The role of trust and transparency in accountable outsourced prisoner transport

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12178
• Author: L. M. English
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• Date: 01 November 2018

Received: 2 February2017 Revised: 31 May2018 Accepted: 25 June 2018

DOI: 10.1111/faam.12178

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The role of trust and transparency in accountable

outsourced prisoner transport

L. M. English

Universityof Sydney Business School, Woollahra,

NSW2006, Australia

Correspondence

LindaEnglish, The University of Sydney Business

SchoolWoollahra, NSW 2006, Australia.

Email:linda.english@sydney.edu.au

Abstract

Explores the privatisation of prisoner transport in regional West-

ern Australia. Focuses on the role collaboration plays in the

development of transparency, trust and accountability in service

delivery. Latent racism, the challenging physical environment, risks

associated with unsuitable vehicles, uncaring contractors and inef-

fective departmental oversight contributed to transport failures.

The complexity and scope of responsibilities, underfunding, poor

departmental management, unresponsivecontractors and the physi-

cal environmentundermined the development of trust, transparency

and accountability essential for building effective working relation-

ships between government and contractors.

KEYWORDS

accountability, contracted, outsourced prisoner transport, trans-

parency,trust

1INTRODUCTION

In 1997, the Government of Western Australia(WA) determined to privatise a suite of justice functions, including the

bulk of prisoner movements throughout the State, describing these as ‘the least contentious’ (Office of the Inspector

of Custodial Services [OICS], 2001, p. 2). Transportreforms were facilitated through the Court Security and Custodial

Services (CSCS)Act 1999. The objectives of the Act were to relieve Police and correctional officers (previously respon-

sible for prisoner transportation on an undocumented and unfunded needs basis) to concentrate on core functions

(the efficiency goal: s18, Part3); increase transparency through the provision of contracted services (the accountability

goal: s18,); and use private sector experienceto achieve improved conditions for transported prisoners (the care-based

goal (s16). The CEO of the Department of Justice (DoJ) retained ultimate responsibility for prisoners’ ‘security,safety,

care and welfare’during contractor movements between ‘custodial places’ (prisons/courts/policelockups) (s16(2)) and

medical facilities (s.15)).

The framing of CSCS objectives and the manner of their implementation confirm that privatisation was ideological

in terms of its neo-liberal intent and method of achievement(ss16, 17, 18, CSCS Act). This reflects Williamson's (1981,

1981, 1991, 2005) insights into the role of effective contracting in the alignment of rights, responsibilities, penalties

and rewards in managing outsourced public services. The CSCS Act envisaged the ‘modernisation’ of the public sec-

tor through the efficient, responsive and accountable private delivery of public services (Harding, 2000; Hood, 1991,

Financial Acc & Man. 2018;34:367–379. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faam c

2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 367