Privatization Of Prisons Essay Example

$30 per inmate per day than public facilities (Sellers, 1989).

The Texas Sunset Advisory Commission Study found that the price of operating private prisons would be 10 percent lower than public ones with an additional benefit of collecting taxes on the profits of private prisons. At this point it is unclear whether private prison save money or not.

One point to keep in mind is that while some reports show that there is little or no difference in operating costs of a private versus a publicly run facility, no reports show that it is definitely more cost effective to operate a government-run facility.

Should private companies be able to improve on the quality of government-run programs there seems o be little downside in promoting private run facilities. Unfortunately, Quality of Care Comparisons One major area of concern voiced by opponents of prevarication is that individuals whose are motivated by profit may decide to increase revenue by decreasing quality of service at the expense Of the inmates (Thomas, 1993) (Durham, 1993).

The Silverware Study analyzed the quality of life at the Silverware Detention Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, a public facility that was taken over by the Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison contractor in America. In comparison to other facilities in which they pent time, inmates generally rated Silverware highly on upkeep and cleanliness, staff competence and fairness, procedural processing, religious services, counseling and visitation. Ratings on safety, security, medical care, food and education were more varied with some reviews positive and some negative.

The study concluded that the prevarication of the Silverware facility resulted in major improvements. Thomas and Logan (1993) argued that

the Silverware study was because Silverware was a poorly run public facility (UCLA. Org, 2014) to start with and any new management couldn't fail to improve conditions. Another study comparing confinement quality between public and private facilities is the New Mexico Study. This comprehensive study compared 333 indicators of quality between a private facility, a state prison and a federal prison.

Indicators of quality included: security procedures, drug use, significant incidents, community exposure, freedom of movement, staffing adequacy, safety of inmates, safety of staff, dangerousness of inmates, safety of environment, order, inmate misconduct, staff use of force, perceived control, strictness of enforcement, stress and illness, health care delivered, dental care, counseling, staffing for programs ND services, prisoner involvement and evaluation, work and industry, education and training recreation, religious services, justice, staff fairness, limited use Of force, number & type Of grievances, the grievance process, the discipline process, legal resources and access, justice delays, conditions, space in living areas, social density and privacy, internal freedom of movement, facilities and maintenance, sanitation, noise, food commissary, visitation, community access, management, job satisfaction, stress and burn- out, staff turnover, staff and management relations, staff experience, staff education, training, salary and overtime.

Results of the study show that the private prison outscored its state and federal counterparts in all areas except care and justice, in which it was equaled by the federal prison. Nonetheless, the U. S.

General Accounting Office Review concluded that the New Mexico study was equivocal and that other studies showed no significant difference between qualities of care.

A third study done by the Florida Correctional Prevarication Commission quantifies quality of SE;CE by comparing recidivism rates between

public and private facilities. Data showed that public facilities rearrested nineteen percent of inmates within twelve months in imprison to only ten percent of private facilities inmates rearrested. Overall only seventeen percent of inmates who were released from private prisons have relapsed into criminal behavior compared to twenty four percent of inmates released from public prisons.

This would seem to indicate that private facilities are more capable of rehabilitating prisoners than public facilities are.

However, the study was criticized due to lack of comparison between of sentencing times, prior incarcerations and other factors. Every so often prisons with abysmal quality of care both in the public and private sectors get exposed to the public eye through class action lawsuits. In 2008 the UCLA (American Civil Liberties Union) brought a class action lawsuit against Ely State Prison in Ely, Nevada. The UCLA was prompted to act after a prisoner rotted to death from gangrene and how auditors described the medical care in the facility -? "shocking and callous disregard for human life".

Nor have private prisons been able to escape litigation from the UCLA. One facility that has recently come under attack is the East Mississippi Correctional Facility. The CILIA, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Law Offices of Elizabeth Alexander filed a petition for class certification and expert reports for a federal lawsuit on behalf of prisoners at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCEE). The lawsuit, which was filed in May 2013, describes the for- profit prison as hyper-violent, grotesquely filthy and dangerous. EMCEE is operated "in a perpetual state of crisis" where prisoners are at "grave risk of death and loss of limbs.

The facility, located in Meridian, Mississippi, is supposed to provide intensive treatment to the state's prisoners with serious psychiatric disabilities, many of whom are locked down in long-term solitary embodiment.

(UCLA. Org 2014) Although litigation is ongoing, there are a number of expert reports that strongly implicate EMCEE gross negligence in caring for inmates. Although studies show that private prisons are maintained at similar if not better levels of quality care as public prisons, it seems that private prisons are just as capable of mismanaging and committing gross negligence as public prisons are. Good sense dictates that a monitoring system be in place for both public and private prisons to guarantee a high level of quality of care.

A monitoring system would ensure transparency between prison management and the public eye which is key to ensuring accountability and in turn superior quality of care. Transparency Issues Good governance has always been strongly dependent on the transparency of practices and agencies and the accountabilities of those agencies.

Transparency operates through various mechanisms in order to promote good governance, such as acting as a barrier to corruption, enhancing efficiency, improving performance, and promoting trust which all increase the legitimacy of government (Florin, 2002) (S. Churlishness's, 2013). Public prison facilities have had their fair share of problems due to lack of reinsurance and many scholars suggest the enforcement of more strict oversight regulations (A. Hefted, 2004).

Measures already in place on a federal level include the Freedom of Information Act (FIFO), the Administrative Procedures Act (PAP), the Government in the Sunshine Act, and other stipulations on the accessibility of records of federal agencies. These regulations all provide for

the accountability of management of federal prison facilities. Imprisonment of lawbreakers in America is primarily a state responsibility, creating the need for each state to draft its own version of the Freedom of Information Act for both state and private prisons to follow. The shift to private prisons is viewed as potentially cutting off a major source of information necessary for proper transparency and public accountability.

Further complicating matters is the manner in which states draft contracts with private contractors. Vagueness of contracts allows for private companies to avoid accountability in managing facilities. In one example the Florida Department Of Management Services drafted a contract that did not specify any standards on inmate education, treatment programs, or inmate visitation policies. Similar to generally accepted accounting principles, general standards of imprisonment must be set forth by some government agency if prevarication of prisons is to be made feasible. An agency comparable to the PEPCO (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) must be formed to draft standards that can apply country-wide.

Just as health care providers need to file special forms detailing all procedures and processes they undertake to guarantee maximum accountability, private prisons should be made to file similar forms that ensure maximum transparency and in turn ensure both maximum accountability and maximum quality of care. Legal obligations that pertain to private prisons need to be analyzed and more clearly defined. To fully accomplish this analysis ethical questions on the legality Of private prisons must be answered. Legality Issues Imprisonment and rehabilitation of public offenders has been a responsibility of governments since the first governments were formed.

Contracting out imprisonment and rehabilitation services to the lowest bidder

whose goal is to turn a profit may seem to contradict the legal responsibility of the government (Walker, 1994).

Private prison facilities admit that their business model depends on more people being kept in prison. In a 201 0 report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Correctional Corporation of America stated: 'The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by ... Leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . (UCLA.

Org 2010). This may lead to private prison administrators seeking out ways to prolong prisoner sentences.

Consistent with due process jurisprudence, some states have barred private prison contractors from unilaterally developing or adopting rules affecting disciplinary proceedings or pertaining to other liberty interests (Douglas C. McDonald, 1998).

Other practical legal issues arise such as the use of force and imposing penalties like solitary confinement on those who violate institution rules. The major issue for private prisons is whether the use of force - including the use of deadly force - is properly mandated by the relevant law of the state. Without proper legislation or contractual provisions authorizing the use of force by designated private prison officials, it is possible that such personnel and the private contractor could face criminal and civil liability.

On the one hand the success of private prisons greatly upends on the extent to which they are enabled to enforce rules. On the other hand if private prisons are allowed to punish inmates without oversight abuses can become rampant. State and federal governments would be neglecting their responsibility to the public if these abuses are realized.

To this end courts have ruled that a state

or local government can be held responsible for the actions of a private prison facility (Closer, 1998). Laws must be drafted to both protect employees of private prisons and the inmates themselves. Without proper legislation in place to delineate the sights of private prisons and their inmates, risks of litigation and/or unsafe prisons make prevarication undesirable.

Other forms of prevarication that avoid legal difficulties should be explored. Other Forms of Prevarication One form of prevarication of the prison industry is the private construction and subsequent leasing of prison facilities to the state.

Traditionally prisons have been paid for by getting voter approval to issue long-term debt. This places the burden of constructing the prison entirely on the state. Private prison construction and leasing allows the construction costs to be born mainly by private contractors. The state would sign a lease agreement with the contractor and provide initial years payments upfront to ease the funding of construction.

Evidence also shows that private entities can construct new facilities faster and cheaper than can be done by firms in the public sector (James Austin, 2001).

For example, CA built a 350-bed detention center In Houston, Texas, for INS. CA completed the project in 5. 5 months at a cost of $14,000 per bed. INS calculated construction to take 2. 5 years at a cost of $26,000 per bed (Yarded, 1994). In a comprehensive study of propagating the District of Columbians 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.

A second option that must be

explored is the (Amharic) contracting out prison labor.

Prisoner employment helps allay the costs of housing inmates through withholding an amount of their wages for taxes, room and board, etc. Over twenty firms exist that provide jobs for inmates. One notable company, Best Western International Inc. , employs inmates to answer phones and operate the hotel reservation system (Anton, 2011). Taxes can be collected off inmate wages to further reduce prison costs to the state.

An additional benefit from contracting out prison labor includes preparing inmates for the workforce upon their release. The most common form of prison prevarication in the united States is when a state hires a private firm to perform a specific service for a state operated correctional facility.

This form of prevarication has the benefits of reducing specific operating costs involved in running a prison while avoiding accountability issues. These services include medical and mental health services, drug treatment, education, vocational training and unseeing.

Health Care Contracting Two studies conducted research focused on the prevarication of the health care of public facilities. Not surprisingly the studies reached opposite conclusions. The first study was conducted by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission. They examined the results of the shift of the Virginians Department of Corrections from public inmate health care to privatized inmate health care.

The JELL_ARC concluded that the experiment was a failure due to numerous problems.

Documentation of health care services was poor, physician coverage was uneven, respiratory isolation rooms and x-ray equipment were not address in a timely manner, and costs of the contract were exceed by fifty percent. In this instance the state was held responsible for

the conditions at the facility even though they contracted out the health care. The second study was conducted by KEMP Peat Amharic.

Four options were explored to replace the deficient health care system in place at the District of Columbians jail. The options went from contractors covering only outpatient costs to covering everything from dental to mental health services. Three criteria were used to determine the viability of the options.

Firstly the cost of the privatized health care was analyzed. Secondly, all options were analyzed to determine if they shift costs to other health care providers.

Lastly, did each option ensure high-quality health care for the inmates? The study found that "a comprehensive contract for all services- medical, mental, and dental - at all DOC facilities is the best prevarication option for the District. " In today's political climate with health care for non-incarcerated individuals becoming a government responsibility, it seems highly unlikely that propagating health care for prisons is an option, especially if there is no incorrect evidence to support its cost reduction claims.

There is no question that the prison industry has much room for improvement and that prevarication may be the solution to reducing costs and improving efficiency. Overcrowding has left governments with no choice but to explore every option available to them, including prevarication of prisons on every level. To this day, in-depth studies as to whether prevarication reduces costs have reach different conclusions.

Some reports say that prevarication reduces costs by as much as ten percent, while other purport that there is little or no difference in costs. No reports claim that overspent-run facilities actually reduce costs in comparison to

private ones.

One reason why reports are so conflicting may be due to the different accounting principles employed by state agencies as opposed to those used by private industries. Another argument for privately run prison facilities is that profits made by private facilities are taxable and therefore provide a large benefit to the state. Even should private prisons dramatically reduce costs, unless they are comparable in quality of care they will not be considered a viable option. Once again reports on the quality of service of privately-run facilities versus publicly run facilities are conflicting.

It seems that quality of service can only be determined on a facility by facility basis and generalization should not be made as to whether private facilities are better or worse than public facilities.

A way to maximize quality care would be to increase the transparency in reporting the activities of private prisons. Proper legislation would also need to be drafted in order to optimize the balance between private prison efficiency and preventing abuses. Until reforms are set in place other options of prevarications seem more inviting, including contracting private companies o build jails and contracting out prison labor to abrogate costs of running prisons.

Prevarication of specific services with a prison system can also serve to reduce costs. Health care is one main example of this. Consistent with all research on the topic, studies conducted to analyze whether propagating health care in prisons would reduce costs are not in agreement.