Kevin Rogers, that he was “... somewhat concerned about the fact that entertainment relating to long term prisoners awaiting execution and being sent to their deaths is being shown to prison inmates.”

Mr. Rogers replied that “Mr. Arliss could have chosen not to watch the film ... censorship rules are strictly observed by the prison. What may not upset one person may upset another...”

During the inquest on 17-year-old John Scarborough, who was found hanging in his cell on 17 April 1998, Mr. John Hillman, the prison’s operations manager, said that he had been concerned for the prisoner’s welfare and was critical of nursing staff who had returned him to his cell.

The other inquests concerned Mark Hutton, 18, who was found hanging from a cell window handle and 33-year-old John Standeven, who died while on a 15-minute watch.57

A further instance of the lack of public accountability that privatisation brings was when the contracts for HM Prisons Buckley Hall (run by Group 4) and Doncaster (Premier Prison Services Ltd) were re-tendered in 1999. In each case, the Prison Service was allowed to submit in-house bids. It won the contract for Buckley Hall, and Group 4 became the first company to lose a prison contract in the U.K.: as of June 2000, control of the prison will revert to the Prison Service.58

But Premier Prison Services Ltd kept the contract to run Doncaster. Prison Privatisation Report International reported that independent assessors commissioned by the Home Office rated an in house bid from the Prison Service for a contract to run HM Prison Doncaster as “operationally” superior to Premier Prison Services but the contract is still to be awarded to the company.

Extracts of documents relating to the recent tendering process seen by the Observer show that Premier’s bid did not allow sufficient time out of cells, particularly for young offenders, and offered poor educational provision.

The assessors said that there “appears to be the lack of an overall strategy to the regime” proposed by Premier that leads to a “failure to address satisfactorily numeracy, literacy and key and basic skills.”

In contrast, the Prison Service proposed a “constructive regime” which was described as “excellent” and “comprehensive.”

The assessors give each bid marks in different areas. According to the documents, the Prison Service outscored Premier on running a secure prison and treating people fairly. They scored the same for managing resources effectively. The Prison Service earned 874 marks for its operational plans - 14 more than Premier.

When the Doncaster decision was announced on 22 October 1999, Prisons and Probation Minister Paul Boateng said the decision was “not just simply a question of pounds, shillings and pence.” But the Home Office documents reveal that there is little cost difference between the bids. Premier estimates that under its plans the annual cost per prisoner would be £16,955, just £189 a year less than the Prison Service.