PRIVATE PRISONS !2
Private Prisons and The Cost of Maximizing Profit
The industry of private prisons has been quickly growing since the twentieth-century.
Private prison corporations have been a controversial topic in the United States. With the
backlash of regulations, policy influence, and rehabilitative efforts, private prisons have become
known for their corrupted incentive. Although private prisons may seem like an innovative
expenditure for the government, their underlying motive is to maximize profit in any way
possible.
History
The first private prison was created in January of 1984. An old hotel in Houston, Texas
was repurposed to house undocumented immigrants by placing metal bars across windows and
placing a twelve-foot hight fence around the perimeter of the facility. The repurposed institution
was temporary until a newly found company, Corrections Corporation of America, could finished
building their own detention facility as part of their contract with U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Services. (Price, Morris, 2012)
The Corrections Corporation of America was founded by Thomas Beasley, a Republican
activist from Tennessee, and backed by Jack Massey (who also helped with the creation of KFC).
Following the Reagan era, prisons across the country were becoming overcrowded due to harsher
penalties during the war on drugs and the enforcement of mandatory sentencing, allowing for
people like Thomas Beasley to take advantage of creating a private prison business. Contractors
within the private prison business offered things, such as: housing inmates at lower costs,
building prisons faster than government agencies, taking over already established facilities
claiming they could run them more efficiently. The majority of the states, especially those in the
PRIVATE PRISONS !3
south, became infatuated by the thought of lower incarceration costs. State legislature quickly
began to enact laws that allowed for private prison businesses to perform their duties which has
previously only been a function of the government. (Price, Morris, 2012)
Rehabilitation is Rare in Private Prisons
Lack of Education
By 2016, the United States housed approximately 128,063 inmates in private prisons.
These individuals represented a total of 8.5% of the nations state and federal prison population.
That is an increase of 47% of incarcerated individuals in private prisons since 2000. In order to
boost profits, private prisons tend to cut corners which put inmates, staff, and the public at risk
for danger. Education is a much needed aspect in order to rehabilitate inmates. Providing
education allows for inmates to reenter society and find better sources for jobs instead of reoffending,
causing a danger to the public. Education has been proven to reduce recidivism
amongst inmates. On the other hand, in general private prisons rely heavily on how many beds
that are occupied in their facilities. Providing education, even GED programs, are typically a rare
option for private prisons due to the underlying possibility of losing inmate occupancy. (Zoukis,
2014)
Providing education would go against the interests of private prisons. Educational
opportunities in prisons have proven to reduce recidivism by 30%. With intentions to maximize
profits by all means necessary would mean to eliminate one of the biggest factors to
rehabilitating inmates. This would allows for the national average of incarcerated individuals in
the private sector to maintain its percentage and eventually grow. (Zoukis, 2014)
PRIVATE PRISONS !4
Mental Health
Since the 1960s, more than 90% of the psychiatric hospitals in the United States have
closed their doors due to severe budget cuts towards mental health services. With the lack of
treatment and follow-up care for those with mental illnesses, the majority of people whom do not
have additional resources (such as, shelter, food, clothing) are typically arrested and places in
jails or prisons while they await mental evaluation. Besides those who do not commit crimes and
are temporarily incarcerated before being placed in another facility, approximately 10% of
inmates in the United States are know to have severe psychiatric disorders. (Price, Morris, 2012)
With the high rates of incarcerated individuals with mental illnesses, more than one in
five private prisons have no access to mental health services within the facility. Correctional
officers within private prisons are expected to handle those who have outburst due to their mental
illnesses. Despite that fact, 84% of correctional officers receive a maximum of three hours or less
in training to learn how to deal with inmates with psychiatric problems. (Price, Morris, 2012)
For-profit Business
Private prisons create a financial incentive to incarcerate more people and keep them
behind bars for longer periods of time. The contracts created between private prisons and the
government require that the correctional facility maintain an average rate of 90% occupancy. To
maintain high rates of inmates in prisons leads to the most vulnerable populations in the United
States at risk for incarceration: lower class, immigrants, and children. If the specified average is
not upheld over time, tax payers are typically penalized. The incentive for private prisons foster
injustice, even in communities where crime rates are lowering (Cohen, 2015). By 2016, the
United States housed approximately 128,063 inmates in private prisons. These individuals
PRIVATE PRISONS !5
represented a total of 8.5% of the nations state and federal prison population. That is an increase
of 47% of incarcerated individuals in private prisons since 2000. (Price, Morris, 2012)
Safety Concerns Within Private Prisons
Correctional Officers
Officers within the correctional system of the private sectors tend to undergo rougher
work conditions compared to those that work at public prisons. On average, private prisons
utilize one-third the budget for correctional officers as compared to the amount the public sector
uses. The significant budget cut causes a major increase of the amount of inmates that private
correctional officers have to control. Despite having to manage an overage of inmates,
correctional officers have an average of 174 hours of pre-service training. Their training shows a
critical decrease in contrast to the correctional officers in public prisons; they average
approximately 232 pre-service and 42 in-service hours of training. The lack of training causes an
increase in abuse of correctional officers, inability to deescalate issues with inmates, and
insufficient knowledge to manage incarcerated individuals with psychiatric problems. (Blakely,
Bumphus, 2017)
The salary of private correctional officers as compared to the public sector has a decrease
of approximately $5,327 for pay. Officers will have less chances to receive advancement for pay
and higher positions within private prisons. Labor turnover for private correctional officers
averages at an annual 43% each year. Within the 43%, 71% of those individuals resign due to job
dissatisfaction and only 0.6% retire from private prisons. The lack of job satisfaction leaves less
motivation for correctional officers to properly perform their jobs. A study performed on private
PRIVATE PRISONS !6
prisons showed that there is an average of forty assaults on inmates from staff per private prison
as compared to nineteen in the public sector. (Blakely, Bumphus, 2017)
Medical Care
With the interior motive for private prisons to cut corners wherever they can, medical
care for prisons tend to be effected drastically. Health care for inmates is the second biggest cost
expenditure within private prisons. Private prisons tend to turn away inmates that are sixty-five
and older in order to avoid geriatric-related health problems. Due to lack of regulations and
mandatory inspections within private prisons, inmates tend to get penalized for asking for
specialized health care. For example, Corrections Corporation of America has faced various
lawsuits dealing with not allowing access to medical care for inmates. They have a history of
denying hospital stays for sick inmates and severely punishing them if they maintain repeated
requests. (Andrews, 2017)
Corrections Corporation of America lack of access to proper medical care has led to
numerous deadly prison riots within their institutions. One major prison riot under the
management of Corrections Corporation of America took place in Mayfield, Mississippi
resulting in the dead of a guard, injuring many more. The riot was a protest by prisoners due to
poor food quality, inadequate medical care, and mistreatment from correction officers. With the
lack of medical care, the health and safety of those incarcerated and the faculty of the prison are
at risk. (Clarke, 2014)
Regulations for Food Services
Administrators of private prisons tend to source food for inmates from privatized food
services, such as Aramark Correctional Services and Trinity Services Group (the top two food
PRIVATE PRISONS !7
providers for prisons in the United States). Switching from food services that provide healthier
options for inmates to fully processed meals saves private prisons an average of two or three
cents a meal. With the shift to processed food, inmates are not provided the daily minimum of
their nutritional needs. Instead, those incarcerated are given an unreasonable amount of refined
starches, added sugars, and food with high sodium contents. (Sawyer, 2017)
With the lack of proper nutrition, those incarcerated suffer from chronic health
conditions, such as high-blood pressure, diabetes, and heart problems, at at much higher rater
than those who are not. Research shows that the typical prison sentence is, on average, enough
time for a poor nutritional diet to create health problems for the individual inmate (Sawyer,
2017). The National Center for Biotechnology Information states that just four weeks of eating
an unhealthy, high-calorie diet, such as meals in prison, can lead to long-term increases in body
fat and cholesterol. (Ernersson, Nystrom, Lindström, 2010)
Aramark has a notorious track record for violations amongst their food production for
private prisons. Besides Aramark employees forming inappropriate sexual relationships with
inmates and importing contraband, they have served maggot-infested food to private prisoners.
There have been numerous instances where bad food was served to inmates leading to extreme
and wide-spread cases of food poisoning. (AFSCME, 2015)
Corrupt Policy Making
Lobbying and Campaigns
In order to influence public policy that would affect private prisons, corporations such as
Corrections Corporation of America spend millions on lobbying and campaigns. Manipulation
with public policy allows for corruption which typically leads to policies on abusive sentencing.
PRIVATE PRISONS !8
For the years of 2016 and 2017, private prison companies provided over two millions dollars in
contribution to state campaigns. Included in the statistics for 2016 and 2017, the private prison
sector spent over 10.4 million dollars on lobbing state lawmakers. (O’Neill, 2018)
Those who benefited the most from police contributions from private prison companies
have been Republican politicians in Florida, Tennessee, and border states with the highest
population of undocumented immigrants. This allowed for Republican candidates to gain their
wanted positions, policies that made laws against immigrations become stricter, and for private
prisons that house undocumented immigrants to grow in population size. (O’Neill, 2018)
Picking Less Expensive Inmates
With the ability to manipulate policies and various other contracts, private prisons follow
a practice recognized as “cherry-pickingâ€. Cherry-picking allows for private prisons to pick and
choose less expensive inmates. Less expensive inmates would be considered those without a list
of medical conditions, those without psychiatric problems, and geriatric inmates which
references those under the age of sixty-five. (Price, Morris, 2012)
The “cherry-picking†method allows for private prisons to to save money and not have
spend additional funds for inmates. This technique also allows for private prisons to lock in a,
previously mentioned, contract with states to maintain a specified percentage of full beds or
enact payment for vacancies. (Price, Morris, 2012)
Influenced Sentencing
Not only do private prisons have a need to influence policy, they also seek to shape
policies that maximize prison populations within their facilities. Private prison industries, such as
Corrections Corporation of America influenced policy by providing funds, supporting, and
PRIVATE PRISONS !9
drafting model legislation for laws, such as three-strikes, mandatory minimum sentencing, and
pushing for enforcing stricter regulations on undocumented immigrants. (Price, Morris, 2012)
With the ability to influence sentencing policies within the states and federal government
allows for private prisons to fulfill their underlying incentive of maximizing profits. This
directive dismisses the use and planning policies of rehabilitative efforts. Overall, the influence
private prisons have over sentencing creates a harsher reality for those committing smaller
crimes and does not provide public safety. (Price, Morris, 2012)
Positive Aspects of Private Prisons
Overcrowding
The majority of public prisons operate with an over capacity rate of incarcerated
individuals. With the creation of private prisons, it allows for public sectors to decrease their
overcrowding in order to operate with better safety measures. In 2011, California reached a crisis
stage of overcrowding, averaging a capacity rate of 200%. The Supreme Court rules that the
excessive overcrowding violated the eighth amendment. The Supreme Court ordered California
to reduce their capacity levels to a more manageable percent. California resorted to the use of
private prisons in order to lower their overcrowding and create a safer environment within their
public prison. (Price, Morris, 2012)
Taxes
Ultimately, private prisons are a cheaper alternative for state and federal taxpayers. They
have the ability to pick and choose cheaper resources and alternatives to provide their private
institutions. Public prisons do not have the leverage nor the flexibility in choosing their resources
such as the private sector. If in need to do so, private prisons can act quickly to search for the
PRIVATE PRISONS !10
best practice, create improvement on their operations, and implement various other cost-saving
measures without the approval and oversight of the government. With the ability to reduce the
operational responsibilities of the government in a private prisons, it reduces the cost that are
needed to be covered by taxpayers. (Price, Morris, 2012)
Conclusion
Though private prisons do have a few positive aspects, they do put various consequences
on the criminal justice system. Although the United States wishes to start moving forward with
rehabilitative efforts for offenders, private prisons alter that perspective. Corruption with private
prison companies provide negative influence that ultimately make those incarcerated, staff, and
the public at risk with safety. Regardless of the ramifications, private prisons disregard the use of