One of the most challenging issues facing our criminal justice system is prison overpopulation, which has been a critical driving force behind the privatization of correctional facilities. The number of adult criminals under the authority and control of the American court system has doubled in the last ten years. The populations of probation, parole, and jail increased between 1980 and 1995 rapidly compared to the jail population. More than 5.4 million were born in 1995. A little more than one adult in every 46 was under correctional supervision. More than 1.7 million people were housed in prisons and jails across the country in 1997, an increase from almost 750,000 in 1985. Similar increases in alternative kinds of correctional supervision have coincided with this rise in prison and jail populations and the resulting requirement for more beds. Spending on prisons has increased in tandem with the rise in the number of people housed in jails, prisons, and on probation or parole. The public’s lack of trust in the federal, state, and local government’s ability to deliver high-quality correctional services exacerbates the issues brought on by the rising demand for jail space and financing. Penal programs intended to rehabilitate offenders have lost favor with the public and legislators since they haven’t shown a sizable decrease in crime or recidivism. In other words, the perception that the government is ill-prepared to handle the problems posed by modern institutional imprisonment is growing.
Before the Privatization of Prisons
When taxpayers hesitated to pay for correctional services and opposed diverting funds from other areas of governmental responsibilities and services, private prisons and jails were considered part of the solution in the 1980s to fulfill the growing demand for prison bed space. An increasing number of decision-makers are now looking to the corporate sector to help address rising prison populations and expenditures (Alonso et al., 2016). A contract process known as privatization is one in which the public sector transfers, in whole or in part, public duties, responsibilities, and capital assets to the private sector. Correctional services privatization can take on a range of institutional traits. For example, contracting out (or outsourcing) specialized services is a competition among private bidders to carry out governmental functions. It is the most popular form of privatization in the correctional industry (Alonso et al., 2016). State and local correctional agencies have increasingly turned to private companies to handle maintenance, administrative office security, food services, mental health, and educational needs over the past 20 years (Alonso et al., 2016). In these situations, the correctional agency continues to manage and maintain policy control over the kind and caliber of services offered and providing the funding.
A more drastic approach would be for the administration to hand over to the private sector administration of businesses, ownership of assets, and asset ownership. A limited or nonexistent government role in the financial support, management, or monitoring of the sold asset results from this strategy, known as “asset sale.” Governments did not start using this type of privatization in the 1980s while running prisons. Initially in the United States and more recently in the United Kingdom, Australia, and South Africa, the usage of private correctional facilities has dramatically increased. There were roughly 3,000 prisoners and detainees in privately run prisons and jails around the world in 1987. More than 130,000 people had been added by December 1998 (Lindsey et al., 2016). Although there were 14 private correctional facility corporations then, more than three-fourths of the global industry was controlled by only two organizations, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Corrections Corporation of America. Private correctional facilities, at least within the United States, have increased, but their market share of all correctional facilities is still relatively tiny. The estimated 115000 bed capacity of private correctional facilities is less than 5% of the U.S.U.S. market, even though there are over 1.5 million people in jails and prisons nationwide.
There are more than 1,400 prisons in the U.S.U.S., but the analysis only found 60 that could house state convicts. Furthermore, there are signs that the pace of privatization growth may be moderating. In addition, most large companies’ stock values have decreased significantly during the past 12 months (Lindsey et al., 2016). Additionally, several widely reported management issues with several privately run facilities have been reported. Privatizing penal operations and services has reemerged as a contentious issue, although its forerunners emerged early in the history of this nation.
The Present of Prisons Privatization
But before then, security contractors asserted that they could run prisons and hire prisoners as workers, believing that the move would be financially and therapeutically beneficial. Convicting labor in prisons was done in a variety of ways. In some cases, businesses outside the prison supplied the raw materials later refined in the jail’s factories and sold by private businesses. If they could not generate saleable goods inside the prison, other prisons would lease their inmates to private farms or companies. For permission to hire prisoners, contractors in some states had to pay the jail a fee or a share of the earnings (Volokh, 2017). Prison labor was expected to make money for the institution for most of American history’s correctional time frame. It was the responsibility of the prisoner to cover the costs of detention and become self-supporting if making a profit was not possible. Early detention center “managers” billed their residents for clothing and food while offering poor care (Harding, 2018). However, despite repeated and vigorous efforts to make the system self-sufficient, the money made through inmate labor was insufficient to cover the enormous costs of maintaining correctional infrastructure.
Additionally, the convict lease system was highly opposed by organized labor, businesses, and farmers. This wide-ranging group pushed for legislation prohibiting the use of prisoner labor and the sale of items made by convicts because it opposed what it saw as unfair competition. Reformers and religious organizations that condemned the appalling conditions observed at many privately owned facilities and in labor lease arrangements also organized the public against them. State legislatures started looking into allegations of abuse and poor management of privatized institutions, which led to changes in the licensing structure. In the 21st century, a trend for contracting out jail services to for-profit and nonprofit organizations gradually emerged to control the rising costs associated with sustaining the numerous activities needed to run penal institutions (Harding, 2018) correctly. In addition to the previously mentioned medical, dental, and mental health treatments, prisons added services like meal preparation, job training, and inmate transportation to the list of outsourced provisions.
With more than 30,000 kids living in privately run juvenile penal facilities, the trend toward these facilities has persisted. Remarkably, these procedures have not faced nearly as much scrutiny and criticism as their adult counterparts. It would be difficult to overstate the significance of these contract awards for the ensuing growth of correctional privatization, and the fact that they are all still in effect today with the same management firms is not without significance for those who would be willing to accept this fact as at least an oblique performance indicator. Each offered a chance to test, in the real world, the claim that the government might gain anything through contracting. Additionally, each offered an invaluable example that succeeding government bodies could study and build upon in crucial areas, including procurement tactics, the construction of effective communication channels, the creation of sound contracts, and contract surveillance. Security institutions for adults, once seen as the unavoidable preserve of the government, became the main topic of discussion among institutions of correction. Finally, governments have recently attempted to contract out operational costs and capital spending services, such as management, building, and design of prisons.
As a result, the pressure of rising incarceration rates and correctional expenditures has allowed for the reemergence of privatization of prisons as a viable political and operational notion. However, this resurgence has generated a lot of discussion regarding the feasibility of privately run prison institutions (Lindsey et al., 2016). The possibility of more creative, cost-effective jail management, including the anticipated private-sector involvement in financing the construction of new prisons, is driving the present enthusiasm for privatization.
The Future of Prisons Privatization
It has been possible to improve effectiveness and quality and save money by privatizing government services. Due to this, extensive research has examined the potential drawbacks of privatization, such as the loss of transparency and accountability. Research also emphasizes the importance of openness and accountability in the fight against lousy administration (Eisen et al., 2017). The emphasis of governance has shifted to focusing on management practices and methods of handling this blurring of sectors due to the increased blending of the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. It is crucial to comprehend governance as it relates to the private and nonprofit sectors to provide public goods. This is illustrated by the contracting out of public services.
Private companies have demonstrated an ability to open new facilities more quickly because they are not constrained by governmental regulations that frequently slow down prison construction, such as political pressure from disgruntled neighbors, environmental issues, and competitive bidding and construction contracting requirements. They assert that private investors or lenders can help them raise capital for new institutions more quickly than the government, which must wait for legislative appropriations or go through the process of issuing bonds. Prison operations are labor-intensive, with staff pay, perks, and overtime accounting for 70 to 75 percent of total operating expenses (Eisen et al., 2017). With unionized government employees, keeping these costs under control is more challenging. The fact that the private sector has more flexibility in the procurement process is an additional but weaker argument in favor of private contracting. It is asserted that contractors working for the private sector are not constrained by the complex and restrictive government procurement process. Private vendors can purchase goods and services more quickly, keep lower stockpiles of food, supplies, and equipment, and bargain for better production rates. The cost to the government for contract performance monitoring is one expense that is typically not taken into account in the financial calculations of private companies (Eisen et al., 2017). To maintain a successful contractual relationship, which could eventually cost a lot of money, it is crucial to check all internal performance facets constantly.
The monitoring costs will ultimately drive up the cost of privatized services if ongoing federal or state oversight of private organizations is necessary for accountability reasons. Additionally, proponents of private prisons hardly ever mention the possible costs of rising jail lawsuits (Eisen et al., 2017). On a policy level, those opposed to privatization assert that running prisons for business are unacceptable. Private jail operators frequently receive payments based on the number of inmates they house. To fill bed spaces, it may be argued that the operator has a financial incentive to urge offenders to serve longer sentences.
In conclusion, the nation’s prison and jail systems came under fire for widespread complaints regarding the low quality of care provided to employees and inmates, in addition to the anticipated cost savings and associated efficient services one must keep in mind. However, one of the main worries voiced by opponents of correctional privatization is that businesses driven by profit-making decisions may jeopardize the rights and welfare of prisoners. According to history, issues related to the pursuit of larger incomes plagued privately run prison operations. Public agencies were compelled to take responsibility because the profit motivation led to such horrible circumstances and abuse of the prisoners. To prevent the past exploitations from happening again, the present push to reprivatize primary facility management assumes that modern businesspeople are somehow more charitable and humanistic.
References
Alonso, J. M., & Andrews, R. (2016). How privatization affects public service quality: An empirical analysis of prisons in England and Wales, 1998–2012. International Public Management Journal, 19(2), 235-263. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10967494.2015.1048913?casa_token=CLr5XSMVGhMAAAAA%3AR3CdLoBre8CDd4AlrD2AhiLcMLmwYShro7glYALjiWjqfEhT4HX2hJsVSOKK6W1lb1OdifyTXQl9o-yq4g
Eisen, L. B. (2017). Inside private prisons: An American dilemma in the age of mass incarceration. Columbia University Press. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mmg6DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&dq=privatization+of+prisons+2017&ots=3z3-WvEn0f&sig=AQP79hhodFRIFiCBiKvygXAqLVo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=privatization%20of%20prisons%202017&f=false
Harding, R. W. (2018). Private prisons and public accountability. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781351308045/private-prisons-public-accountability-richard-harding
Lindsey, A. M., Mears, D. P., & Cochran, J. C. (2016). The privatization debate: A conceptual framework for improving (public and private) corrections. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(4), 308-327. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1043986216660006?casa_token=dYcZ7EnLkb4AAAAA:YZ9JK_5sJ5eb-vuTk4LnKMd_L3LCCOHi4-_iLCVX6Joarh5U1cXok7EIsXMP-1C6EADaHUkj-8-1aSg
Volokh, A. (2017). Privatization and the Elusive Employee-Contractor Distinction. In Prisoners’ Rights (pp. 71-146). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315089461-4/privatization-elusive-employee-contractor-distinction-alexander-volokh
write