In part two of this series, we heard from the private corrections providers. Their story was a simple one: We manage facilities more cost effectively because we operate like a business. For this segment, I had hoped to have the uniformed corrections staff unions weigh in on the subject. After all, when the debate turns to the privatization of a correctional facility, the unions can always be counted on to mount opposition.
To my great surprise, my attempts to offer a voice to the unions went unrewarded. Several phone calls to the union that represents NJ State Corrections Lieutenants were not returned. Undaunted, I will move forward with the arguments that are raised whenever the topic of the superiority of publicly operated facilities is put forward. I will address each argument separately, but collectively they are: “cherry pickin’,” what is counted when computing the cost of incarceration, quality of life for inmates, training/staffing/salaries of employees, and decreased public safety. As I did in the last segment on the private operators, these arguments will be presented without the burden of proof.
“Cherry pickin’”
This is the practice by which the private operators tend to have less problematic inmates. While no inmate can or should be considered “easy,” the public facilities tend to retain inmates who are greater security risks, longer sentenced, and medically and/or psychiatrically needy. These types of inmates are more costly to confine and treat, and require greater staffing density. It is the contention that private corrections facilities tend to get more of the medium and minimum custody inmates, and that lends to a lower cost per inmate ratio.
Cost of confinement calculation
Another factor in favor of the privates is that some normal costs of confinement tend to be shouldered by the public agency. These costs, among others, are outside costly medical treatment, inmate transportation, and emergency response expenditures. The argument is that if everything is counted equally, the cost per inmate between private and public facilities are extremely close.
Inmate quality of life
In order to control expenses, privates are accused of cutting corners on non-mandatory inmate programs, skill training, and medical care/staffing, and are not as responsive to inmate grievances. This lack of care leads to poor inmate morale and, ultimately, more incidents of inmates acting out.
Staff training/salaries/staffing
Again the inference is that private operators are able to control costs by offering staff lower salaries and benefits, less training, and operate with fewer staff than is ideal for proper inmate and facility management.
Public safety
The contention here is that privately run facilities have more incidents of violence and escapes due to poorly trained staff. It is alleged that the lack of staff training contributes to poor inmate management causing an increased risk to the public.
It is for these reasons it is argued that privately-operated facilities, from a purely accounting standpoint, appear less costly to operate. However, as outlined above, the contention is that the comparisons are not fair because the public facilities do not operate on a level playing field and outcomes are not uniformly measured. These arguments become part of the debate when any jurisdiction seeks to transition a facility from public to private operation.
Moving forward, the final segment in this series will attempt to evaluate the positions put forward by the private corrections firms and those in opposition to privatization. An attempt will be made to analyze data from several studies of public versus private correctional facility operation. The hope is that this analysis will help to validate or debunk claims made by both sides and shed some light on this debate. This is certainly a topic that will rage on as federal, state and local jurisdictions cope with decreased revenues and attempt to operate as efficiently as the possible. The tax paying public will demand no less.
Next: Part 4: Public versus private corrections: And the winner is…
