Hidden corporate profits in the U.S. prison system: the unorthodox policy-making of the American Legislative Exchange Council

Cooper, Richelle J.; Heldman, Caroline; Ackerman, Alissa R.; Farrar-Meyers, Victoria A.

doi:10.1080/10282580.2016.1185949

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ALEC claims “nearly one quarter” of state legislators are members, although current membership rolls are not made public. The group is funded primarily by corporations, trade associations, and private foundations (Cooper, Heldman, Ackerman, & Farrar‐Meyers, ). ALEC drafts model bills that can be introduced in state legislatures, educates legislators on issues, and provides talking points on pending legislation (Cooper et al., ; Sullivan, ).…”

Section: Private Industry Influences Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ALEC has a long history of addressing criminal justice issues, and Wackenhut and CCA were once dues‐paying members (SourceWatch, ). ALEC has drafted model bills to expand the use of imprisonment, as well as bills that explicitly called for greater use of private prisons (Cooper et al., ). But they have been particularly active on matters of immigration law enforcement (e.g., Collingwood, El‐Khatib, & O'Brien, ).…”

Section: Private Industry Influences Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The politics of correctional privatization in the United States

Burkhardt

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary Private correctional firms are political actors. They work to create favorable conditions to market their services. At the same time, they are constrained by external political forces, including political parties, social movements, and public opinion. In this article, I review what we know about the reciprocal relationship between the private corrections industry and politics. Policy Implications Through my review of extant research, I discover several implications for practitioners and policy makers. First, correctional privatization is not uniformly accepted, a fact that presents challenges for the industry and opportunities for critics. Second, punitive policies that seem beneficial to industry (particularly those related to tough immigration policy) may in fact pose real reputational risks. Third, new forms of privatization—namely, social impact bonds—may prove more tolerable to the general public. Finally, consideration of political activity by private industry should not distract from political activity by public‐sector actors (e.g., prison guard unions).

show abstract

Section: Private Industry Influences Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Private Industry Influences Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The politics of correctional privatization in the United States

Burkhardt

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, both Cooper et al. () and Anderson and Donchik () show that the model legislation created by ALEC has been successful in both criminal justice and education policy. For example, New Jersey's School Children First Act included all of ALEC's recommended requirements for teacher rankings that had been included in their model legislation (Anderson & Donchik, ).…”

Section: The Case: Alec's Sustained Organizational Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jackman (2013b) demonstrates ALEC's wide-ranging influence on policymaking in the states by showing that ALEC-affiliated members introduced bills on immigration, energy and environment, guns and prisons, health and pharmaceuticals, voting rights, tort reform, consumer rights, schools and higher education, and tax and budgets in the 2011-2012 legislative session. In addition, both Cooper et al (2016) and Anderson and Donchik (2016) show that the model legislation created by ALEC has been successful in both criminal justice and education policy. For example, New Jersey's School Children First Act included all of ALEC's recommended requirements for teacher rankings that had been included in their model legislation (Anderson & Donchik, 2016).…”

Section: The Case: Alec's Sustained Organizational Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustained Organizational Influence: American Legislative Exchange Council and the Diffusion of Anti‐Sanctuary Policy

Collingwood

El‐Khatib

O’Brien

2018

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building upon existing literature, we offer a particular model of network policy diffusion—which we call sustained organizational influence. Sustained organizational influence necessitates an institutional focus across a broad range of issues and across a long period of time. Sustaining organizations are well‐financed, and exert their influence on legislators through benefits, shared ideological interests, and time‐saving opportunities. Sustaining organizations' centralized nature makes legislators' jobs easier by providing legislators with ready‐made model legislation. We argue that sustaining organizations uniquely contribute to policy diffusion in the U.S. states. We evaluate this model with a case study of state‐level immigration sanctuary policy making and the role that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) played in disseminating model legislation. Through quantitative text analysis and several negative binomial state‐level regression models, we demonstrate that ALEC has exerted an overwhelming influence on the introduction of anti‐sanctuary legislative proposals in the U.S. states over the past 7 years consistent with our particular model of network policy diffusion. Implications are discussed.

show abstract

Carceral and Climate Crises and Health Inequities: A Call for Greater Transparency, Accountability, and Human Rights Protections

Golembeski¹,

Dong²,

Irfan³

2021

World Med & Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States has approximately 5 percent of the world's population but incarcerates nearly 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population and produces nearly 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Climate change and hyperincarceration are causes and consequences of structural racism and economic deprivation, which disproportionately affect structurally disenfranchised citizens, including lower-income communities, communities of color, and people with disabilities. Empirical evidence exists regarding the adverse health effects of climate change and mass incarceration, which occur in cascading and overlapping categories and include preventable death, illness, and injury. Researchers underscore the medical vulnerability of incarcerated populations, who are increasingly susceptible to climate-driven exposure pathways and mental and physical health outcomes involving extreme temperatures, natural disasters, infectious diseases, and displacement. Intersectional structural drivers, such as anthropogenic climate change and hyperincarceration, undermine social and political determinants of health equity. Policymakers and health professionals can advance understanding and mitigate present and anticipated public health threats by increasing transparency, accountability, and human rights protections with an emphasis on decarceration and decarbonization.

show abstract

Hidden corporate profits in the U.S. prison system: the unorthodox policy-making of the American Legislative Exchange Council

Cited by 16 publications

References 16 publications

The politics of correctional privatization in the United States

The politics of correctional privatization in the United States

Sustained Organizational Influence: American Legislative Exchange Council and the Diffusion of Anti‐Sanctuary Policy

Carceral and Climate Crises and Health Inequities: A Call for Greater Transparency, Accountability, and Human Rights Protections

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About