The privatization of the criminal justice facilities was a culmination of the rapid changes experienced within the criminal justice system in the wake of the 1960s. The United States has traditionally experienced a higher rate of incarceration more than any other country in the entire world. It all began with the creation of the halfway houses in the 1960s, which provided a wide array of treatments including skill-building and educational opportunities for the incarcerated (Leban, 2017). During the 1970s, the US heavily relied on incarceration as a way of treating economic, political, social, and mental health problems. The criminalization of more acts and the increment in sentencing meant that the criminal justice system experienced a prison boom. As such, business persons and investors took this opportunity to create the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The initial goal was to build new prisons and eventually lease the beds to the state in a bid to make profits. Today, approximately 10% of the prisons and jails in the US are privatized, accounting for up to 200,000 prisoners (Leban, 2017). The Correctional Corporations also succeeded in converting correctional facilities into business ventures through lobbying power, governmental ties, and campaign contributions. As such, they managed to change the narrative that has favored government monopoly, further citing that private institutions can run prison facilities at an affordable price with an increased sense of efficiency.
The privatization of the adult correctional facilities became one of the most controversial aspects of the movement. Many critics voiced their concerns asserting that the privatization of the adult facilities would not guarantee solutions to the problems such as overcrowding and the rapidly increasing correctional costs. However, the pressure in the public facilities compelled the lawmakers and the government, in general, to consider the move to privatize the prisons and jails. By the 1980s, only a small number of private facilities existed and hosted only a few inmates. One of the earliest prison facilities was known as the Dismas House Charities contracted by the Kentucky Corrections Cabinet to manage 80-bed minimum security (Hanson, 1991). Other facilities that began functioning at the early stages of the movement include the Dierson Correctional Center and Pasadena Immigration Holding Facility. In 1981, the Marshall Service contracted another private player known as the Eclectic Communications to help in adult incarceration in California. Following the passage of the “National Correctional Policy on Private Sector Involvement in Corrections” in 1985, the government gave rise to more extensive private facilities such as Cornell Corrections and the Corrections Corporations (Hanson, 1991).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As previously indicated, the privatization process began with the formation of the CCA, which has now been renamed to CoreCivic. The Wackenhut Securities is another major player that has since rebranded to the GEO Group, Inc. Other corporations managing the private sector today include the Community Education centers and the Management and Training Corporation (MTC). A research conducted in 2015 showed that the prison facilities were responsible for about 7% and 18% of the state and federal prisoners, respectively. The three private entities including the Management and Training Corporation, CoreCivic, and GEO, control up to 96% of the market (Private Prisons: An Evaluation Of Economic And Ethical Implications). Several stakeholders have traditionally delved into the issue of prison privatization in America. An example of a non-governmental stakeholder is the Private Corrections Institute (PCI). The non-governmental has been at the forefront in acting as a watchdog organization and as an advocate against the for-profit prison industry. It opposes the privatization of the prisons and jails and criticizes the work performed by companies such as CoreCivic and Nashville. The second non-governmental is known as the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).
AFSC has remained one of the most vocal advocates for reforms in the prison department. Just like PCI, it has significantly opposed the privatization of prisons in the US. Justice Strategies is another research-based advocate with a focus on improving prisons and correctional facilities in America. Founded in 2003, the role of the nonprofit has centered on suggesting policies that enhance safety, humane, and cost-effective measures in the correction of offenders (Kaufman, 2015). The nongovernmental has written many reports aimed at improving the situation in the private facilities. In general, most of the nonprofits working in the US are against the expansion of the private sector. It is without a doubt that the prison privatization has played a critical role in advancing mass incarceration. The companies have also increased their influence, characterized by an expanding market share. According to the nonprofit organization, the private sector has often focused on cutting the operational costs, thereby placing the health and welfare of the people in danger (Kaufman, 2015). Thus, through the lenses of the nongovernmental organizations, the privatization of the prison sector needs to be stopped.
The privatization of the prison sector in the US continues to divide opinions amongst politicians, lawmakers, non-profits, and the public in general. The debate over the privatization of the prison department has largely been ideologically driven. Whereas the conservatives favor the prison privatization, liberals, on the other hand, oppose the move (Kim & Price, 2014). Since the private sectors have the capacity to leverage and implement cost-effective strategies, the move to privatize is vital from the taxpayers’ point of view. It also reduces the responsibility of the government thereby enhancing the much-needed efficiency. Evidence has demonstrated that when a private prison exists in a locality, the local community experiences several benefits including the creation of job opportunities and new tax revenues. In their discussion, Kim & Price (2014) rely on data from a private prison located in Arkansas which showed that inmates from private prisons are less likely to re-offend once released to the community. However, private prisons are also associated with many disadvantages. Research has shown that prisoners serving in private institutions are more likely to stay in jail for long. The profit-potential that comes with one prisoner means that the stakeholders can be forced to prolong one’s sentence.
The institutions tend to avoid costly prisons especially high-risk inmates who might require extensive resources and human power to supervise. The more costly prisoners are taken back to the public facilities thereby exerting a heavy burden on the taxpayers (Kim & Price, 2014). The authors further outline that the cases of officer assault are more prevalent in the private facilities compared to their public counterparts, mainly as a result of fewer incarceration officials. Incidences of corruption have also been reported with the private institution. The for-profit nature and increased commercialization have seen widespread manipulation of government officials and distortion of budgets in favor of a few bureaucrats that benefit. States such as California are at the forefront in suggesting the complete illegalization of the private prison facilities. The change in the statutes is driven by the failure of the private facilities to consider basic human rights and welfare issues such as the health and overall wellbeing of the inmates. Despite the cost-cutting debate, there is no clear indication as to whether the private prisons result in the saving of government funds. In proving this, Joy (2018) says, “In-depth research from Arizona found that inmates in the state’s for-profit prisons rarely cost less than those in state-run prisons, and in some cases cost as much as $1,600 more per year.”
Also, it is well-documented that many private institutions have refused to accept certain types of prisoners due to their medical history. However, this move by the state does not sound logic or even feasible due to the high incarceration rates in the US. More importantly, the government is not willing to construct more prison facilities across the nation. Thus, it is upon the government to encourage the private facilities to streamline their services for better services and synergy between the public and the private sectors. Privatization can resolve issues of congestions that have, for many years, rocked the public facilities. If the private institutions demonstrate their commitment towards housing the risky inmates, the financial burden shall be reduced on the part of the government (Joy, 2018). Thirdly, the private institution can resolve the issue of health and prisoner welfare thus enhancing consistency in the treatment of prisoners across the country.
As an administrator, privatization should stand as an alternative way of incarceration. The increased incarceration and the congestion in prison necessitate the need for private facilities. Also, the government has failed to provide enough prison facilities to serve the ever-growing prison population. However, an independent commission should be instituted consisting of government officials, non-governmental officials, and experts to come up with standards to define the operation of the private prisons. The commission should then come up with recommendations that would define the operation of the private prisons and jails. The private sector should receive an allocation in terms of the percentage of the number of inmates it receives per year. This includes risky inmates such as the mentally unstable and the dangerous. The joint commission will also act as the intermediary between the public and the private sectors.
References
Hanson, L. S. C. (1991). The Privatization of Corrections Movement: A Decade of Change. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 7(1), 1–20 doi: 10.1177/104398629100700103
Joy, T. (2018). The Problem with Private Prisons. Justice Policy Institute http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/12006
Kaufman, N. (2015). Prisoner incorporation: The work of the state and non-governmental organizations. Theoretical Criminology, 19(4), 534-553.
Kim, Y., & Price, B. E. (2014). Revisiting prison privatization: An examination of the magnitude of prison privatization. Administration & Society, 46(3), 255-275.
Leban, L. (2017). Halfway Houses. The Encyclopedia of Corrections, 1-3.
Private Prisons: An Evaluation of Economic and Ethical Implications https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2304-private-prisons-an-evaluation-of-economic-and
