Private and Public Sector Prisons

Volume 68 Number 1: Home

Private and Public Sector Prisons—A Comparison of Select Characteristics

Authors: Curtis R. Blakely, University of South Alabama; Vic W. Bumphus, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Introduction

• The advent of get-tough sanctions has significantly increased demand for prison space.

• State and federal facilities are operating at or above capacity, prompting exploration of private sector solutions.

• Private prisons are facilities that incarcerate offenders for profit.

• According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 7% (94,948) of U.S. state and federal prisoners are in privately operated prisons (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002).

• The U.S. Bureau of Prisons plans to increase the number of federal prisoners in private facilities to an anticipated 20,000 in the coming years (Camp et al., 2002: 28).

• This growth indicates a strong trend towards correctional privatization.

• Understanding ideologies behind privatization is important as the objectives of prisons appear increasingly ambiguous (Garland, 1990: 3).

• There is dissatisfaction with modern penal practices and confusion regarding the justification for correctional efforts.

Privatization: A History

• Historical Context: Prison privatization has roots in Europe during the 17th century, notably in Amsterdam and Hamburg (Spierenburg, 1998: 66).

  • Private facilities existed to confine troublesome individuals and aimed for profit through fees for services (food, lodging).

• Cohen traces contemporary privatization roots to the 1960s with a desire to reduce state control functions (Cohen, 1985: 31).

• Recent dissatisfaction with government operations has spurred privatization efforts.

• The trend gained momentum in 1984 with contracts initiated by Hamilton County, Tennessee, and Bay County, Florida.

• As of the time of the study, there are 158 private correctional facilities operating across 31 states (Thomas, 2000).

• Economic concerns are raised over potential conflicts between public interest and private profit motives (Christie, 2000: 149; Logan, 1990).

• Critics argue that financial motivations may lead to cuts in staffing and services (Brister, 1996; Logan, 1996; Thomas, 1996).

• Labor costs account for about 70% of prison expenses, suggesting that lower staffing could be a tactic for profit (Austin & Coventry, 2001: xi & 16; Welch, 2000: 82).

• Prison privatization reflects a larger neo-liberalism movement advocating for reduced government intervention and increased economic free enterprise (Martinez & Garcia, 2000: 1; Passas, 2000: 21; Starr, 1988: 8).

Ideological Orientation

• Two ideological orientations frame this study: Normalization and Less Eligibility.

  • Normalization emphasizes treatment, rehabilitation, civil rights, and offender reformation (Downes, 2001; Simon, 1993).

  • Less Eligibility views inmates with reduced rights and little emphasis on reformation (Jacobs, 1980; Simon, 1993).

• These ideologies form a continuum for situating public and private correctional sectors.

• It was hypothesized that the private sector, with its profit motive, would lean towards the Less Eligibility ideology.

• Prior literature often suggests inmates in private prisons experience inferior conditions (Pha, 1996; Peck, 2001; Wright, 2000).

• Some contend privatization might improve conditions for inmates and staff (Logan, 1990).

Methodology

• Data sourced from the Criminal Justice Institute's (CJI) Corrections Yearbook editions from 1998 and 2000.

• Due to incomplete data for the 2000 edition, the analysis focuses on 1998 data, which covered 74% of privately held prisoners and 53% of private prisons.

• By 2000, only 35% of prisoners and 36% of private prisons were reported.

• Specific operational data fared poorly, with only 12 private prisons reporting on turnover rates in 2000 (down from 53 in 1998).

• Public sector data were more stable, showing 88% representation in both 1998 and 2000.

• Statistical analysis performed using SPSS for descriptive analyses.

• Corporations involved included Corrections Corporation of America (47 prisons, 59% of data), Wackenhut (21 prisons, 26%), and others.

• Hypotheses included anticipated lower pay, training, officer retention, higher violence levels, and lower drug treatment participation in the private sector compared to public sector.

  • A significant difference of at least 25% was required to categorize findings on the ideological continuum.

Findings

Demographic and Custody Data

• High percentage of incarcerated individuals from both sectors is African American; however, the private sector has a higher percentage of female inmates.

• Average age at admission is similar (around 30 years old), with both sectors housing around 90% of their populations aged 49 or younger.

• Private sector houses 21% fewer maximum security inmates and 15% more at minimum security levels than the public sector.

• Average length of stay: Private sector inmates serve about 11 months, compared to 28 months in public sector prisons.

• The capacity: Private facilities operate at 82%, public ones at 113%, indicating more crowding in public prisons.

Salaries, Training Levels, Staffing Ratios, and Turnover Rates

• 1998 private sector salaries ranged from $15,919 to $19,103, while public sector salaries ranged from $21,246 to $34,004—a difference of $12,758.

• Public sector required more extensive training (232 hours of pre-service versus 174 for private) but similar annual in-service training (42 hours in both).

• Turnover rates for private sector officers at 43% versus 15% for public sector officers, indicating significantly higher turnover.

• Staffing ratios reflect higher inmate to officer ratios in private sector: 6.7 inmates per officer compared to 5.6 in public.

Frequency of Assaults

• Private sector reported 40 assaults on inmates and 9 on staff per prison, while public sector reported 19 assaults on inmates and 10 assaults on staff.

Drug Treatment

• Private sector reported 28% of inmates participated in drug treatment; public sector had 14% participation, implying better treatment access in private facilities.

Inmate Wages

• Private sector wages ranged from $1.09 to $2.75 per day; public sector ranged from $0.99 to $3.13.

Discussion

• Distinct areas of private prison operations focus primarily on controllable costs like staffing, while others are bound by contracts, influencing operational capabilities.

• Findings highlight differences mainly in staffing, which directly affects costs and violence levels.

• Three out of four characteristics placing the private sector closer to Less Eligibility relate to employee conditions: salaries, training, and turnover.

• Inmate participation rates in drug treatment challenge the belief that privatization leads to reduced rehabilitative efforts.

• Notable disparities in custody levels suggest private sector focuses on less serious offenders, countering concerns about their capacity and management of female inmates.

Conclusion

• Both sectors incarcerate a majority of young minority males, yet diverge heavily in offender seriousness and average custodial duration.

• Despite the private sector's lower violent expectations due to less serious inmate profiles, findings indicate a more hazardous environment within private prisons.

• Importantly, private sector maintains higher drug treatment participation, suggesting complexities in ideological alignment and operational practices.

References

• Articles referenced include multiple studies and statistics from sources like the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002), various academic essays, and governmental reports that discuss prison privatization trends, impacts on staffing, financial models, and societal implications of the private prison industry.

Tables

Table 1: Ideology's Effect upon Prison Operations

• Less Eligibility:

  • Emphasis on profit/efficiency

  • Low officer wages

  • Low retirement rates

  • Low staff-to-inmate ratio

  • Low staff training

• Normalization:

  • Higher wages

  • Higher retirement rates

  • Higher staff-to-inmate ratio

  • Higher training levels

Table 2: Demographic, Custody, and Sentencing Data