America has been getting tougher on lawbreakers. This is
something that the public long has been demanding. The problem it
creates, however, is a shortage of prison capacity to hold the
increased numbers of convicted criminals. This has led to: prison
overcrowding, sometimes prompting court actions against penal
systems; rapidly rising operational outlays; and taxpayer
resistance to the cost of new prisons.
A partial answer to the problems of prison overcrowding and high
costs may be the "Privatization" of prisons. By using the private
sector to build or manage prisons, many states believe that they
can reduce costs. So far, most state correction agencies have used
the private sector only to manage minimum-secure or non-secure
"community" correction centers, such as juvenile institutions and
halfway houses. Currently over half the states have passed
legislation to allow for this form of prison privatization. Nine
states may be going beyond this; they have passed laws enabling
private companies to operate adult "confinement" state
prisons.1 Other states, including
Indiana, Kentucky, and Minnesota, considering similar
Court Ordered Relief. Costs and overcrowding problems are
the driving force behind the Privatization phenomenon. As a
national average, it costs roughly $20,000 per year to keep an
inmate in prison. There are approximately 650,000 inmates in state
and local prisons, double the number five years ago. This costs
taxpayers an estimated $18 billion each year. More than two thirds
of the states are facing serious overcrowding problems, and many
are operating at least 50 percent over capacity. Some 41 states,
including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Texas are
under court order to relieve the overcrowding.2 If they do not do so, many convicts who have
not served full sentences will have to be released.
Cost comparisons between private and government operation of
prisons show frequent cost savings under private management. While
the national average cost to hold a prisoner in a government run
prison is $40 per inmate a day, many privately run prisons charge
the government significantly lower fees. U.S. Corrections
Corporation, which operates the Marion Adjustment Center in St.
Mary, Kentucky, charges Kentucky a daily fee of $25 per inmate. In
1986, this private firm saved Kentucky an estimated $400,000.
Similarly, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) charged Bay
County in Florida $29.81 per them per inmate to operate the Bay
County Jail. Before Privatization of the facility, the daily cost
was $38 per inmate. In 1985, CCA's first year to operate the jail,
the corporation saved the county approximately $700,000.3
Yet while prison Privatization solves some problems, it raises
serious issues. Among them:
1) Is the public ready to accept the
private sector providing a service traditionally performed by the
2) Can the government maintain
adequate supervision through careful monitoring and evaluation?
3) Should private security guards be
given the right to use deadly weapons?
4) In the case of complaints by inmates or prison employees,
is the government or the private contractor liable?
States and localities considering prison Privatization thus need
to review all aspects of the concept as they examine the
Privatization option. There is a wealth of experience and expertise
upon which they can draw. This information suggests that
Privatization can solve an important part of the prison
FORMS OF Privatization
Prison Privatization means the transfer of prison functions from
the government sector to the private sector. This can
take various forms in the case of prisons. Among them:
Contracting out services
This is the most common form of prison privatization. Currently,
39 states hire private firms to provide such services as medical
and mental health treatment, drug treatment, education, staff
training, and vocational training and counseling.4
Ownership and operation of prisons
To date, private operation of correction centers has been
limited to "nonsecure" and minimumsecurity facilities, such as
halfway houses, juvenile homes, detention centers, and holding
prisons for illegal aliens. Some 28 states allow private firms to
operate such facilities. Several states are interested in extending
private operation to secure or "confinement" adult prisons. One
such facility already in operation is a minimumsecurity prison in
St. Mary, Kentucky, now owned and operated by U.S. Corrections
Corporation, a private company headquartered in Louisville. The
firm has existed since 1986, and is the first private company to
own and operate an adult state prison. U.S. Corrections Corporation
receives $25.35 per them per inmate for running the Kentucky state
prison. A recent survey by the National Institute of Corrections
predicts that, by 1990, about a dozen secure prisons will be
operated by private management.5
Contracting out prison labor
By putting prisoners to work and paying them competitive wages,
many private companies are reducing prison costs for the government
by withholding earnings for taxes, room and board, Family support,
and victim's compensation. Such employment also gives prisoners the
skills and work experience that will prepare them for the job
market when they are released.
Private business has become increasingly interested in prison
labor during the past decade. Prompted by state and federal
measures lifting restrictions to private sector use of prison
labor, some eleven states contract out the work of an estimated
1,000 convicts. Over twenty firms, ranging from small businesses to
multinational corporations, provide jobs for inmates. For instance,
Best Western International, Inc, a major hotel chain, employs over
thirty Arizona prison workers to operate the hotel's telephone
reservation system. Since the Best Western program began in 1981,
inmates have paid $182,000 in taxes, contributed over $187,000 to
the state for room and board, and paid at least $112,000 in Family
support. Similarly, Trans World Airlines, Inc. hires young
offenders from the Ventura Center Training School in California to
handle over the phone flight reservations. The inmates have paid a
total of $13,000 in taxes, $15,000 for room and board, and $11,000
to victims for restitution.
In most cases, the state correctional system provides the
working facility for the private firm. The firm manages and trains
the inmates and releases their earnings to the care of the state.
The wage rates, in most instances, are negotiated between the state
agency and the private firm.
Florida is Leader. Florida in 1981 became the first state
to contract out the entire state prison industry to private
management. Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified
Enterprises Inc. (PRIDE), a firm based in Clearwater, Florida, now
manages all 53 Florida prison work programs as a for profit
operation. PRIDE made a $4 million profit last year. Many states
considering Privatization of prison industries are studying the
operation. PRIDE employs only inmates who want to work. As such,
work is viewed as an opportunity rather than a punishment. PRIDE
pays 60 percent of the workers' wages directly to the state
government to defray the costs of imprisonment. PRIDE products,
which range from optical and dental items to modular office
systems, are sold to the local and state government agencies.
Construction and lease/purchasing
Many states see private construction as a promising solution to
the prison overcrowding crisis. States normally finance
construction by cash appropriations (a "pay-as-you-go" approach) or
by issuing general obligation bonds. The former puts the whole
financial burden of construction on the state's annual budget.
Bonds create problems by requiring voter approval and are
restricted by debt limitations. An alternative is private financing
through lease contracts or lease purchasing agreements. It does not
place the cost on the annual budget and does not require voter
approval. Under a lease/purchase agreement, a private firm agrees
to build a prison if the state signs a long term lease for the
prison. Early payments of rent by the State help the private
firm fund the construction. When the government completes the
payment obligations, the debt and finance charges, it takes title
to the facility, The private firm benefits from tax advantages and
cash flow from the lease payments. The state government often
benefits from quicker construction because voter approval is not
required and debt limit constraints do not apply. Lease/purchasing
for state prisons must be approved by the state legislature.
Legislation permitting construction by lease/purchase agreements
has passed in 14 states.6
Privatization AT THE STATE LEVEL
To date, most prison Privatization has been by states and local
governments, with the federal government doing relatively little
beyond using private firms to house illegal aliens and sponsor
pilot programs. The greatest strides in state prison Privatization
have been in operating "secondary housing facilities" (detention
centers for illegal aliens, juvenile offenders, and mental
patients) and in contracting out services for prisons. A number of
states are exploring whether private firms can operate "primary"
security correctional facilities for adults. Colorado, Florida,
Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, and
Utah already have passed enabling legislation to privatize the
operation of prisons. States considering legislation are Indiana,
Kentucky, and Minnesota.
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), based in Nashville,
Tennessee, and founded in 1983, is the largest private corrections
organization in the country. A spinoff of Hospital Corporation of
America, CCA designs, constructs, finances, and manages both secure
and non-secure facilities. In addition to operating two juvenile
centers and a county prison in Hamilton County, Tennessee, CCA also
contracts with Florida, New Mexico, and Texas.
In 1985, CCA proposed to operate the entire Tennessee state
correctional system for 99 years. Governor Lamar Alexander
supported the idea. It was blocked, however, by
lobbying by some state officials and groups like the American
Civil Liberties Union. Nevertheless, CCA continues to be the
nation's leading innovator of private prison operations and is
expanding its marketing activities in Iowa, New York, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.
Also located in Tennessee is Pricor Corporation, a competitor of
CCA. Pricor operates a juvenile detention center in Johnson City,
Tennessee, a 144bed prison in Alabama, and a county jail in
Texas Saves 10 Percent. Severe prison overcrowding
problems in Texas prompted legislation last year authorizing
Privatization of minimum and medium-security prisons. Texas already
has signed a contract with Becon-Wackenhut Inc. of Florida for the
construction and private operation of two 500bed minimum-secure
facilities. Wackenhut will charge the state a per them fee of
$34.79 per inmate, more than a 10 percent saving from what the
operation would cost Texas. In addition, Texas is close to
agreement with CCA for the construction of two 500bed pre-parole
facilities in the cities of Venus and Cleveland.
New Mexico is the most recent state to have passed prison
Privatization legislation. This February, Governor Garrey
Carruthers signed a bill permitting the state Corrections
Department to contract out for private construction, renovation,
and management of prisons. The state's first major contract is a
lease agreement with a private firm to build and operate a women's
In Florida, the Jack and Ruth Eckerd Foundation, an endowment of
the Eckerd drug store chain, has managed and operated the secure
Okeechoobee School for Boys since 1982. In addition, PRIDE, Inc.
manages the state's prison industry or work program and CCA
operates the Bay County Jail as a for-profit, 175 bed work camp.
Another for profit firm operates a 171bed state prison, the Beckham
Hall Community Correctional Center, with an unsupervised work
In Kentucky, the Marion Adjustment Center, a prerelease,
minimum-security 200bed, is the U.S.'s only secure adult state
prison owned and operated by a private firm, the U.S. Corrections
In Minnesota, the nonprofit Volunteers of America manages and
operates the Roseville Detention Center, a county jail for
Union Pressure. In Pennsylvania, Buckingham Security Ltd.
manages and operates the medium-secure Butler County jail.
Buckingham Security proposed in 1985 to design, construct, and
operate a 720 bed penitentiary in Beaver County near Pittsburgh.
The company intended the facility to house special protective
custody prisoners from prisons outside the state. Many states,
including Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, and West
Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia, responded with
letters of intent to send prisoners to the facility. The project
was scrapped, however, when the Pennsylvania legislature refused to
approve it. In 1986, the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a union that represents many state
prison employees, successfully lobbied the Pennsylvania legislature
for a moratorium on all future prison Privatization projects. The
moratorium expired recently, but projects such as the Buckingham
Security plan have been delayed.
Prison Management by National
Recent developments in corporate prison management could advance
prison Privatization significantly. An example is General Electric
Government Services, a subsidiary of General Electric Company,
which took over RCA Service Company two years ago. General Electric
Government Services now runs the Weaversville Intensive Treatment
Unit, a juvenile institution in Pennsylvania established by RCA
Service Company in 1975. Responding to Pennsylvania's urgent
request for a high-security juvenile facility, RCA converted an
empty state-owned building into a correction center in just ten
days and positioned its staff to run the operation. In addition to
the Weaversville center, General Electric Government Services runs
the Evaluation and Treatment Center in Rhode Island and the
Bensalem Youth Development Center in Pennsylvania.
Another significant development is the growth of joint venture
agreements between local firms and national corporations. Example:
A $40 million medium-security prison in Colorado is being built as
a joint venture between American Correctional Systems, Inc. (design
and management), the huge Bechtel Group, Inc. (construction), South
Korea's Daewoo International Corporation (finance), and the
international finance company Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc.
(underwriting). Under another arrangement, Corrections Development
Corporation will design, construct, finance, and lease a prison
facility in Missouri on a 30year lease/purchase basis; Kidder
Peabody & Company, Inc. will underwrite the project.7
Privatization AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
Compared with state and local activity, prison Privatization at
the federal level is moving very slowly. Yet it was the federal
government that triggered the recent spate of prison Privatization
when it began to contract out for the imprisonment of illegal
aliens in the early 1980's. At that time, the federal government
also made. inmate labor available to private firms, primarily to
test the feasibility of private prison work programs. Currently,
the main areas of federal prison Privatization include holding
illegal aliens awaiting deportation, operating halfway houses,
providing medical, food, and educational services, and managing
minimum-security facilities. The major private correction centers
for federal offenders include:
· Hidden Valley Ranch, in California, which confines
approximately 60 juveniles for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
· Behavioral Systems Southwest, also in California, which
retains minimum-security illegal aliens for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS).
· Corrections Corporation of America in Tennessee, which
operates a minimum-security detention center for the INS in
· Wackenhut Services, Inc. of Florida, which has a
contract with the INS to construct a minimum-security facility in
Colorado for 167 inmates. The company also has contracts with the
U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Department of
Labor to operate a job-corps center for 600 violators.
Within the last year, the federal Bureau of Prisons has proposed
contracting with a private firm for a new 500bed minimum-secure
facility for illegal aliens. In addition, the Bureau has considered
contracting for facilities to house "special needs" prisoners, such
as juveniles, women, protective custody cases, and for prisoners
needing medical services. However, the Bureau of Prisons has been
hesitant to contract out the more "mainstream" prisoners such as
those imprisoned in the Federal Correctional Institutions and the
U.S. Penitentiary System.
Federal Actions Promoting
Since the early 1980's, the federal government has considered
legislation to stimulate prison privatization. To encourage
contracting out prison labor, for instance, Congress in 1984
revised regulations making interstate markets more accessible. By
authorizing twenty states to trade goods across state lines, the
Prison Industries Enhancement Program under the Justice Assistance
Act of 19848 expanded and diversified
the market of products manufactured by prison industries. Under the
Act, manufacturers must consult with the appropriate labor unions
before a sale can be agreed to. Unions must be assured that
employed workers will not lose their jobs due to increased
competition in the workforce.
· In 1984, Senator Alfonse D'Amato, the New York
Republican, sponsored legislation to provide tax incentives to
private businesses that constructed prison facilities on a
lease/purchase basis. This legislation died in committee.
· In 1985, the National Institute of Justice (the
research branch of the Justice Department) held a three-day
conference to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of prison
privatization. NIJ also has commissioned studies on the growth of
prison Privatization at state and local levels. Also in 1985, the
House and Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on prison
· This March, the President's Commission on Privatization
recommended that the Immigration and Naturalization Service
continue to contract out detention facilities and that the Bureau
of Prisons commission a study on the feasibility of contracting out
a federal correctional institution or a U.S. penitentiary. The
Commission also recommended that the INS and the BOP use
lease-purchase agreements for prison construction, and it
recommended that the Justice Department continue as an advisor on
prison Privatization for states and local government.9
The Reagan Administration's fiscal 1989 budget proposes two
pilot projects. One would focus on federal prison industries, the
other on private operation of federal minimum security
KEY QUESTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES
Prison Privatization raises a number of complex questions. They
must be answered by any jurisdiction considering
Question #1. Does Privatization Mean
Government Abrogates Its Responsibility?
Should the private sector be responsible for a function
traditionally performed by the government sector? Or is it possible
for the government to delegate certain areas of responsibility to
the private sector while continuing to maintain full authority?
Experience shows that prison Privatization does not mean that
the government relinquishes its responsibility. The government
still would select the inmates to be placed in private prisons,
choose the type of facility to be contracted out, oversee the
contractor's disciplinary practices and, most important, evaluate
the contractor's performance.
Question #2. Is "Creaming" a
Does Privatization mean the private sector will take the more
"favorable" prisoners leaving more difficult inmates for the
This is unlikely. Most states retain the right to place inmates
in privately run prisons.12
Question #3. Does Profit Conflict with
Can the economic objectives of running a prison be met without
conflicting with the operational objectives? Critics of
Privatization claim that contractors will cut comers at the expense
of the prisoner's welfare.
The contracting process significantly reduces such dangers.
Contractors must abide by state laws, regulations, and policies and
are held accountable for fulfilling these obligations. If the state
is dissatisfied, it can refuse to renew the contract. Some states,
such as New Mexico and Tennessee, also include termination clauses
within contracts in the event a contractor provides inadequate
service. In addition, contractors are watched very closely by the
courts, the press, civil-rights groups, and prison-reform groups.
Such close scrutiny forces the contractor to maintain adequate
Question #4. Are Current Prison
Employees Threatened by Privatization?
The public employee unions representing public sector prison
workers, such as the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal. Employees (AFSCME), fear that extensive Privatization
will reduce salary and fringe benefits for prison workers.
Private contracting poses much less of a threat than the unions
claim. In common with most contracting practices at the state and
local levels, state employees usually receive first refusal for
jobs with the private contractor. And because the correctional
system is highly labor-intensive, prison operation requires a large
work force. Studies also suggest that wage rates in privately run
prisons are the same or are higher than in government-run
Question #5. Are Private Prison Guards
Permitted to Strike?
Critics argue that while public guards cannot strike, private
guards can strike under the protection of the National labor
Relations Act. However, many contracts can contain provisions
denying these private employees the right to strike.
In cases where no such provision exists, private guards
nevertheless are likely to be discouraged from striking. Correction
agencies can threaten to terminate a contract, which would mean the
loss of their jobs. In any event, should a strike occur,
authorities could call in the National Guard or state police, as
they would to quell a severe disruption in a state-run prison.
Question #6. Will Service Quality and
Flexibility be Maintained?
Some policy makers maintain that the quality of management in
private prisons will tend to be high at first, because of
competition and the desire to win contracts. However, they question
the private sector's ability to sustain high-quality standards.
They reason that, with the contract securely in their hands,
private managers in the long-run are unlikely to maintain high
standards. Moreover, they claim, once a long-term contract is
signed, government lose$ its flexibility in practice it is not able
to use or discard private services as needs change.
Contracting standards, however, are likely to improve over time
as more firms enter the market and competition increases. Periodic
rebidding, as the National Institute of Justice recommends, will
create incentives for firms to improve constantly the quality and
cost-efficiency of their performance. Studies on the contracting
out of other federal and municipal services show significant cost
savings over the long term. Between 1981 and 1984, for example,
municipal janitorial services contracting with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development showed cost savings of 73 percent.
Similarly, municipal overlay construction showed a 96 percent cost
saving.13 Frequent government review
of contracts and careful monitoring of performance will ensure
Question #7. Can Public and Private
Costs be Compared?
Given the difficulties inherent in measuring the true "cost" of
a prison inmate, can government really be sure it saves with
Comparing costs in the private and public sectors admittedly is
not easy. Accounting procedures differ and quality is difficult to
compare. Routine monitoring of private contractors may be a hidden
cost of Privatization, just as taxes paid by the contractor may be
a hidden additional benefit.
Despite accounting difficulties, the evidence to date shows
strong cost advantages of private operation over government
operation due to such factors as the absence of civil service
regulation, lower private-sector pension and benefit costs, and
improved productivity. But to measure these savings accurately,
agencies need to review their accounting procedures. Many states
and counties are doing this, just as cities have done so to gauge
the savings of contracting out municipal services. At the federal
level, the President's Commission on Privatization recommends that
the Bureau of Prisons and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service conduct cost-analysis studies, using standards for
measuring annual expenditures that are used by contractors.14
Question #8. How Can Liability
Concerns be Resolved?
Who is legally responsible for the violation of a prisoner's
rights? Who is liable if a private prison employee is
injured? If a prisoner escapes and injures. a private
citizen, is the state or the private operator held accountable? And
assuming the government is liable, will liability costs to the
government be higher or lower with private prison operation?
Such questions are important in the debate on prison
privatization. Yet the matter of liability has not slowed
Privatization significantly. Critics and proponents of
Privatization agree that while the contractor has accepted
responsibility to operate or manage a prison facility, government
still retains overall authority and liability. In fact, the Civil
rights Act specifies that while the private sector may manage
"places of confinement," the government is to have ultimate custody
over prisoners. A contract, of course, can contain indemnification
clauses absolving the agency from certain legal damages. In many
cases, the contractor is required to carry large insurance policies
for the government agency's protection.15
The 1988 Report by the President's Commission on Privatization
notes that the liability issue depends very much on the nature of
state tort laws and specific provisions within the contract.
According to the report, the American Bar Association, with support
from the National Institute of Justice, is completing a model
prison contract to deal with liability and other issues.16
Question #9. What About the Use of
Should private security guards carry guns? When is the use of
deadly force by a private guard justified? Should guards use force
only for self-protection, or under the same conditions as state
officials? What about emergency situations, such as a prison
While these are understandable concerns, most states have
resolved the issue by defining
in statute the right of private officials to use reasonable
force. Lawmakers believe it is necessary that contractors have the
same standards for establishing security as correction agencies,
and that inmates view private prison officials as holding the same
authority as government officials. Massachusetts, for instance,
allows private guards to use deadly force with discretion. However,
the state Commissioner of Corrections enforces regulations to
ensure security and order. Similarly, New Mexico allows prison
contractors to designate "peace officers," who are armed within the
prison facility, outside the facility when transporting inmates,
and may use deadly force in the event of an escape.
Nevertheless, the right to use force, especially deadly force,
is seen as a last resort. Private guards normally are unarmed. In
some privately operated prisons, such as the Bay County Jail in
Florida, most guards are licensed to carry guns but only do so if
there is a crisis, such as an attempted escape. Moreover, if an
escape is successful, private prison officials normally would rely
on the police force to apprehend the prisoner.17
Privatization is a practical and innovative solution to the
problems of overcrowding and high costs facing the U.S. prison
system. Many states are recognizing this, contracting out services,
contracting out inmates' labor to private firms, and seeking
private financing for prison construction. An increasing number of
states are contracting out the entire operation of prison
facilities. The federal government has been less active, limiting
itself to contracting out facilities holding illegal aliens and
Many jurisdictions are unsure of prison Privatization, fearing a
loss in service, problems with liability, and threats to the jobs
of prison personnel. As more and more jurisdictions experiment
successfully with Privatization, however, their experience should
demonstrate privatization's value.
GROUPS ADDRESSING PRISON
I. Generally for Privatization
American Correctional Association: (301) 6997600
One of the largest and oldest criminal justice associations, ACA
represents approximately 17,000 correctional administrators,
wardens, parole board members, probation officers, and other
professional prison workers. The organization's purpose is to
improve correctional standards and to develop adequate physical
facilities. ACA supports the Privatization of prisons and has
conducted studies on the issue, such as an evaluation in 1985 of
the Okeechobee School for Boys. In addition, ACA has made
recommendations for laws, regulations, and policies to, improve
National Governors' Association: (202)
NGA supports the development of prison Privatization on the
state level. NGA recommends states move cautiously and that
contracts clearly specify the role and responsibilities of the
II. Generally Critical of
American Bar Association: (202) 3312200
In 1986, the ABA House of Delegates passed a resolution
recommending that jurisdictions not authorize Privatization of
prisons "until the complex constitutional, statutory, and
contractual Issues are satisfactorily developed and
American Civil Liberties Union: (202)
Officials of the ACLU argue that turning prisons over to the
private sector means the government is shirking its responsibility.
The ACLU is particularly concerned with questions of accountability
American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees: (202) 4524800
AFSCME represents approximately 50,000 correctional workers and
has been a leading force in the fight against prison privatization.
In 1985, AFSCME withdrew from the American Corrections Association,
and in 1986 AFSCME led the fight in the Pennsylvania legislature
for a moratorium on privatizing prisons. Like other public workers
unions, AFSCME is concerned primarily with protecting the jobs of
National Association of Criminal
Justice Planners: (202) 3470501
The NACJP represents coordinators of urban prison systems in
approximately 75 major urban areas. Officials of NACJP believe the
responsibility for incarceration belongs to the state and should
not be turned over to the private sector.
National Sheriffs' Association: (703)
The NSA has adopted a resolution opposing the Privatization of
prisons. However, not all chapters of the association endorse this
position. In 1983, the Texas Sheriffs' Association actively
supported the Texas bill to allow county sheriffs to contract for
PRISON Privatization SPECIALISTS
I. Generally for Privatization
Stuart A Butler
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C
Council of State Governments, Lexington, Kentucky
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.
National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Jack and Ruth Eckerd Foundation, Clearwater, Florida
Philip E. Fixler
Reason Foundation, Santa Monica, California
Harry P. Hatry
Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
Robert B. Levinson
American Correctional Association, College Park, Maryland
Charles H. Logan
National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Washington,
Charles R. Ring
Legislative Research Bureau
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts
Privatization Council, Washington, D.C.
Business Alliance on Government Competition, Washington, D.C.
George E. Sexton
Criminal Justice Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.
II.Generally Critical of
Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
Ira P. Robbins
American University, Washington, D.C.
CORPORATIONS THAT PROVIDE PRISON
American Correctional Systems, Inc., Fort Collins,
Behavioral Systems Southwest, Inc., Pomona, California
Best Western International, Arizona Center for Women, Phoenix,
Buckingham Security Ltd., Lewisburg, Pennsylvania
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), Nashville,
Corrections Development Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri
Eckerd Family Youth Alternatives, Inc., Clearwater,
Eclectic Communications, Inc. (ECI), Ventura, California
Pricor Corp., Nashville, Tennessee
Prison Rehabilitation Industries & Diversified Enterprises,
Inc., Clearwater, Florida
Private Corrections Corp., Denver, Colorado
J. David Huskins
General Electric Government Operations, Cherry Hill, New
Trans World Airlines, Ventura Reservation Center, Ventura,
U.S. Corrections Corp., Frankfort, Kentucky J.
Volunteers of America, Roseville, Minnesota
Wackenhut Services, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida
SOURCES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AFSCME, Does Crime Pay: An Examination of Prisons for Proflt
(Washington, D.C.: 1985).
Allen, Joan, Keon Chi, Edward D. Feigenbaum, Judith C. Hackett,
Harry P. Hatry, Robert B. Levinson, "Contracting for the Operation
of Prisons and Jails," Research in Brief, National Institute of
Justice , Department of Justice, June 1987.
American Correctional Association, "Public Correctional Policy
on Private Sector Involvement in Corrections" (ratified at ACA
Winter conference, January 1985.)
Bast, Diane Carol and Judy S. Grant, "In Defense of Private
Prisons," A Heartland Policy, Study (Chicago: The Heartland
Burger, Warren E., "Prison Industries: Turning Warehouses into
Factories With Fences," Public Administration Review, 45: 754757,
Cullen, Francis T., Jr., "The Privatization of Treatment: Prison
Reform in the 1980's," Federal Probation, 50 (1): 816, 1986.
Dilulio, John J., Private Prisons (Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press,
DiPaolo, Joseph R., "Private Sector Breaking the Shackles of
Today, 144146, April 1986.
Donahue, John D., Prisons for Profit. Public Justice, Private
Interests (Washington, D.C.:
Economic Policy Institute, 1988).
Elvin, Jan, "A Civil Liberties View of Private Prisons," The
Prison Journal, 65 (2):4852,
Fairchild, Mary, "States Aren't Ready for Privately Owned
Prisons Yet," state
Legislatures, 78, April 1986.
Geis, Gilbert, `The Privatization of Prisons: Panacea or
Placebo?" Private Means
Public Ends: Private Business in Social Service Delivery (New York:
Local Government Center, Private Sector Rehabilitates Prisons,"
Fiscal Watchdog, No. 128, June 1987.
Logan, Charles H., "Propriety of Proprietary Prisons," Federal
Probation; September 1987.
Logan, Charles H., Edward Sagarin, and Jess Maghan, "Should
States Opt for Private Prisons?"' The Hartford Courant, January 12,
Massachusetts Legislative Research Council, prisons for Profit
(Boston: July 1986).
Mullen, Joan, "Corrections and the Private Sector," Research in
Brief, National Institute of Justice , Department of Justice, March
National Criminal Justice Association, Private Sector
Involvement in Financing and Managing Correctional Facilities
(Washington, D.C.: April 1987).
National Institute of Justice, Corrections and the Private
Sector. A National Forum, February 2022, 1985.
Patrick , Allen L., "Profit Motive vs. Quality," corrections
Today, pp. 68, 70, 74, April 1986.
Palumbo, Dennis J., Privatization and Corrections Policy,"
Policy Studies Review, 5: 598605, Feb. 1986.
Reason Foundation, "Privatization 1986."
Reason Foundation, Fiscal Watchdog, June 1987.
Robbins, Ira P., "Privatization of Corrections: Defining the
Issues," Judicature, 69: 324331, 1986.
Roper, Brian A., "Market Forces, Privatization and Prisons: A
Polar Case for Government Policy," International Journal of Social
Economics, 13: 7792, 1986.
Sexton, George E., Franklin C. Farrow, and Barbara J. Auerbach,
"The Private Sector and Prison Industries," Research in Brief,
National Institute of Justice , Department of Justice, August
Shwiff, Steven S. and Mary Hajner, Assessing Options for Private
Correctional Facilities (Denver: The Colorado Center for Public
Policy Initiatives, 1988.)
Starr, Paul, The Limits of Privatization (Washington, D.C.:
Economic Policy Institute, 1987).
Stewart, James K., "Public Safety and Private Police," Public
Administration Review, 45: 758765, 1985.
Stewart, James K., "Costly Prisons: Should the Public Monopoly
Be Ended?" in Patrick B. McGuigan and Jon S. Pascale, eds., Crime
and Punishment in Modem America (Washington, D.C.: Free Congress
Research and Education Foundation, 1986).