Trending Topics

Private corrections: We can do it better and cheaper

Privatized corrections actually began with the contracting out of confinement and care of prisoners after the American Revolution

By Charles Albino

In the first segment of this series, I detailed some of the conditions that led to the formation of private companies to operate correctional facilities in the United States. As we move forward in Part 2, we will hear from the private sector and why they believe they merit a “place at the table” in correctional facility operations.

Roots of private corrections
Privatized corrections actually began with the contracting out of confinement and care of prisoners after the American Revolution. Now unable to repatriate criminals to the Colonies, Great Britain began confining them on privately owned ships docked in English ports. The next phase of private corrections began in the United States during the Reconstruction Period (1865–1876) in the south, following the Civil War. Farmers and other businessmen needed to replace their workforce due to the emancipation of their former slaves. Beginning in 1868, convict leases were issued to private parties to fortify their manpower. That system remained in effect until the early 20th century.

Moving forward, federal and state governments developed a long history of contracting out specific services to private firms, including medical and food services, educational and vocational training, and inmate transportation. In the 1980s, a new phase of prison privatization began. With an ever-expanding prison population resulting from mandatory prison terms and increased penalties for narcotics offenses, overcrowding and operational cost increases became extremely problematic for local, state, and federal governments.

The modern era of private corrections ultimately emerged in 1984 when the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) was awarded its first contract to operate the Houston Processing Center in Houston, Texas. That contract was with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now ICE). Later that same year CCA was also awarded a contract to operate a facility in Hamilton County, Tennessee.

In 1985, CCA gained further public attention when it offered to take over the entire state prison system of Tennessee for $200 million. The bid was ultimately defeated due to strong opposition from public employees and some skepticism on the part of the state legislature. With that foothold, the private corrections industry gradually expanded, and now many new private correctional services companies operate throughout the United States.

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA)
To gain insight into the private corrections industry as it exists today, I turned to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation’s largest private corrections provider. CCA currently operates 66 facilities, including 41 company-owned facilities, with a total design capacity of more than 90,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. They contract with all three federal agencies (Bureau of Prisons, ICE, and US Military Services), numerous state Departments of Corrections, and local government as well.

When I posed the question to CCA’s Public Relations Department as to why a jurisdiction should consider adding a privately-operated facility or transferring a public facility over to a private firm for operation, CCA offered the following rationale. They indicated there are a number of ways they benefit their government partners. CCA made it a point to emphasize that, in this challenging economy with constrained budgets, private corrections firms (or as they prefer – “partnership corrections”) is an important resource in the “tool box” for government. They offered the following as a list of potential benefits:

• Governments can avoid upfront capital costs and the associated debt by having the private corrections industry build and manage a new facility;
• The private corrections industry provides added flexibility. Governments can utilize private bed space while it is needed and discontinue its use when those beds are no longer necessary;
• Governments can relieve unsafe overcrowding conditions by contracting with a privately-operated facility. This helps to make the existing public system safer for employees and inmates, and can assist government in avoiding court oversight due to unsafe overcrowding conditions;
• Many state agencies have aging facilities that are expensive to operate and also may not be as safe and secure as desired. Privately-operated prisons can replace aging prison capacity with modernized, state-of-the-art prisons that are more efficient to operate and safer;
• The private corrections industry provides a very wide range of innovative and effective rehabilitation programs and other services;
• Because of contractual requirements, accountability is enhanced. Private corrections firms can be fined or lose their contracts if they do not perform to predetermined standards.

Another point of interest for me was whether or not CCA’s facilities were actually less expensive to operate than their public counterparts, and if so why? CCA represented that on average, they can save their government partners between 5 and 15% on operational costs and more than 20% on construction costs. They claim these savings are realized due their relative size and lack of “red tape” (procurement) with which government must contend. CCA also claimed that they can often command better prices for goods and services needed to operate facilities. CCA went on to state that they work to design their facilities to be more efficient and safe, utilizing state of the art technology.

My final area of interest was whether CCA believed private firms were better able to manage correctional facilities than their public counterparts. CCA offered a very interesting take on that question. “Our industry (and our government partners) has evolved on this discussion and no longer view things through that perspective. We are partners and consider ourselves a part of our government partners’ systems. The public-private partnership combines the best of both worlds – the innovation and efficiency of business with the strong oversight and accountability of government.”

Now that we have heard from the private corrections industry, I will solicit the views from the other significant “voice” in this discussion – the public employee unions who almost uniformly oppose private involvement in corrections operations.

Next: Part 3: Corrections: Public operation was and is best solution

Charles E. Albino retired after 35 years of service to the New Jersey criminal justice system. He served as warden of the Southern State Correctional Facility in 2010. Charles began his career as a correctional officer and later became a parole officer and then senior parole officer. He was Senior Classification Officer in the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center before becoming an executive assistant at the Bayside State Prison. He spent the remaining 10 years of his career in prison leadership positions.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU