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

inextricably with the private prison company. The contract with BCC does not even attempt the
facade of flexibility as both the financing and management services are contracted for a full 25
years–the maximum allowed by the CSA 1998.
The problem with contracts which stretch out for this length of time is the loss of flexibility and
leverage. The introduction of competition is intended to keep the private contractor on its toes
and striving to innovate and provide better services at a better value. However, if the company is
already guaranteed the customer for 25 years, there is no looming date that the contractor must
compete with for renewal or re-bidding for the contract. Termination of the contract is also
difficult, which reduces the leverage of the government should the contractor fail dismally to
perform its requirements as outlined in the contract. If the government terminates the
management portion of the contact, it will also terminate the financing. The full capital cost
would then come due immediately, which clearly the DCS does not have the resources to meet.
The only recourse open to DCS would be to take all its prisoners out of the facility and walk
away, losing the costs already sunk into lease payments and stuck trying to find prison beds for
3,024 inmates.
Mr. T. E. Manchide, Director of APOPS at the Department of Public Works, pointed out that the
private prisons are in fact public-private partnerships and not a privatisation of the prison
service. "The government is not abandoning responsibility in terms of executing correctional
services. We are not selling off government assets either," Manchide explained, "the contracts
do not exist in perpetuity". This is true, but 25 years is sufficiently long that it carries with it many
of the disadvantages of a full scale handover of the prison to the private sector. It is entirely up
to the consortium whether it decides to meet its stated performance goals, as a failure to do so
can only result in very limited government action. In effect, BCC can hold the Department of
Correctional Services ransom for the full capital cost of the new prison in Bloemfontein. Since
the South African government does not have sufficient funds to pay that ransom, the
government–and the South African public–is at the mercy of BCC.
The public interest
There is no reason to suspect that BCC does not have the public interest in mind in carrying out
its duties and fulfilling its contractual obligations. The BCC prison is already having a positive
impact on the surrounding community through the employment opportunities it has created. The
company was inundated with 26,000 applications for 400 job openings. The contract required
that at least 5%, and eventually 10%, of employees must be recruited from historically
disadvantaged groups. BCC not only met but exceeded this requirement as 94% of staff and
60% of management were drawn from these designated populations. The staff were deliberately
not recruited from the prison service although a significant portion of management positions
were filled by former DCS employees.
The management approach of BCC is very similar to that of Wolds in the UK. The philosophy is
that each prisoner should be treated with respect and dignity, and this is considered the most
effective means of maintaining an environment of respect and security. As each prisoner arrives
at the prison, he is greeted individually in a reception room which resembles a doctor’s office
more than a penitentiary. While his paperwork is completed, he is invited to be seated on a
couch and offered coffee or tea. If a prisoner does not behave appropriately in this environment
then he is detained in a solitary confinement cell.
One of the primary objectives of this entirely different approach is to build better morale amongst
both prisoners and staff. This is another reason why the staff have not been recruited from DCS,