Misplaced Pages

Private prison

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PR Miller (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 4 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:25, 4 October 2006 by PR Miller (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Most prisons are operated by government agencies. However, some private corporations have seen the potential for profit in owning and operating private prison facilities under contract to local governments.

In the United States, private prisons are paid a per-prisoner, per-day rate by the contracting government agency.

History of Prison Privatization

The privatization movement can be traced to San Quentin prison in California. Opened in 1852, San Quentin was constructed and initially operated as a private enterprise. According to Schmalleger and Smykla (2007), “…after a number of major scandals surfaced surrounding the mismanagement of the facility… California turned San Quentin prison over to the control of the state government” (p. 552).

The transfer of San Quentin prison administration from private to public did not mark the end of privatization. The next phase began with the Reconstruction period (1865-1876) in the south, after the end of the Civil War. Farmers and businessmen needed to find replacements for the labor force once their slaves had been freed. Beginning in 1868, convict leases were issued to private parties to supplement their workforce. This system remained in place until the early 20th century.

Privatization Today

Today, non-governmental enterprises, in the form of publicly traded companies, operate 264 correctional facilities housing almost 99,000 adult offenders. Companies operating such facilities include the Corrections Corporation of America, the GEO Group, Inc, and Cornell Companies.

The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) website lists a capacity of 69,000 beds in 63 correctional facilities. The GEO Group operates 61 facilities with a capacity of 49,000 offender beds, while Cornell Companies has 79 facilities to service 19,226 adult and juvenile offenders in secure containment and community-based corrections.

Most privately-run facilities are located in the southern and western portions of the United States and include both state and federal offenders.

Effectiveness of Privatization

How effective are private prisons? How does one measure the effectiveness of a prison, private or public? Although many view the issue from different angles, the most common measure seems to be that of recidivism.

In 2003, the Florida Correctional Privatization Commission, the Florida Department of Corrections, and the Florida State University School of Criminology and Criminal Justice conducted a study on recidivism for offenders released from private and public prisons. They found that, for adult and juvenile male offenders, there was no difference in the rate of recidivism. Adult female offenders who had been confined in public prisons were 25% more likely to re-offend.


These findings seem to somewhat contradict an earlier study conducted by Lanza-Kaduce and Parker (1998), who reported:

(1) private releasees had a lower recidivism percentage on every one of the 5 indicators except technical violations. The overall measure indicated a recidivism percentage of 17 percent for the inmates released from private prisons and 24 percent for inmates released from the public institutions. For the overall measure, this translated into a recidivism rate of 172 per 1,000 released inmates for the private institutions and 237 for the public facilities.

It would appear that further research is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn.

When extending the debate to private versus public prisons, cost-effectiveness should also be taken into account. An evaluation of 24 different studies on cost-effectiveness revealed that, at best, results of the question are inconclusive and, at worst, there is no difference in cost-effectiveness. Unfortunately, there are few studies on the subject and this aspect of the debate apparently demands further study.

Finally, critics question the motivation behind privately-run prisons. When a publicly-traded company, accountable to its stockholders and driven by profits, earns profits through the housing of prisoners, what motivation exists for rehabilitation and the possibility of early release as a reward for good behavior? This concern is somewhat addressed by the wording of contracts to allow for incentives for those facilities providing services such as drug treatment.

What does the future hold for prison privatization? Clearly, there are many questions that need to be answered, including the effect of management on the rate of recidivism and cost-effectiveness of private versus public prison construction and administration. Even the economy and politics will play a role, as state and federally-run prisons are built and run with government revenues funded by the tax base.

Many organizations have called for a moratorium on construction of private prisons, or for their outright abolition. Several religious denominations have also joined the call, including Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, United Church of Christ and Presbyterian. (citation needed)


References

  1. Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2007, 2005, 2002). Corrections in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  2. Todd, W. (2005). Convict Lease System. In The New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2635
  3. Zito, M. (2003, December). Prison Privatization: Past and Present. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from the International Foundation for Protection Officers Web site: http://www.ifpo.org/articlebank/prison_privatization.html
  4. Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2007, 2005, 2002). Corrections in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  5. Corrections Corporation of America. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2006, from http://www.correctionscorp.com/aboutcca.html
  6. The GEO Group, Inc. (2005). Retrieved October 2, 2006, from http://www.thegeogroupinc.com/corporate.asp
  7. Cornell Companies, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2006, from http://www.cornellcompanies.com/facilities.cfm
  8. Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2007, 2005, 2002). Corrections in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  9. Recidivism: An Analysis of Public and Private State Prison Releases in Florida. (2003, December). Retrieved October 2, 2006, from the Prison Fellowship Web site: http://www.pfm.org/media/ifi/Docs/FL-Study.pdf#search=%22Florida%20Department%20of%20Corrections.%20(January%2029%2C%201998).%20Preliminary%20Assessment%20of%20Study%20Entitled%3A%20A%20Comparative%20Recidivism%20Analysis%20of%20Releasees%20From%20Private%20and%20Public%20Prisons%20in%20Florida%22
  10. Maahs, J. & Pratt, T. (1999). Are Private Prisons More Cost-Effective Than Public Prisons? A Meta-Analysis of Evaluation Research Studies. Crime & Delinquency, 45(3), 358-371. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from SAGE database.
  11. Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2007, 2005, 2002). Corrections in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  12. McFarland, S., McGowan, C. & O’Toole, T. (2002, December). Prisons, Privatization, and Public Values. Retrieved October 2, 2006, from http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/pdf/PrisonsPrivatization.pdf#search=%22history%20of%20rison%20privatization%22
  13. Center for Policy Alternatives. (n.d.). Privatizing Prisons. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from the Center for Policy Alternatives Web site: http://www.stateaction.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/PrivatizingPrisons.xml


External links

Category: