A 

Abortion
Accounting
Advertising
Africa
African-American Studies
Aging
Agriculture
American Indian Studies
Anthropology
Archaeology
Architecture
Argumentative
Art: Artists (Alphabetized)
Art: General
Become an Affiliate and Earn $$$
Biographies (Alphabetized)
Book Reviews (Non-Fiction) (Alphabetized)
Business: Companies (Alphabetized)
Business: General
Business: Industries (Alphabetized)
Business: International
Business: Small
California
Canada
Caribbean
Child Abuse
China
Communication: Journalism
Communication: Language & Speech
Communication: Media
Communication: Non-Verbal
Communication: Television
Communication: Television & Children
Communism
Computer Science
Consumerism
Criminal Justice: General
Criminal Justice: Juvenile Delinquency
Criminal Justice: Police Science
Criminal Justice: Prisons
Cuba
Death & Dying: Euthanasia
Death & Dying: General
Death & Dying: Suicide
Drama: American
Drama: English
Drama: World
Drugs: Alcohol
Drugs: General
Economics: Banking
Economics: Economists (Alphabetized)
Economics: General
Economics: Inflation
Economics: International Trade
Economics: Macroeconomics
Economics: Microeconomics
Economics: Taxation
Education: Administration
Education: Curriculum
Education: General
Education: Higher
Education: Physical
Education: Psychology
Education: Reading
Education: Special
Education: Teaching Methods
Education: Theory
Energy: General
Energy: Nuclear
Energy: Solar
Environmental Studies
Evolution
Family & Marriage
Films: Artists (Alphabetized)
Films: General
Finance: Companies (Alphabetized)
Finance: General
Former Soviet Union: Post-1990
France
Gender & Sexuality
Geography
Germany
History: Ancient Greek & Roman
History: European
History: Great Britain
History: U.S. (After 1865)
History: U.S. (Before 1865)
History: U.S. Presidency
History: U.S. Presidents (Alphabetized)
Homosexuality
Immigration
India
Indonesia
International Relations: Arms Control
International Relations: Cold War
International Relations: Non-U.S.
International Relations: U.S.
Japan
Jewish Studies
Korea
Labor
Latin America
Law: Business
Law: Capital Punishment
Law: General
Law: International & Non-U.S.
Law: Supreme Court
Leadership
Literature, American: Authors (Alphabetized)
Literature, American: Faulkner
Literature, American: Fitzgerald
Literature, American: General
Literature, American: Hawthorne
Literature, American: Hemingway
Literature, American: Melville
Literature, American: Poe
Literature, American: Steinbeck
Literature, American: Twain
Literature, English: Authors (Alphabetized)
Literature, English: Chaucer
Literature, English: Conrad
Literature, English: Dickens
Literature, English: General
Literature, English: Joyce
Literature, English: Lawrence
Literature, English: Shakespeare
Literature, English: Swift
Literature, General: Children
Literature, General: Classic (Greek & Roman)
Literature, General: Russian
Literature, General: World
Management: General
Management: Japanese
Management: Motivation
Management: Theory
Management: Women
Marketing: Companies (Alphabetized)
Marketing: General
Marketing: Plans
Mathematics
Medical: Aids
Medical: Dentistry
Medical: Diseases & Disorders (Alphabetized)
Medical: General
Medical: Nursing
Mexican-American Studies
Mexico
Middle East: Egypt
Middle East: General
Middle East: O.P.E.C.
Military
Music: Classical
Music: General
Mythology
Nutrition
Parapsychology/Occult
Philosophy: Ancient Greek
Philosophy: Descartes
Philosophy: Eastern
Philosophy: General
Philosophy: Kant
Philosophy: Sartre
Poetry: American
Poetry: English
Poetry: Milton
Poetry: World
Political Science: Elections & Campaigns
Political Science: Foreign
Political Science: Lobbyists & Pressure Groups
Political Science: Machiavelli
Political Science: Mill
Political Science: Political Theory
Political Science: U.S.
Psychology: Behaviorism
Psychology: Child & Adolescent
Psychology: Disorders
Psychology: Dreams
Psychology: Experimental
Psychology: Freud
Psychology: General
Psychology: Jung
Psychology: Physiology
Psychology: Piaget
Psychology: Rogers
Psychology: Social
Psychology: Testing
Psychology: Therapies
Public Administration: General
Public Administration: Government Agencies (Alphabetized)
Racism
Real Estate
Recreation & Leisure
Religion: Eastern
Religion: General
Religion: Islam
Religion: The Bible
Research: Completed Studies (With Statistics & Results)
Research: Designs & Proposals
Research: Statistics & Methodology
Russia: Pre-1917 Revolution
Science: Astronomy
Science: Biology
Science: General
Science: Genetics
Sociology: Durkheim
Sociology: General
Sociology: Marx
Sociology: Social Problems
Sociology: Social Theory
Sociology: Social Welfare
Sociology: Weber
Soviet Union: 1917-1990
Sports: Drugs
Sports: General
Technology
Transportation: Automotive
Transportation: Aviation
Transportation: General
Transportation: Railroads
Urban Studies
Vietnam
Women Studies
 

PRISON PRIVATIZATION.   Term Paper ID:29937 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Discusses pros and cons of privitization of prison facilities.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 10 sources, 26 Citations, APA Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Discusses pros and cons of privitization of prison facilities. Evaluates issues and trends such as cost efficiency, rights of the individual, government monitoring but not operating prisons. Cites supporters of privitization arguments including reduction of cost of incarceration to governments, improved quality of services, better accountability, less bureaucracy. Arguments cited against privitization include potential for abuse of prisoner's rights by private sector, for-profit businesses and that privately run prisons are not as cost effective as claimed. Discusses privitization in several states. Paper Introduction: Evaluation of Prison Privatization Privatization is increasingly at the forefront of every discussion in American life that deals with the cost efficiency of government. At the state, county, and even local levels, the privatization of prison facilities has become a major area for outsourcing opportunity. The privatization of prisons is touted by its supporters as reducing the cost of incarceration to governments. It is also criticized by its opponents as potentially reducing government control over prison system inmates and processes while potentially ushering in an opportunity for the abuse of prisoners’ rights at the hands of private sector, for-profit business entities (Metzgar, 1999). It is the purpose of this report to evaluate issues relevant to and trends in prison privatization, highlighting the pros and Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Crime is not a private matter between an offender and his or her jailers, but an issue that concerns society as a whole; . Private security behind bars.Security Management, 4 (1 ), 32-4 . A recession-proof industry: Mississippi's prisons. Many state officials contend that private prisons willfree up operating revenues along with capital investment funds and bondlevies which can then be used for education, health, roads, and otherinfrastructure improvements. The company also hires, screens, trains, and manages all prisonpersonnel. Preston, D. General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report in 1996 onprivatization of prisons, and concluded that the strategy is not as cost-effective as it initially appears to be. GAO: Prison privatization not as cost-effective as it seems. Interestingly, a 1989 survey of prisoners in the United Statesrevealed that a majority of respondents indicated a preference for privateprisons and regarded such institutions as superior in terms of quality oflife and services than public prisons (Private prisons, 1998). Private companies manage more than 6 , prison beds in 16 Americanstates (Law, 1997). Anthony Lepore (1999),president of the Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers, wrotein a letter to the editor that the planned privatization in Rhode Islandwould ultimately result in a decline in the quality in prison managementand inmate control. Eurich (1996) reported on theresults of this GAO survey and commented that when construction costs werenot taken into account, only one of four private-public comparisons showeda decline in costs when privatization occurred. The Bond Buyer, 317(29975), 5-6. This union represented 12, Oregonworkers in eight state correctional facilities. Another case is that of Oregon, where Republic officials aggressivelypursued privatization of a new prison built in the mid-199 s. (1999). Cavise (1998) states that about 3 , inmates in the U.S.alone are now in privatized prisons. Despite a firm foundation in law, Delaware County isidentified by Metzgar (1999) as having experienced difficulties in thecontracting and bidding processes, with requirements that minoritybusinesses be given preferential treatment in such processes and a lack ofsuch businesses at the local level. J. (1998). Law (1997) reported that in Tennessee, a prisonerbrought suit against Corrections Corporation of America regarding excessiveuse of force - a case in which the U.S. (1996). Two of thecomparison sites showed no significant differences in operational costs,while one private facility actually proved to be more costly than itscomparative public facility. In New Mexico, the legislature agreed to initiate the development ofprivately operated prisons to house some of the state's most violentprisoners (Preston, 1997). (1997). Judd Metzgar (1999) reported that the major reasons advanced forprivatizing prisons at the county level of government are anticipated costsavings, improved quality of services, a reduction in governmentbureaucracies, and improvements in accountability and transparency ofoperations. TheEconomist, 345(8 43), 28-3 . An analysis of one privatized prison system was conducted by Andersonand Cannan (1996), who examined activities undertaken by the WackenhutCorporation, which was hired to renovate and reopen the Central TexasParole Violator Facility in San Antonio. Although most crime in Mississippi is declining, aMississippian is four times as likely to spend time in jail than a Canadianand twice as likely to do so as a New Englander. Typically, Wackenhut oversees all aspects of prison construction fromthe very beginning of groundbreaking through to daily operations. When the plan wasannounced, the American Federation of State, County, and MunicipalEmployees vowed to fight the move. If the rights of an individual and the interests of society are to be safeguarded, the government is under the obligation to ensure that the goals of incarceration are met via constant control and monitoring (Cavise, 1998). References Anderson, T., & Cannan, P.F. These examples illustrate some of the sub rosa concerns that directlyimpact upon prison privatization. Private corporations are now being used throughout manyMississippi communities to provide new prison facilities. However, the Justice Departmentwithdrew the plan due to a fear of wildcat strikes at the usually nonunionprivate facilities. In its prisons, Wackenhut supplies security,food, health care, education, rehabilitation, and facility managementservices. States are also liable for any harm that an escaped prisoner from aprivately managed institution might inflict on individuals or property. Lepore (1999) made the case that privatization of abasic public obligation might save some limited amount of taxpayers' money,but privatization would inevitably foster a prison environment that is lesssecure and less safe and threatening to the lives of officersadministrators, and inmates as well as members of the general public. Evaluation of Prison Privatization Privatization is increasingly at the forefront of every discussion inAmerican life that deals with the cost efficiency of government. The Bond Buyer, 321(3 226), 1-4. Preston (1997) also maintains that a cost saving of this magnitudehas the potential to save the state nearly $9 million per year while alsoeliminating the $28 million in construction costs New Mexico would have hadto underwrite in order to open new prisons. Supporters of this movebelieved that privatization of prison services would free up funds for muchneeded road, school, and water programs in an era when financial pressuresand service demands from citizens are escalating. The debate over the privatization of prisons will undoubtedlycontinue. At thestate, county, and even local levels, the privatization of prisonfacilities has become a major area for outsourcing opportunity. In Louisiana,private facilities cost between $23.34 and $23.75, while the public prisoncost was $23.55, which is cheaper than some of the privately-runfacilities. It is the purpose of this report to evaluateissues relevant to and trends in prison privatization, highlighting thepros and cons of this strategy and identifying both the advantages anddisadvantages that impact upon the process. Private sector firms have apparently taken advantage of thecombination of tougher crime laws and escalating construction costs toenter into this sphere of activity (Private prisons, 1998). The private sector is less encumbered by a bureaucracy than the public sector, and thus less likely to duplicate functions or respond sluggishly to mandates for change; . U.S. The notion of prison privatization arose in the 198 s, though privatefor-profit firms had long been involved in running various components ofprison systems such as catering, industries, juvenile offender facilities,or community-based rehabilitation programs (Cavise, 1998). Prison privatization is the latest bid in NewMexico plan to free up funds. Private prisons. Prison privatization proposal questioned.Providence Business News, 14(1 ), 31. Cavise, L. Lepore (1999) clearly is speaking on behalf of unionized prisonworkers. It is also criticized by its opponents aspotentially reducing government control over prison system inmates andprocesses while potentially ushering in an opportunity for the abuse ofprisoners' rights at the hands of private sector, for-profit businessentities (Metzgar, 1999). Thus, Law (1997) contends that there are a number ofissues, which may render privatized prisons less appealing than someadvocates of this alternative to state-managed prison systems maintain. Additionally, states themselves are vulnerable to lawsuits whenprivate prisons or their employees act inappropriately. Lepore, A. It is likely that every single state ormunicipal jurisdiction will need to come to terms with this issue. The mere transferof management responsibility to the private firm does not eliminate theliability that the states must bear for the safety and well-being ofprisoners who are literally wards of the state (Law, 1997). Whether or not such prisons save money as anticipatedmust be considered within the context of the inherent security ofprivatized prisons. The topic is one that ahs been widely and intensely debated.Arguments advanced in favor of privatization include: . Republicanlawmakers, according to Law (1997), were acting in response to state plansto construct seven new prisons at a price tag approaching $1 billion.Opposition to the initiative was almost immediately forthcoming fromDemocratic lawmakers and organized labor who argued that privatization ofprisons would eliminate union jobs and ultimately result in a decline inthe quality and the security of Oregon's state prisons. (1998). UNESCO Courier, June, 2 -23. Law, S. (1997). Andersonand Cannan (1996) argue that the biggest challenged faced by the privateprisons is 24-hour prison accountability. Mississippi's mainprison, located at Parchman, houses 5,5 prisoners, up from only 1,2 inthe 197 s, with almost 8 percent incarcerated for drug or alcohol-relatedcrimes. What this suggests is not thatprivatization does not work or that it is not an efficient way of reducingcosts, but that external factors (such as required set-asides andpreferential, affirmative action mandates for government contracts) mayintervene in the privatization process. Particularly important in this case are juvenile facilities whichattempt to rehabilitate youthful offenders and to direct such offenderstoward productive vocational or academic education (A recession-proofindustry..., 1997). Mississippi is deeply committed to maintaining andeven expanding the privatization of its prisons, a pattern that is alsobeing replicated in New Mexico by the state legislature. In Pennsylvania, where several counties including DelawareCounty have turned to privatization to realize economies of both scale andcope, State law had to be amended by the legislature to permit this form ofoutsourcing. Any number of states and counties within the United States haveeither turned to partial privatization or plan to do so should they receiveapproval from voters or state legislatures. Eurich (1996) also claims that as existing public facilities becomemore crowded, the idea of privately operated prisons has gained popularityamong taxpayers. Corporations tend to be more streamlined (and bottom line conscious) and more willing to be flexible to meet expanding or changing needs (Cavise, 1998). Prisons for profit. At the same time, proponents of privatization make the point that thegovernment does not simply surrender its regulatory, monitoring andoversight authority when it privatizes prison operation (Cavise, 1998).Government does continue to play a dominant and central role in thiscontext and in some of the day-to-day operations of privatized prisonsystems, which have expanded to constitute an estimated 2 percent of allglobal prisons. The U.S. Planners in New Mexico believe that privatemanagement will cut the housing 8 prisoners from $76 per day to $46 perday. Supreme Court ruled that theprivate firm was in fact liable for damages and had violated the civilrights of the prisoner. InTexas, two prisoners escaped from a private prison and the state was heldliable for the damages that the prisoners inflicted on others during theirbrief time at large. News & World Report, 121(19), 25. (1996). L. Wackenhut appears to be an exceptional service provider withextensive expertise in prison privatization (Anderson & Cannan, 1996).However, debate over privatization and its merits continues to be waged.The Clinton administration, acting through former Attorney General JanetReno, initially announced that the Justice Department would hire privatefirms such as Wackenhut to operate low-security prisons on a pilot orexperimental basis (Inmates, Inc., 1996). Inmates, Inc. Eurich, H. It is possible that organized labor may haveregistered objections to the plan in the belief that unionized staff(including security personnel) at existing federal prisons would object toa potential decline in available jobs. While much of the rhetoric advanced inthe debate over the privatization of prison facilities tends to focus oneither on cost reductions and efficiency or, from the opponents ofprivatization, the potential decline in security and the transfer of stateauthority, organized labor clearly has an agenda of its own on this issue.Law (1997) has noted that pressure to privatize prisons is growing asgovernments at all levels make hard choices between conflicting serviceneeds and mandates. It is onlyrecently that government entities, generally concentrated in the UnitedStates and Europe, have turned to the private sector in hopes of reducingthe costs and improving the efficiency of prisons systems from large tosmall. A recent article in The Economist (A recession-proof industry...,1997) analyzed the efforts in Mississippi to reduce costs for incarcerationvia privatization. Elaborate technology systems andscanning devices employ a separate computer database that helpscorrectional personnel oversee prison activities and inmate movements whilealso ensuring that education and training of both inmates and staff membersis of a high quality. Kitzhaber to consider prison privatization.Business Journal-Portland, 13(51), 1-3. States use their general revenues to fund prisonoperating costs, while private prisons charge a per diem rate for inmates.In Tennessee, private jails averaged $33.61 per inmate per day, whilepublic prisons charged between $35.28 and $35.82 per day. (1997). Among theadvantages of private prisons, inmates and corrections authorities alsoidentified superior technologies and the more efficient use of reducedstaff. Spectrum: The Journal of StateGovernment, 71(3), 22-24. (1996). Prison privatization in Pennsylvania.Government Finance Review, 15(5), 54. Theprivatization of prisons is touted by its supporters as reducing the costof incarceration to governments. The private sector can build larger prisons faster and thus accommodate a rapidly expanding prison population; . In this case, the firm hadentered the prison management market in 1987 and procured contracts tomanage a total of 33 facilities in 11 states, the United Kingdom,Australia, and Puerto Rico. (1999). The prisons that werecompared were located in California, Tennessee, and Washington. Opponents of privatization, however, counter that: . Metzgar, J. Some institutions that are privatized do save money and may wellprovide a high quality of service. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.