FREE ESSAY ON PRISON PRIVITISATION

PRISON PRIVITISATION

Privatization in Corrections
Privatization in corrections is a trend that is assuming increasing significance. Pratt
and Maahs, characterizing privatization in corrections as "a growth industry go on to
note: "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" (1999, 358.) 
The practice of privatization has received its share of criticism, with concern being
expressed over the possibility of prison conditions' deteriorating as the result of an
effort to save money on the part of government. "Coercive confinement carries with it an
obligation to meet the basic need of the prisoner, " notes Logan in this regard. "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." This author
goes on to characterize confinement as" much more than just warehousing" (Logan, 1992,
579.) 
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 expects a prison
to be a Holiday Inn, but all authorities agree that unless prisoners are assured a decent
standard of living, as well as education and, job training, rehabilitation cannot take
place. Logan is among those observers of privatization who contend " it is reasonable and
realistic to expect high 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: "1) a
well-designed facility, 2) greater operational and administrative flexibility, 3)
decentralized authority, 4) higher morale, enthusiasm, and sense of ownership among the
staff, 5) greater experience and leadership among the top administrators, and 6) 'by the
book' governance of inmates" (1992, 613).
In tracing the circumstances under which privatization arose, Pratt and Maahs observe: "
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: (1) the perception of the
deteriorating conditions of public prisoners and, more importantly, (2) prison crowding"
(1999, 359).
Thus, the need for commercial management of prisons arose not only to effect savings but
to improve the conditions of confinement. Louisiana was one of many states which, during
the 1980s, was faced with the problem of prison overcrowding an experiment, whereby it
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, "...a series of monthly
or quarterly reports covering various aspects of prisons operations. 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" (5).
The result of the comparison suggested the greater effectiveness of private correctional
suggested the greater effectiveness of private correctional facilities in Louisiana
according to a number of 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, based on the averaged cost $23.49, and Avoyelles (the
state facility) cost $26.60. Similar differences were found for each fiscal year as when
examined separately." In addition, private facilities were found more satisfactory on the
following key indicators. 
"To report statistically fewer critical incidents. In fact, Allen and Wind were found not
be statistically high on any of the thirteen critical incident measures. Ayoyelles was
found to be statistically high on seven. No difference was found one six.
"To provide safer work environment for employees by better protecting staff from inmate
assaults resulting in serious injuries. 
"To provide significantly safer living environments for inmates."
"To judiciously and effectively utilize inmate disciplinary actions in maintaining order
among the inmate population" (Archambeault, 1996, 73).
The Louisiana experiment would indicate that privatization can work and that prisoners
can not only be housed in private facilities at less cost to the taxpayer but 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, 366-367). 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" (367).
Thus, while the literature is by no means solidly in favor of privatization, the 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. At any
rate, privatization of correctional facilities appears to be well under way. Reynolds
having observed in the mid-Nineties: " Texas leads the nation with 28 private adult
correctional units, followed by California with seven. CRSS Constructions across 12
states under way" (1994,7) overall, therefore, privatization would appear to be a factor
of growing significance in the future of corrections.
References:
Pratt, T.C., & Maahs, J. (1999). Are private prisons more cost-effective than public
prisons? A meta-analysis of evaluation research studies. Crime & Delinquency, 45(5):
358-371
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 1996.
Logan, Charles H. Private Prisons: Pros and Cons. New York: Oxford University Press,
1990.
Logan, Charles H. "Privatization: A Report to the National Institute of Justice." Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology: vol. 83, 1992, p.577
Reynolds. Morgan O. "Using the Private Sector to Deter Crime." National Center for Policy
Analysis Policy Report # 181. March 1994
Smith, Phil. "Private Prison: Profits of Crime." Covert Action Quarterly: Fall, 1993,
p.16
Bibliography
Work Consulted
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 1996.
Logan, Charles H. Private Prisons: Pros and Cons. New York: Oxford University Press,
1990.
Logan, Charles H. "Privatization: A Report to the National Institute of Justice." Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology: vol. 83, 1992, p.577
Reynolds. Morgan O. "Using the Private Sector to Deter Crime." National Center for Policy
Analysis Policy Report # 181. March 1994
Smith, Phil. "Private Prison: Profits of Crime." Covert Action Quarterly: Fall, 1993,
p.16