Corrections Privatization

 

The Debate

Many claims have been made by observers on the advantages and disadvantages of privatization. The overriding desire of many states and local governments to rapidly increase desperately needed prison bed capacity and to reduce prison operational costs. Others have raised the issue of whether private prisons can enhance the quality of care for inmates (including enhanced protection from harm for inmates and staff) and reduce litigation. Thus far, there has been little need on the part of private providers to argue that inmates incarcerated in privately operated prisons are more likely to be rehabilitated and less likely to recidivate, although such a claim was recently made in a Florida study (Thomas, 1998). These claims, which form the core of the debate on whether to privatize, are discussed in this section.

Faster and Cheaper Bed Capacity

The dramatic increase in prison and jail populations and the associated need to construct prison and jail facilities quickly and cheaply have often been cited as a major impetus behind the move toward privatization. Contracting with the private sector allows prospective prisons to be financed, located, and constructed quicker and cheaper than government prisons. This flexibility is especially advantageous when a new facility is under consideration. Based on experience, governments take 5 to 6 years to build a facility, whereas some private companies claim they can do it in 2 to 3 years (or less).For example, CCA built a 350-bed detention center in Houston, Texas, for INS. CCA completed the project in 5 ´ months at a cost of $14,000 per bed. INS calculated construction to take 2 ´ years at a cost of $26,000 per bed (Yarden, 1994: 328). In a comprehensive study of privatizing the District of Columbia's Department of Corrections, Clark (1998) estimated that rebuilding several prison facilities would take the public sector 5 to 6 years, whereas it would only take the private sector 3 to 4 years.Based on these and other reports, it seems clear that the private sector can add prison bed capacity faster and cheaper than most public entities. Cripe (1997: 384) cited the numerous advantages advocates assert in support of private prison construction:Because private firms are not bound by governmental rules that tend to slow down prison construction, such as political pressures from unhappy neighbors, environmental hassles, and requirements of competed bidding and construction contracting, private firms have shown an ability to open new facilities more quickly. They claim they can also get the money to build new institutions more quickly from private investors or from lenders, while the government has to work more slowly, getting appropriations from the legislature or going through a bond issue process.[8]

On the other hand, Robbins (1997) points out that privatization allows prisons to be built without the approval of the public. For example, the construction costs of a privately operated facility can be lumped together in the state's prison operating budget whereas the state must seek voter approval on a construction bond for a publicly operated facility, as is usually the case.