Privatization of Prisons

Abstract

The number of state and federal prisoners has increased dramatically over the past 30 years, but public willingness to finance prisons has not kept pace. One response has been a renewed interest in privately managed prisons. Proponents of privatization contend that private contractors, unencumbered by government procurement and personnel procedures, can provide better quality prison services at lower costs. This article uses the 1995 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities to examine claims of improved quality. The authors find that privately managed prisons perform better on some, but not all, measures of quality of confinement. Specifically, bivariate comparisons suggest that private facilities outperform both state and federal facilities in terms of the proportion of institutions that are able to avoid inmate assaults on staff members or other inmates. Even when the authors controlled for other causal variables, private prisons remained significantly less likely than federal prisons to experience violence.

Where Have All the (White and Hispanic) Inmates Gone? Comparing the Racial Composition of Private and Public Adult Correctional Facilities

“…A growing body of empirical evaluation research on the performance of private corrections increasingly casts the industry in a negative light. At best, the industry has failed to consistently provide better services at lower costs (Bales et al, 2005; Camp & Daggett, 2005; Lukemeyer & McCorkle, 2006; Duwe & Clark, 2013; Lundahl et al, 2009; Makarios & Maahs, 2012). And, in many cases, sophisticated evaluations demonstrate that privately operated correctional facilities perform worse than their public counterparts (Camp & Daggett, 2005; Camp & Gaes, 2002; Duwe & Clark, 2013; Lundahl et al, 2009; Makarios & Maahs, 2012; Spivak & Sharp, 2008).…”

“…Lundahl, Kunz, Brownell, Harris, & Van Vleet, 2009), offer fewer inmate work assignments (Makarios & Maahs, 2012), generate more inmate grievances (Hulley, Liebling, & Crewe, 2011; Lundahl et al, 2009), offer less training for employees (Blakely & Bumphus, 2004; Lundahl et al, 2009), have higher staff turnover (Camp & Gaes, 2002), and have worse public safety outcomes (Camp & Gaes, 2002; Lundahl et al, 2009). Research has shown mixed evidence or equal performance in terms of inmate assaults (Camp & Daggett, 2005; Lukemeyer & McCorkle, 2006), health care for inmates (Lundahl et al, 2009; Makarios & Maahs, 2012), staff safety (Lundahl et al, 2009), and staffing levels (Makarios & Maahs, 2012). Two areas of private prison superiority are working conditions for employees (Lundahl et al, 2009) and less overcrowding (Makarios & Maahs, 2012).…”

Toward a political sociology of privatized punishment: Contestation, state structures, and stratification

“…Other work has focused on rule‐breaking by people in custody in private prisons. Some studies have found increased rates of misconduct or violence in private facilities (Bauer & Johnston, 2019; Camp & Daggett, 2005; Camp & Gaes, 2002), though others have drawn more ambiguous conclusions (Lukemeyer & McCorkle, 2006; Lundahl et al., 2009; Wooldredge & Cochran, 2019).…”

Evaluación del sistema concesionado versus el sistema tradicional en la reducción de la reincidencia delictual

“…Parte de la literatura argumenta que la introducción de capital privado podría, en teoría, dar una respuesta concluyente al problema carcelario (Lukemeyer y McCorkle, 2006). Como se señaló anteriormente, de acuerdo a la evidencia al respecto, los resultados (u objetivos logrados) de la inyección de capital privado estarían relacionados con:…”