NCJ Number
168261
Journal
Sheriff Volume: 48 Issue: 4 Dated: (July-August 1996) Pages: 11,45
Date Published
1996
Length
2 pages
Annotation
Jail privatization is no panacea; it raises questions of accountability and equity, with no guarantee of better services or reduced costs.
Abstract
Many times private vendors will take only minimum-security and low-risk inmates, leaving the maximum-security and higher risk prisoners for the county to manage. A study by Donahue of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government found that when private facilities handle the same class of prisoners as government institutions, the difference in cost is minimal. Also, a vendor may bid at a low cost and then after obtaining the contract and the county has gone out of the corrections business, raise costs dramatically. The county either complies or must get back into the corrections business in a short period of time. Regarding liability, especially in civil rights areas, the sheriff's office is ultimately responsible. The loss of direct control of jail management by the sheriff and the private vendor's awareness that they are not ultimately liable for violations of inmates' rights can increase the number and severity of inmate lawsuits. Further, private corporations want to keep the contracts they have; to do this, it has been documented that they repeatedly give large political contributions and lucrative perks to officials who decide on the fate of their contracts. Underlying all of the problems with the privatization of corrections is the motivation for a private company's management decisions and operations, i.e., profit.