Privatization In Corrections

Correction facilities being ran privately instead of being run by the government is a growing concept that has been meet with both praise and skeptisism. Pratt and Maahs, describe privatization in corrections as a growth industry state “Rooted primarily in the political and economic context of the 1980s. The movement to privatize public services has received increasing support in response to taxpayer demands that government provide more services with fewer resources. Advocates of correctional privatization often argue from a ‘public choice’ theoretical perspective… holding that private entities can provide correctional services at a lower cost than governmental agencies. At best, however, the empirical evidence for this claim-
- the efficiency hypothesis- - remains inconclusive”. The practice of privatization has received its share of criticism. There is concern being expressed over the possibility that prison conditions may deteriorate as a result of an effort to save money. “Coercive confinement carries with it an obligation to meet the basic need of the prisoner, “states Logan.
“Thus, measures of health care, safety, sanitation, nutrition, and other aspects of basic living conditions are relevant. Furthermore, confinement must meet a constitutional standard of fairness and due process, so it is not just the effectiveness and efficiency, but also the procedural justice with which confinement is imposed that is important.” Logan goes on to describe confinement as” much more than just warehousing” (Logan 1990) The goal of confinement should be, instead, to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners and ensure that they are housed in decent and humane conditions. No one is advocating for luxury living for inmates but if occupational skills, education, and safe living are not provided inmates will not rehabilitate. Logan is among observers of privatization who contend “it is reasonable and realistic to expect quality from commercially contracted prisons.” This author, citing the example of privatization in New Mexico, maintains that privatization can promote factors necessary for effective prison management. These factors include a well-designed facility, greater operational and administrative flexibility, decentralized authority, higher morale, enthusiasm, and sense of ownership among the staff, greater experience and leadership among the top administrators, and ‘by the book’ governance of inmates”
(1990 Logan). In understanding why privatization arose, Pratt and Maahs observed “Until recently, public officials were reluctant to privatize entire correctional institutions. Since the early 1980s, however, two major development have forced policy makers to reconsider the option of private prison management, the perception of the deteriorating conditions of public prisoners and, more importantly, prison crowding” (1999 Pratt Maahs). Thus, the need for commercial management of prisons arose not only to affect savings but to improve the conditions of confinement. Louisiana was one of many states which, during the 1980s, were faced with the problem of prison overcrowding. They tried an experiment, and they built three prisons of similar size and design and housed them with the same type of inmates, one to be managed by the State Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and the other two turned over to private bodies that contracted to provide services. “In effect, the State of Louisiana created a field experimental laboratory for the study privately versus publicly operated prisons,” writes Archambeault. These reports were also intended to provide information to the Federal Court of Judge Frank Poloza, allowing the monitoring of prison safety in Louisiana prisons”. The result of the comparison suggested that private correctional facilities were in fact better than public according to their criteria. Thus, private correctional facilities, as compared with the state prison, were found to be significantly more cost-effective by operating by between 11.6 to 13.85% less. Similar differences were found for each fiscal year as when examined separately. In addition, private facilities were found more satisfactory on the following key factors. They reported fewer critical incidents. They also were reportedly safer for their employees and other staff. In addition to this they also provided better and safer living conditions for their inmates.
The Louisiana experiment would indicate that privatization can work and that inmates can be housed in private facilities at less cost to the taxpayer and can be housed under more humane conditions. Even studies that dispute these claims do not necessarily maintain that public correctional facilities are by their very nature more cost-effective. Pratt and Maahs, for example, cite findings showing that “for both mixed level and maximum security prisons, the private institutions had a lower daily per diem cost,“ while, “in minimum and medium security institutions, however, the public facilities fared slightly better” (1999 Pratt and Maahs). Concluding that, in both cases, “none of the differences in costs was statistically significant,” these authors maintain that “overall, the results indicate that regardless of the owner of the facility, it is the economy of scale achieved by the prisons, its age, and its security level that largely determine its daily per diem cost”. Thus, while the literature makes strong arguments for privatization it also makes as many that claim it not to really bear a significant difference at all. Division is mainly between studies that find significant advantages to privatization and those that find no significant differences between
public and private facilities. The implication of this finding is that some privatization programs are succeeding. It has also been found that there isn’t really any difference at all. Over all our prisons continue to over populate and Private Correctional facilities will be utilized and they are here to say. There is also no conclusive evidence that that suggest they cannot be ran at least as effectively as government facility and in some cases they can even be ran better. It’s another solution to our overcrowding prison system.

References:
1999, Pratt, T.C., & Maahs, J., Are private prisons more cost-effective than public prisons? A meta-analysis of evaluation research studies. Crime & Delinquency 1996, Archambeault, William G. “Cost Effectiveness Comparisons of Private VS. Public Prisons In Louisiana: A Comprehensive Analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn Correctional Centers.”, Executive Summary, Office of Correctional Services, School of Social Work, Louisiana State University 1996, Gilliard, Darell K., Prison and Jail Inmates: 1995 Bureau of Justice and Statistics Bulletin, Office of Justice programs – US Department of Justice.
1990, Logan, Charles H. Private Prisons: Pros and Cons. New York: Oxford University Press
1994 Reynolds. Morgan O. “Using the Private Sector to Deter Crime.” National Center for Policy Analysis Policy Report # 181
2010 Private prison, In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 04:08, February 8, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Private_prison&oldid=335314471