prison privatisation in south africa issues, challenges and ...

senior management team was united behind a vision of providing high quality correctional
services. The Wolds’ regime was guided by five principles:
The legal presumption of innocence in relation to remand prisoners meant that only those
restrictions, the imposition of which were essential in order to hold remand prisoners
securely, were justified.
Since Wolds’ prisoners were presumed to be innocent, prisoners should be provided with
an environment which was as normal as possible.
Control grounded in constructive relationships between staff and prisoners was more
efficient and effective than control by coercion, a principle which they hoped to achieve
partly through the recruitment of staff who had no previous prison experience.
The frustrations of prison life should be reduced through the development of administrative
procedures, of which both staff and prisoners need to be aware, which facilitated the
smooth daily running of the prison.
Wherever possible, the regime provided would exceed the minimum standards specified in
the contract below which Group 4 could not operate without incurring financial penalties,
particularly in relation to areas such as the provision of visits, which was regarded as a key
component in reflecting the first four principles.22
The existence of ‘guiding principles’ is an encouraging development in the management of
prisons. In particular, the specific mention of exceeding the requirements of the contract
indicates that the private sector is committed to providing quality and not simply through cost
cutting.
Unlike in Victoria, the interpretation of the contract was taken as a positive tool in the monitoring
of the private prison’s operations. Researchers at Wolds commented:
"By providing an outline of the regime intended for Wolds, the contract provided
management at Wolds with a clear foundation on which to base their efforts to
achieve their goals, as well as a degree of protection. Because of the contract, it was
argued, it would be more difficult to erode any aspect of the regime at Wolds than at
a non-contract-out prison, putting the management in a stronger position to resist
the vagaries of the criminal justice system, such as sudden increases in the numbers
of prisoners being remanded to custody, since any changes would require the Home
Office to renegotiate the contract."23
A critical element of the management approach at Wolds was the employment of personnel who
had not previously worked for HMPS. Some may argue this is to avoid the hiring of anyone
previously involved with the public employee’s union, as union antagonisms towards prison
privatisation has been clearly displayed. The rationale offered by Wolds’ management was that
hiring of ‘external’ staff meant that the new approach could be more easily conveyed. One
member of senior management explained that their hiring practices were employed in an effort
to avoid the, "negative bits of the prison service, the negative attitudes of staff to prisoners,
negative attitudes of staff to management and negative attitudes of management to staff."24
The experience of this first private prison in the UK was determined a success and shortly
afterwards several other existing prisons were privatised and additional private prisons were