Privatization of Criminal Justice

The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world—about 1 in 100 adults, or more than 2 million people—while national spending on prisons has catapulted 400 percent. Given the vast racial disparities in incarceration, the prison system also reinforces race and class divisions. How and why did we become the world’s leading jailer? And what can we, as a society, do about it? Reframing the story of mass incarceration, Heather Schoenfeld illustrates how the unfinished task of full equality for African Americans led to a series of policy choices that expanded the government’s power to punish, even as they were designed to protect individuals from arbitrary state violence. Examining civil rights protests, prison condition lawsuits, sentencing reforms, the War on Drugs, and the rise of conservative Tea Party politics, Schoenfeld explains why politicians veered from skepticism of prisons to an embrace of incarceration as the appropriate response to crime. To reduce the number of people behind bars, Schoenfeld argues that we must transform the political incentives for imprisonment and develop a new ideological basis for punishment.

This report discusses the findings of a nationwide study on the use of private prisons in the United States. The number of these prisons grew enormously between 1987 and 1998, with proponents suggesting that allowing facilities to be operated by the private sector could result in cost reductions of 20%. The study examined the historical factors that gave rise to the higher incarceration rates, fueling the privatization movement, and the role played by the private sector in the prison system. It outlines the arguments, both in support of and opposition to, privatized prisons, reviews current literature on the subject, and examines issues that will have an impact on future privatizations. The report concludes that, rather than the projected 20-percent savings, the average saving from privatization was only about 1 percent, and most of that was achieved through lower labor costs. Nevertheless, there were indications that the mere prospect of privatization had a positive effect on prison administration, making it more responsive to reform.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the component of the Department of Justice (DOJ) responsible for incarcerating all federal defendants sentenced to prison, was operating at 20% over its rated capacity as of December 2015. To alleviate overcrowding, in 1997 the BOP had begun contracting with privately operated institutions (contract prisons), to confine federal inmates who are primarily low security, criminal alien adult males with 90 months or less remaining to serve on their sentences. This report examined how the BOP monitors these facilities and assessed whether contractor performance meets certain inmate safety and security requirements. It found that, in most key areas, contract prisons incurred more safety and security incidents per capita than comparable BOP institutions and that the BOP needs to improve how it monitors contract prisons. Figures. This is a print on demand report.

When prison privatization began in the United States in the early 1980s, many policy analysts claimed that the result would be higher costs, declining quality, and an erosion of state authority. Bringing together five of the leading researchers of prison privatization and criminology, this authoritative survey addresses the economic as well as the social implications of prison reform. Economist Ken Avio begins with an analysis of the broader issues surrounding the private-prison debate, such as punishment and recidivism, and crime deterrence. Charles Thomas, the world's leading authority on private prisons, provides the empirical context for understanding the debate, examining their historical origins, present status, and future prospects. Samuel Jan Brakel and Kimberly Ingersoll Gaylord examine the costs and quality of private prisons, and Bruce Benson argues that prison privatization be instituted in concert with certain aspects of the criminal justice system.