Private Corrections Pros And Cons Essay
Pros: When a federal, state, county, or local government switches to having their community corrections ran and operated by a private industry, it means they are giving up their obligation of running and improving that correctional program or facility and giving all responsibility to the private industry. The government pays the private industry to run the facility or program for the government. This benefits both the government and the private industry.
The above picture is two of Americas largest private prison companies. CCA and Geo (Cornell is now owned by GEO) profit billions of dollars every year to build and house prisoners for the government.
Money:
One pro that the private corrections industry has over public community corrections is that they can do it better and for less money. Private correction companies are able to save money several different ways. One of these ways is by paying their staff members either minimum wage or slightly more than minimum wage. Unlike a government ran facility or program that …show more content…
requires professionals, private correctional companies hire and train anyone who is willing to do the job. Private correction companies claim to do it better (in the prison industry) because of their new and state of the art facilities. Many federal and state agencies have decaying and unsafe facilities. Privately owned facilities can replace these state-owned prisons as well as alleviate the problem of overcrowding.
Avoiding “Red-Tape”:
Also, a government ran facility or program must abide by specific rules and regulations that can restrict them or delay their plan. A private corrections company however is often able to avoid these rules and regulations, or “red-tape”, which allows them to save money and time. Running a correctional program or facility gets very expensive for the government at any level. Not only is it expensive but it tends to be very time consuming. The government constantly has their hands full at all times, so when the opportunity to lessen the burden on their back is presented, they tend to accept the help.
Creativity and Time: An additional pro to privately ran community corrections is creativity and time. Because states have so many programs and facilities to run on their own, they are not able to look into new and better ways to run that specific program. However, when a program is run by a private company, that company is able to constantly and consistently search for new and effective ways to improve that program or facility because that is their one and only concern. The state’s themselves are also able to have more time now to focus on the community correction programs they still control and focus, as well as improve, them significantly.
Partners, not Competitors: The private corrections industry doesn’t seem themselves as a competitor to government agencies, however, they see themselves as partners. In a conversation between Chares Albino and the CCA Public Relations Department, CCA claimed “… The public-private partnership combines the best of both worlds – the innovation and efficiency of business with the strong oversight and accountability of government.” (Albino, 2011)
Jobs:
In today’s world, we have an ever-growing population but a decreasing amount of jobs. Private industries create many new jobs when given the opportunity to take over a public community corrections service. When a private company is contracted by the government to open a new community corrections facility or program, all new employees have to be hired. It’s a win-win for both the government and private company because the government is saving money by not having to support these facilities or programs anymore, which allows them to redistribute that money elsewhere.
Space:
In a country that has over 2 million individuals incarcerated, there’s going to be a shortage of beds. That is one of the problems the criminal justice system and prisons across the nation face every day when they have to put 3 or 4 prisoners in one room or bunk beds two or three high. Private prisons are one major fix to the problem of overcrowding. The new state of the art facilities are not only safer but can sometimes house more prisoners than public prisons.
The above picture shows the population of prisoners in all public government run prisons across the nation.
As seen from all the points stated above, there seem to be many pros to having a government hand over community corrections to a privately-owned company.
Factors such as it’ cheaper, avoiding “red-tape”, being creative and saving time, creation of new jobs, and more all seem to make it worthwhile for private companies to take over. But with all these pros comes the cons as well.
Cons:
Although there seem to be many benefits, or pros, from having government agencies contract private companies control community correction facilities and programs, there are also many cons. When the government is in control of a correctional facility or program, they are under required to run things in a professional and strict manner. However, when a private company takes over, they are not under as strict policies as the government. This means they are capable of getting away with doing specific procedures and things the government couldn’t.
Quality of
Service: One very important con of having a private company control a community correction is the quality of service they give to those in that program. Many time’s the employees of the private company are not fully trained or are not as suited for the job as someone who works for the state might be. This can potentially pose a threat to the public which is a major concern. If the patients, inmates, parolees, and so on, aren’t getting the correct treatment they need, when they are released they will continue on with their old ways. If the government is going to let private companies take over public community corrections, then there needs to be a form of training that is required by the government for new employees working for the private company. An example of this is private electronic home monitoring companies. When an offender is sentenced to electronic home monitoring, they are often allowed to choose a private company who will provide this service for them. This causes problems because most offenders will choose the most lenient one. Often times, individuals on electronic home monitoring learn they are able to take off their device and roam around freely because they know these companies won’t check their locations until Monday.
Liability and Legitimacy: Another con is how liable the private company is. Often times there are several private companies bidding to receive the job of running a state’s community correction program. However, just because a state chooses the company who is willing to receive the least amount of money doesn’t mean they are liable enough to run the program effectively. Also, private companies have a number of inmates or parolees that they need in order to generate money and keep these programs running. Because of this, private companies will often times use unfair treatment and more harsh restrictions in order to keep these individuals in their program. This is not only immoral but does nothing to help the individual receiving treatment reintegrate into society.
For-Profit:
Third, private companies whose main focus is “for-profit” community corrections continue to be a problem. Many, but not all, private companies who run community corrections for a government have money as the main priority. While money is an important factor and is much needed in order to keep the program functioning at its highest capability, it should not be the company's main priority. When this happens, the private company ends up taking in as many people as they can to increase their profit, however, the more people the company has the quality of service tends to decrease. Private companies can also make money by cutting corners or cutting staff members. When a private company has the opportunity to save a few bucks here and there, they tend to attack it. They do this by cutting staff and only keep the very minimum number of staff members, or by limiting the resources that are used towards the inmates to better them and rehabilitate them.
The above picture shows the profits of the two major private corrections companies’ profits in the year 2015.
“Cherry-Picking”:
Our fourth con is the method of “cherry-picking”. Cherry-picking is where the private company who is running a correction facility or program gets to pick and choose what individuals they want to take on. Typically, private companies will go after non-violent individuals, leaving the government run facilities and programs with the most violent individuals.
Recidivism:
When the government contracts with a privately-owned company, they are hoping to see change. They want to see the prisoners responding to programs, a decrease in recidivism, and more. However, it has been discovered that the difference in recidivism rates between public and private owned programs or facilities often has little difference to none. This causes concern for the government who is paying these companies money, but aren’t doing their job.
The above picture is two of Americas largest private prison companies. CCA and Geo (Cornell is now owned by GEO) profit billions of dollars every year to build and house prisoners for the government.
Money:
One pro that the private corrections industry has over public community corrections is that they can do it better and for less money. Private correction companies are able to save money several different ways. One of these ways is by paying their staff members either minimum wage or slightly more than minimum wage. Unlike a government ran facility or program that …show more content…
requires professionals, private correctional companies hire and train anyone who is willing to do the job. Private correction companies claim to do it better (in the prison industry) because of their new and state of the art facilities. Many federal and state agencies have decaying and unsafe facilities. Privately owned facilities can replace these state-owned prisons as well as alleviate the problem of overcrowding.
Avoiding “Red-Tape”:
Also, a government ran facility or program must abide by specific rules and regulations that can restrict them or delay their plan. A private corrections company however is often able to avoid these rules and regulations, or “red-tape”, which allows them to save money and time. Running a correctional program or facility gets very expensive for the government at any level. Not only is it expensive but it tends to be very time consuming. The government constantly has their hands full at all times, so when the opportunity to lessen the burden on their back is presented, they tend to accept the help.
Creativity and Time: An additional pro to privately ran community corrections is creativity and time. Because states have so many programs and facilities to run on their own, they are not able to look into new and better ways to run that specific program. However, when a program is run by a private company, that company is able to constantly and consistently search for new and effective ways to improve that program or facility because that is their one and only concern. The state’s themselves are also able to have more time now to focus on the community correction programs they still control and focus, as well as improve, them significantly.
Partners, not Competitors: The private corrections industry doesn’t seem themselves as a competitor to government agencies, however, they see themselves as partners. In a conversation between Chares Albino and the CCA Public Relations Department, CCA claimed “… The public-private partnership combines the best of both worlds – the innovation and efficiency of business with the strong oversight and accountability of government.” (Albino, 2011)
Jobs:
In today’s world, we have an ever-growing population but a decreasing amount of jobs. Private industries create many new jobs when given the opportunity to take over a public community corrections service. When a private company is contracted by the government to open a new community corrections facility or program, all new employees have to be hired. It’s a win-win for both the government and private company because the government is saving money by not having to support these facilities or programs anymore, which allows them to redistribute that money elsewhere.
Space:
In a country that has over 2 million individuals incarcerated, there’s going to be a shortage of beds. That is one of the problems the criminal justice system and prisons across the nation face every day when they have to put 3 or 4 prisoners in one room or bunk beds two or three high. Private prisons are one major fix to the problem of overcrowding. The new state of the art facilities are not only safer but can sometimes house more prisoners than public prisons.
The above picture shows the population of prisoners in all public government run prisons across the nation.
As seen from all the points stated above, there seem to be many pros to having a government hand over community corrections to a privately-owned company.
Factors such as it’ cheaper, avoiding “red-tape”, being creative and saving time, creation of new jobs, and more all seem to make it worthwhile for private companies to take over. But with all these pros comes the cons as well.
Cons:
Although there seem to be many benefits, or pros, from having government agencies contract private companies control community correction facilities and programs, there are also many cons. When the government is in control of a correctional facility or program, they are under required to run things in a professional and strict manner. However, when a private company takes over, they are not under as strict policies as the government. This means they are capable of getting away with doing specific procedures and things the government couldn’t.
Quality of
Service: One very important con of having a private company control a community correction is the quality of service they give to those in that program. Many time’s the employees of the private company are not fully trained or are not as suited for the job as someone who works for the state might be. This can potentially pose a threat to the public which is a major concern. If the patients, inmates, parolees, and so on, aren’t getting the correct treatment they need, when they are released they will continue on with their old ways. If the government is going to let private companies take over public community corrections, then there needs to be a form of training that is required by the government for new employees working for the private company. An example of this is private electronic home monitoring companies. When an offender is sentenced to electronic home monitoring, they are often allowed to choose a private company who will provide this service for them. This causes problems because most offenders will choose the most lenient one. Often times, individuals on electronic home monitoring learn they are able to take off their device and roam around freely because they know these companies won’t check their locations until Monday.
Liability and Legitimacy: Another con is how liable the private company is. Often times there are several private companies bidding to receive the job of running a state’s community correction program. However, just because a state chooses the company who is willing to receive the least amount of money doesn’t mean they are liable enough to run the program effectively. Also, private companies have a number of inmates or parolees that they need in order to generate money and keep these programs running. Because of this, private companies will often times use unfair treatment and more harsh restrictions in order to keep these individuals in their program. This is not only immoral but does nothing to help the individual receiving treatment reintegrate into society.
For-Profit:
Third, private companies whose main focus is “for-profit” community corrections continue to be a problem. Many, but not all, private companies who run community corrections for a government have money as the main priority. While money is an important factor and is much needed in order to keep the program functioning at its highest capability, it should not be the company's main priority. When this happens, the private company ends up taking in as many people as they can to increase their profit, however, the more people the company has the quality of service tends to decrease. Private companies can also make money by cutting corners or cutting staff members. When a private company has the opportunity to save a few bucks here and there, they tend to attack it. They do this by cutting staff and only keep the very minimum number of staff members, or by limiting the resources that are used towards the inmates to better them and rehabilitate them.
The above picture shows the profits of the two major private corrections companies’ profits in the year 2015.
“Cherry-Picking”:
Our fourth con is the method of “cherry-picking”. Cherry-picking is where the private company who is running a correction facility or program gets to pick and choose what individuals they want to take on. Typically, private companies will go after non-violent individuals, leaving the government run facilities and programs with the most violent individuals.
Recidivism:
When the government contracts with a privately-owned company, they are hoping to see change. They want to see the prisoners responding to programs, a decrease in recidivism, and more. However, it has been discovered that the difference in recidivism rates between public and private owned programs or facilities often has little difference to none. This causes concern for the government who is paying these companies money, but aren’t doing their job.