Prisons Make Money? And Our Police Force Privatised?

[BoneDog]

About a month ago I started hearing stories about prisons being privatised and shareholders, and maybe governments, making lots of money from them. Is this true, and how exactly can a prison make the government money? I don't understand!

Is this a new thing or am I just way behind on this story?

Also, a couple of days ago, I heard that Lincolnshire Police Force is now wearing the G4S logo on their uniforms! WHAT THE HELL?!!! G4S? Isn't that just G4 with a new name?

[BoneDog]

Just found this link - http://www.activistpost.com/2010/06/our-future-in-chains-for-profit-debtors.html Shocking news.

'These major security conglomerates are at the top of a growing pyramid of for-profit, international detention center operators that has Wall Street giants like Goldman Sachs simply fawning over the solid, long-term investment potential. Similar to war, when there is a profit to be made off of incarceration, only more incarceration can be expected to follow.'

'America already has a record-high ratio of people in prison, with no signs of the trend reversing as private corporations like Wackenhut Corporation, referred to as a "Free Market in Human Misery," have long been enlisted to turn government directives into shareholder profit.'

'Wackenhut (now subsumed into G4S, the largest security company in the world) was of course started by an FBI agent, George Wackenhut, who is famous for developing millions of dossiers on America's "potential subversives" in the sixties, and was exposed as being an integral player within the shadow CIA.'

And, yes, it is true about the Police - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-17772674 - Wow. The police of the future look likely to be ten times worse than anything we're used to, if what I'm thinking is correct, and this means that the police will be trying to make a profit for shareholders. Have any of FT's lovely Boys in Blue got any thoughts on this?

[Steven]

There should be a principle that no-one makes money out of crime. To do otherwise is to encourage criminality.

[Vardinhio]

Don't forget the Lincs are only outsourcing their Police Staff, not PCs. Outsourcing can bring a great deal of benefits, often not in terms of making money but in saving money and removing inefficiency.

[Rincewind]

G4S are G4 security. There are special constables now and the job the JobCentre wanted me to take was at a young offenders institution. They use private security companies or individuals it seems rather than trained prison officers. If they have the right training there should be no problem.

Security officers can detain, search with others present but have no powers of arrest. They cannot use force or use taser guns. Just radios to summon assistance. 'If you don't put that gun down I will defend myself with this radio' is the permitted response when threatened with violence.

[dave the caveman]

There was a thread on this before. The sensible posters pointed out the benefits to be had through the privatisation of certain services, while the wacky lunatics went off on one of their bizzare, frantic orgies of orgasmically exciting doomsday fantasy. No prizes for guessing which camp the op would have fallen into.

[Rincewind]

I thought I had seen the subject before.

[Webbo]

There should be a principle that no-one makes money out of crime. To do otherwise is to encourage criminality.

The prisons aren't committing a crime though.

[Captain...]

There was a thread on this before. The sensible posters pointed out the benefits to be had through the privatisation of certain services, while the wacky lunatics went off on one of their bizzare, frantic orgies of orgasmically exciting doomsday fantasy. No prizes for guessing which camp the op would have fallen into.

But it wasn't just the privatisation of certain services, such as administration and HR:

The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public, as well as more traditional back-office functions, such as managing forensics, providing legal services, managing the vehicle fleet, finance and human resources

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime

[Rincewind]

Otherwise the private sector do the dirty boring jobs leaving the exciting car chasing and tasering of shoplifters to the police.

[Out Foxed]

big money in locking people up.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

There was a thread on this before. The sensible posters pointed out the benefits to be had through the privatisation of certain services, while the wacky lunatics went off on one of their bizzare, frantic orgies of orgasmically exciting doomsday fantasy. No prizes for guessing which camp the op would have fallen into.

Oh yes, you are correct.

[Captain...]

There was a thread on this before. The sensible posters pointed out the benefits to be had through the privatisation of certain services, while the wacky lunatics went off on one of their bizzare, frantic orgies of orgasmically exciting doomsday fantasy. No prizes for guessing which camp the op would have fallen into.

There was still nobody on the other thread that could answer me this, how is privatisation going to benefit anyone, without cutting jobs, lowering wages and reducing services?

Say police force HR gets outsourced, now instead of paying directly for a HR employee, you fire them and then pay a company, with overheads and profit margins for a HR service. Now if they provide you with one HR person to do that job, you are then paying their wages as well as paying the organisation to provide this person.

You are either going to end up paying more for that than for an employee, or the person that actually comes in is going to be paid much less than what you paid your original employee.

Now where these companies make savings is by having a department which would handle the HR resonsibilities for a number of police forces. This would save money by reducing personnel, and probably wages, which would result in further job losses when unemployment is already at a very high level. You would also lose lots of valuable experience.

Don't get me wrong I am all for efficiency, and if we could create an economic model that took into account automisation and efficiency of services reulting in less job hours that actually need to be worked for society to function at it's most efficient and effective and alter the job market and wages accordingly, in such a way that jobs are evenly distributed out in terms of number of work hours needed by the workforce available then I would applaud it, but history suggests otherwise, and this will, like all other attempts before it, end up in a costly mistake for the tax payers and line the pockets of unscrupulous businessmen and politicians.

[dave the caveman]

The benefit will be either cost or quality, or a combination of both, depending on what you are aiming for.

Assuming you are aiming for a cost saving, yes it might result in job losses, but it will also free up money to be invested elsewhere. Would you rather your hard earned tax contribution went straight into the pocket of a long term pencil pusher who's been milking the public sector gravy train for the last 30 years, or would you prefer to see it invested in things like education and extra front line services where they are needed most?

Of course you will say that the money saved won't be reinvested and instead it will just find its way into undeserving pockets. To that I would just say that the government should make details of what cost savings will be made and exactly where they will be reinvested available to the public.

[Zingari]

The benefit will be either cost or quality, or a combination of both, depending on what you are aiming for.

Assuming you are aiming for a cost saving, yes it might result in job losses, but it will also free up money to be invested elsewhere. Would you rather your hard earned tax contribution went straight into the pocket of a long term pencil pusher who's been milking the public sector gravy train for the last 30 years, or would you prefer to see it invested in things like education and extra front line services where they are needed most?

Of course you will say that the money saved won't be reinvested and instead it will just find its way into undeserving pockets. To that I would just say that the government should make details of what cost savings will be made and exactly where they will be reinvested available to the public.

Yes that’s true Dave ,and you’re absolutely correct that this is what should happen , but it won’t happen , will it?

Simply because the people who make the savings , would no longer be benefiting , so will no longer have the incentive .

[21st Century Fox]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/03/ikea-furniture-cuban-prisoners

[Captain...]

The benefit will be either cost or quality, or a combination of both, depending on what you are aiming for.

Assuming you are aiming for a cost saving, yes it might result in job losses, but it will also free up money to be invested elsewhere. Would you rather your hard earned tax contribution went straight into the pocket of a long term pencil pusher who's been milking the public sector gravy train for the last 30 years, or would you prefer to see it invested in things like education and extra front line services where they are needed most?

Of course you will say that the money saved won't be reinvested and instead it will just find its way into undeserving pockets. To that I would just say that the government should make details of what cost savings will be made and exactly where they will be reinvested available to the public.

When it comes to cost, I don't see why they can't just re-organise in a similar way to cut costs, without having to pay the overheads of a private company in the process.

If it is quality I fail to see how bringing in people with no experience of working with the police and in crime is going to improve the quality.

I understand the benefits of outsourcing and bringing in contractors rather than permanent staff in the private market, what I don't see is how this can be applied to an organisation that doesn't receive financial payment for their services.

Bring in some outside expertise to restructure the police departments and streamline services that can be, such as IT or HR, centralise some of these departments, it will cut costs in the long run, and will also result in job losses, but it will still be managed in house and will not be dictated to by the whims of a private enterprise that looks solely at the bottom line. The police service cannot be run like an efficient private company without sacrificing vital social services.

[Daggers]

If it is quality I fail to see how bringing in people with no experience of working with the police and in crime is going to improve the quality.

Because there are those who see the private sector as a cure-all, full to the gills with experts in efficiency...blind to the glaringly obvious examples that it is anything but.

[21st Century Fox]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/03/guantanamo-contractor-shortlist-uk-police-services

[Jon the Hat]

Because there are those who see the private sector as a cure-all, full to the gills with experts in efficiency...blind to the glaringly obvious examples that it is anything but.

People also need to recognise however that the police have failed to re-organise themselves so far, preferring to maintain their own empires, and that something needs to change to move more funds to the front line. And that when public sector re-org attempts have been made, they have been about as successful as their IT implementations.

[Jon the Hat]

http://www.guardian....police-services

See above comment re protecting ones own empire.

[Daggers]

...and lo, a private sector expert in efficiency speaks!

Would you care to name any of these re-organisation attempts which have met with failure?

IT implementations go as well as they can considering the insistence on controlling them by committee and having to build on the shifting sands of government whim. It doesn't serve as an example of the inefficiency of the public sector, just as the failure of government meddling.