By
The United States has the dubious distinction of the
highest incarceration rate in the world—both per capita and in total
numbers. Our prison population is more than one million people larger than that
of Russia, and six times the per capita rate of China.
At least partially fueled by the “War on Drugs”, the US prison population boom led to
overcrowding in the 1980s and ‘90s, and that in turn led to the rise of private
prisons. Private prisons, which are paid per prisoner, have a financial incentive to keep prison populations high—a conflict of
interest when imprisonment is supposed to help deter recidivism.
Dealing with mass incarceration was not one of
President Barack Obama’s campaign promises, but in recent years, the federal
government has quietly acted to reduce the population of federal prisons. The United States took a
step in the long walk away from mass incarceration in August with the
announcement that the Justice Department would phase out private prison
contracts over the next five years.
Now with the election of Donald Trump, who campaigned
as a law-and-order candidate and an advocate for the privatization of
government services, it seems likely that private prisons will get a reprieve.
But should they?
Reducing private
prison contracts
The federal prison population and the proportion of
federal prisoners in private facilities peaked in 2013, with approximately 15 percent of federal
prisoners, or nearly 30,000 inmates, in
privately operated prisons. That same year, the Department of Justice launched
its Smart on Crime
Initiative, which adjusted
enforcement and prosecution priorities to focus on more serious crimes. Since
then, the number of privately-housed prisoners has dropped over 12 percent.
In August, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
announced that the Bureau of Prisons had been directed to either decline the
renewal, or substantially reduce the scope, of each private prison contract as
it reaches the end of its term. The stated objective was to reduce the bureau’s
inmate population.
Why close
private prisons?
A Department of Justice report issued in August 2016 helps explain the focus on
eliminating private prisons. It includes findings from a study that was
initiated in response to several disturbances in federal contract prisons that
resulted in extensive property damage, bodily injury, and the death of an
officer.
The study found that in most key areas, contract, or
private, prisons incurred more safety and security incidents per capita than
comparable public institutions. Site visits conducted as part of the study
revealed overcrowded conditions with new inmates housed in Special Housing
Units normally used for disciplinary segregation, in violation of American
Correctional Association standards.
Determining whether private or public prisons are more
cost effective is a methodological challenge that has been considered an “apples-to-oranges
comparison.” But in her memo, Yates concluded that:
“Private prisons
served an important role during a difficult period, but time has shown that
they compare poorly to our own Bureau facilities. They simply do not provide
the same level of correctional services, programs, and resources; they do not
save substantially on costs; and as noted in a recent report by the Department’
s Office of lnspector General, they do not maintain the same level of safety
and security. The rehabilitative services that the Bureau provides, such as
educational programs and job training, have proved difficult to replicate and
outsource—and these services are essential to reducing recidivism and improving
public safety.”
Federal versus
local institutions
The announced changes in the federal approach to
incarceration are welcome news to activists and taxpayers alike, but they
aren’t sufficient to determine the future of private prisons. Only around 20
percent of the nation’s prisoners are in federal prisons; the rest are in state and local jails, which continue to contract with private companies.
Each jurisdiction is authorized to make its own
determination about whether to privatize, and the economics may play out
differently in different locations.
A reset under
Trump?
In the wake of the federal announcement, stock prices for the three major prison corporations
plummeted. However, immediately after election day, stocks of private prison
companies soared; Corrections Corporation of America’s stock, for instance,
jumped 40 percent.
Much of that confidence results from Trump’s
well-publicized intent to incarcerate undocumented immigrants; private prisons hold
two-thirds of these detainees. But there is little doubt that Trump supports
privatization of public functions in general, and on the issue of prisons in
particular, he told MSNBC political commentator Chris Matthews, “I do think we can do a lot of privatizations and
private prisons. It seems to work a lot better.”
Although Trump has yet to take office, the Department
of Justice seems to be acting on his behalf already. Ignoring its own advice,
in mid-November the department’s Federal Bureau of Prisons quietly renewed its contract with CoreCivic to manage the McRae
Correctional Facility in McRae, Georgia for another two years.
It’s possible that some state and local governments
will be reconsidering their stance on privatization in light of the Inspector
General’s condemnation of private prisons, but for now, it looks like the
federal government is hanging on to its private contracts.
No comments:
Post a Comment