Privatization of community corrections

Research Summary: More rigorous comparisons of private and public corrections are needed to improve our understanding of the effects of privatization. We develop a three-step procedure for assessing equivalence and then performance measures. To illustrate these arguments, we provide an empirical descriptive analysis of two private prisons and five structurally equivalent state-run prisons in Ohio and document heterogeneity in resources, staff climate, and inmate behaviors.Policy Implications: In our discussion and analyses, we underscore how comparability across private and public corrections should not be assumed. Comparisons should be focused on organizations with similar infrastructures and then systematically used to assess client needs and programming, client behavior, staff climate, and a diverse set of outcomes that bear directly and indirectly on clients' well-being. In so doing, researchers can better set the bar that privatization is supposed to reach or exceed. They can also conduct more credible impact assessments. Costsavings, for example, do not necessarily occur when contracted services do not match those offered through public corrections or when clientele differ dramatically between a private and a public organization.

Section: Prior Research On the Equivalence Of Privatized Correctionsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Prior Research On the Equivalence Of Privatized Correctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equal or not? Private versus public corrections services, programming, and climate

Wooldredge

Cochran

2019

“…It is one thing to be opposed to privatization of whole institutions—both figuratively (as in privatization of state punishment) and literally (as in privatization of actual prison facilities)—and it is quite another to oppose privatization of any type in the criminal justice domain. As discussed at length by Latessa and Brusman Lovins (, this issue), there are many, many types of privatization already deployed across criminal justice functions ranging from the partial privatization of goods and services (medical, psychological, food) to the full privatization of entire prisons in some states. It is likely that researchers focused on public opinion across different types of partial and pure privatization will uncover some complexities and contradictions and will serve to deepen our understanding of the sources of support or opposition.…”

Section: Public Opinion On Privatization Of Other Government Provisiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Public opinion and correctional privatization

Frost

Trapassi

Heinz

2019

Research Summary: Slightly more than half of all states and the federal government currently have contracted with private prison corporations for the incarceration of some of their correctional populations. We use the literature on privatization of prisons to argue that we know surprisingly little about the public's perception of this phenomenon. We summarize what is known from the thin body of research into public opinion in the correctional domain, and then we argue for an expanded research agenda to develop a more extensive (and nuanced) understanding of public perceptions in this context.Policy Implications: Private correctional facilities run by for-profit companies, and the privatization of correctional services beyond institutions, have proliferated despite little knowledge regarding public support for the expansion of privatization in the correctional domain. Given that public opinion, or at least perceptions of those opinions, can directly or indirectly influence policy, we argue that expanding our knowledge of the nature, direction, and malleability of public opinion has substantial policy implications for the future of prison privatization. K E Y W O R D S corrections, for-profit prisons, private prisons, privatization, public opinion, public perception(s), public support According to the authors of a recent Sentencing Project (2018) report, 27 states and the federal government currently incarcerate a portion of their correctional populations in privately owned and operated prisons. Nationally, 8.5% of all those currently incarcerated across the United States are incarcerated in privately owned prisons with New Mexico and Montana leading all other states by incarcerating 43.1% and 38.8% of their prison populations in private prisons, respectively. In 2016,

“…We have not attempted to document the use of proprietary risk–needs classification systems globally in this review, but see the review by Latessa and Brusman Lovins (, this issue) for estimates of the global use of the LSI‐R and other proprietary instruments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

International perspectives on the privatization of corrections

Byrne

Kras

Marmolejo

2019

Research Summary:In this article, we provide a global snapshot of the recent (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018) expansion of the private sector's involvement in both institutional and community corrections systems. Variation in the use of private-sector organizations to manage both institutional and community correction populations is examined within and across global regions, with a focus specifically on the utilization of privatization in the 50 countries with the highest prison populations. The key private-sector organizations in each global region are also identified, and the "new technology" acquisitions by these companiesdocumenting the expansion of prison-based organizations into community corrections-are considered. In addition, the available evaluation research on the comparative effectiveness of private-versus public-sector management of both prisons and community corrections is reviewed. Based on this review, we offer our assessment of the available data on global developments in the privatization of corrections, as well as the available research on the comparative performance of public-sector and private-sector corrections.Policy Implications: Policy makers considering the advantages and disadvantages of privatization in either their institutional-or their community-based corrections system need to consider not only whether performance improves when the private sector gets involved but also pendent, high-quality evaluations in countries currently using privatization to help manage prison, jail, and/or community corrections populations. K E Y W O R D Scommunity corrections, prisons, privatization DATA AND METHODWe begin our review by highlighting privatization initiatives in each global region based on available databases, published reports, newspaper articles, and other publically available documents in which the public sector's role in corrections is described. We caution the reader that our review is preliminary and that our ability to document the expansion of the private sector into community-based corrections systems varied both within and across global regions. 3 Next, we examine the utilization of privatesector companies by corrections systems in the countries with the 50 largest prison populations. More than 90% of the world's prison population is located in these 50 countries.A third area of inquiry involved the identification of the key players in the global private corrections market, with a focus specifically on whether the global expansion of private prisons and community corrections programs has its roots in the two largest U.S. private prison providers-GEO Group and CoreCivic. 4 By examining the recent technology and community corrections facility acquisitions by GEO Group included in the company's most recent filing before the Security and Exchange Commission, the movement of these prison-focused companies into the community corrections arena can be documented. We conclude our review by summarizing the resu...