Daniel Stauffer

Dr. Spielvogel

RCL 138

12 April 2017

Cars, Real Estate, Hamburgers, Prisons?

Background

Over the past few years, Americans have grown more cognizant of the issues and

shortcomings of their countrys justice system. Today, most know that the United States prison

population is enormouswith over 2.2 million inmates, the group is larger than the populations

of seventeen states1. Many know that prisons are packed with non-violent offenders on long

sentencesover fifty percent of inmates are in jail due to nonviolent offenses2. And some have

even studied the striking disparities in racial representation between the prison population and

general publicblacks are over-represented while whites fall short of their expected proportion3.

Indeed, each of these cases is troubling and deserving of adequate investigation. But while these

facets of the U.S.s prison-industrial complex have piqued the interests of so many American

citizens, one major issue has largely avoided public scrutiny: prison privatization.

Most of the major changes in the U.S. prison system can be traced back to the late 1960s and

early 70s, when federal officials saw a need to crack down on a burgeoning drug culture. The

solution to the perceived narcotics epidemic was simple: get tough on crime lengthen

sentences, create mandatory minimum prison terms, and make more of an effort to apprehend

and lock up drug users and other criminals. On the issue, 37th President Richard Nixon stated,

Doubling the conviction rate in this country would do more to cure crime in America than

quadrupling the funds for [Hubert] Humphreys war on poverty.4 And with those new policies
 Stauffer 2

in place, the American prison population skyrocketed. Figure 1 shows the number of

incarcerated Americans by year from 1920 to 2014. Note the huge increase following the

adoption of tough on crime policies in the 1970s and 80s.5

Figure 1. Incarcerated Americans by Year

Soon after the federal crackdown on crime, American prisons found themselves overcrowded

and under-prepared to deal with such a large influx of inmates. And even worse, the new

prisoners were costing the government far more than it had expected them to. But in 1983,

American businessmen Thomas Beasley, Robert Crants, and T. Don Hutto approached the

government with a solution: let them take over parts of the prison systemBeasely & co. would

build prisons, charge the government small sums of money for each prisoner it sent there, and

keep building until the federal prison overcrowding problem was gone. Some argued a

distinction between the search for profit and the justice system meant to reform prisoners, but

Beasely felt otherwise, saying You just sell [prisons] like you were selling cars, or real estate, or

hamburgers.6 After some convincing, federal officials saw an opportunity to save money, and

they jumped on the deal. And so the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) was formeda

band-aid for the overcrowding problem officials themselves had created.

 Stauffer 3

As years passed with the new system in place, the CCA and other private incarceration

companies spread their influence throughout the country. And as the U.S. took in more and more

prisoners, the temporary solution of private prisons lost its temporary label. Between 1999 and

2009, the number of inmates in privately-operated facilities increased by a remarkable 1600

percent.7 Today, nearly one fifth of American prisoners are held in private facilities,8 and recent

efforts from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have resulted in three-quarters of

federal immigration detainees being held in private centers.9 These changes have unsurprisingly

made prison privatization into a big business. Just last year, the CCA and its top competitor, the

GEO Group, took in upwards of $3.2 billion.10 But none of these facts make private prisons

inherently bad; they could still be serving a very needed purpose and benefiting the country. But

sadly, that is just not the case; private prisons have recently come under intense scrutiny

following reports of prisoner mistreatment, understaffing, and contracts that actually cost the

state more money.11 To completely eliminate the problems of prison privatization, we need to

first adopt effective short-term reform to bring private prisons up to adequate standards, and then

we must create new legislation to relax tough on crime laws and phase out private facilities.

Intricacies of the Problem

At a basic level, the decision to privatize prisons reflected a need for facilities and services

comparable to those provided by the government. As more people were arrested, the justice

system simply needed private companies to supply adequate rooming and staff for the new

inmates; in this way, pressure would be taken off of the existing prison infrastructure, and the

government could arrest all the people they wanted without the risk of overcrowding their jails.

As an added bonus, private prisons were touted as money savers; the price of keeping an inmate

in a private facility was supposedly lower than keeping him or her in a public one. So states
 Stauffer 4

were roped into the private prison model by the allure of saving money and relieving pressure on

their own incarceration infrastructure. But in most cases, these promises and touted

improvements do not come to fruition.

First of all, private prisons do not provide facilities or services comparable to those at

government bases; in fact, in many cases, theyve been linked to atrocious conditions and

unprepared staff. In an inspection done by the American Civil Liberties Union on a Texas

juvenile facility, auditors reported, cells were filthy, and smelled of feces and urine.12 Security

failures at other prisons have brought more attention to the fact that facilities and guards are

inadequate. In 2010, three inmates escaped from a privately-operated Arizona prison and killed

an Oklahoma couple while on the run.13 A state probe into the security failure reported that

prison staff were fairly green across all shifts, were not proficient with weapons, and

habitually ignored sounding alarms.14 After the same prison experienced large-scale riots in

2015, leading to the evacuation of 1,200 prisoners, the Arizona Department of Corrections

conducted a state-wide investigation of private prisons in Arizona. The report found that the

company in charge of private corrections failed to conduct critical staff training and was not

properly and effectively prepared to quell riots.15 The problem of under-training and poor

prison operation does not just reside in Arizona, though; another report found that, across the

country, private prison employees receive 58 fewer hours of training than their public prison

counterparts.16 And they earn less, toonew recruits at private facilities make about $5,327 less

than those at state facilities, and upper level employees make $14,901 less.17 Clearly, private

prisons do not provide the same level of housing or service as government-operated facilities.

Furthermore, private prisons do not actually benefit the state. To start, private

corporations claims of saving the government money have proven unfounded. A 2007
 Stauffer 5

Government Accountability Office report concluded that, [the Bureau of Prisons] is not able to

evaluate and justify whether confining inmates in private facilities is more cost-effective than

other confinement opportunities.18 So, at best, the data surrounding private incarceration cost

benefits is murky. Not only that, but the contracts many states sign with private incarceration

companies also greatly favor the private entities. According to a report from the American Civil

Liberties Union, 65 percent of agreements between for-profit prison companies and governments

have lockup quotas.19 Lockup quotas are essentially promises from the government to send

enough prisoners to a prison to maintain a certain capacity; if a state falls short of the quota, they

are typically required to pay a large fine or compensate for each empty spot in the prison. And

these are not easy quotas to meet; Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia have the highest

figures in the countryall at either 95 or 100%.20 Figure 2 shows a breakdown of the

proportions of prisons that have certain ranges of occupancy guarantees.21

Figure 2. Proportion of Lockup Quotas by Percentage of Guaranteed Occupancy

Lockup requirements incentivize states to jail their criminals, and they handcuff

governments into paying large sums no matter the situation. Instead of saving states money,
 Stauffer 6

private prisons work lockup requirements into their contracts to effectively guarantee that the

government owe huge sums.

Finally, and most importantly, private prisons are indisputably unfair to the prisoners who

are forced to stay in them. University of Wisconsin researcher Anita Mukherjee studied eight

years of data from Mississippis prison system and found that private prisons give out twice as

many infractions against inmates as government facilities; these penalties lengthened prison

stays by two-to-three months and added about $3,000 in cost per prisoner.22 Private prisons give

out more infractions to keep inmates locked up longer, taking away months of prisoners lives,

just to boost profits. In addition, private facilities do a poor job of reforming their inmates.

Citizens who left private facilities had higher rates of recidivism than those who had come out of

government bases.23 So not only do private prisons take away more of their inmates lives than

government facilities, but they also leave them worse off when returning to society. Perhaps

worst of all, private prisons are known to treat their inmates in a worse manner than government

prisons. An independent psychiatrist discovered that, at a Missouri private facility, inmates were

severely underfed and almost emaciated. Most prisoners dropped 10 to 60 pounds during

their stay.24 And a report on the Arizona private prison riots said, the riots were likely

precipitated by inmate dissatisfaction with operation of the prison than by anger among the

inmates themselves.25 So private facilities squeeze out profits by taking away more of their

prisoners lives, do a poor job of reforming their inmates, and provide grossly inadequate

services and conditions. Above all, private prisons are a huge issue because they are simply

unfair and inhumane to the prisoners who have to stay in them.

The Solution
 Stauffer 7

The issue of prison privatization in the United States is sadly not a simple one. The for-profit jail

system is plagued by a number of its own unique problemsprisoner mistreatment, lopsided

business deals, undertrained and underprepared staff, and unacceptable facilities. But it also

happens to be tied up within a set of larger, more publicized and controversial issues

sentencing reform, decriminalization of recreational marijuana use, and efforts to end mass

incarceration. So, unfortunately, the issue cannot be fixed with a simple overarching action.

Instead, we need a series of resolutions that address each of prison privatizations unique

problems while also working toward a more complete and absolute reform of the prison system

as a whole. The initial set of actions must be focused on immediately correcting the pressing

shortcomings of private incarceration facilities, and the second set of actions should aim to build

a United States prison infrastructure that works without conflict well into the future.

First, we need to set a long-term solution to prison privatization, around which we can

base the rest of our actions. Quite simply, our long-term plan must be to phase out the use of for-

profit prisons entirely. In the past thirty years, the actions of the CCA and GEO Group have

shown that the goals of making money and reforming inmates clearly cannot overlap in such a

substantial manner. These companies do not have the best interests of America or the Justice

Department at heart; they exist to make money and have shown that they will disregard

American lives to do so. Between 2002 and 2012, the CCA and GEO Group spent over $45

million lobbying for harsher sentencing.26 This does not show a commitment to serving the

American public and reforming the countrys imprisoned; it shows a commitment to locking up

the countrys fathers, brothers, mothers, and sisters for as long as possible to make as much

money as possible. When money is allowed into the justice and correction systems, we end up

sending more Americans to jail, and private companies end up sending more profits to the bank.
 Stauffer 8

Its clear that for-profit prisons cannot exist without admitting the risk of further American mass

incarceration; to rid ourselves of this risk, we need to ultimately close our countrys private

incarceration facilities.

Before we begin seriously planning long-term reform of the private prison system, we need to

verify that our federal and state prison systems will be able to handle the influx of inmates

coming from private facilities. In a general memo to the Department of Justice, former Attorney

General Sally Yates wrote that we must begin the process of reducingand ultimately ending

our use of privately operated prisons.27 More importantly than Yatess support for the cause is

the is the accompanying analysis on federal prison capacity projections. Martin Horn, a

professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said that Yatess statements were

premised on the belief that a decline in the number of federal prisoners will free up space for

others.28 In other words, Department of Justice projections show that an anticipated decline in

the federal prison population would open up spots for inmates from private facilities. So

according to research from the DOJ, entirely phasing out private prisons is absolutely feasible.

With that verified, we can confidently move on to synthesizing a plan to eliminate for-profit

prisons.

Admittedly, getting rid of all private prison facilities in one swift move would likely cause a

significant shock to the rest of the countrys prison infrastructure. Reliance on private

incarceration service varies widely by state, and a massive shift in policy would undoubtedly

affect some states significantly more than others. Figure 3 below shows the extent to which

states rely on private prisons for their incarceration efforts.29

 Stauffer 9

Figure 3. Percentage of Prisoners in Private Prisons by State

Clearly, there are significant differences in the extents to which states rely on private prisons

facilities. So instead of implementing a national plan to eliminate for-profit prisons quickly, our

effort to close private prison doors should be taken more gradually. First, we need to make

efforts to cut ties with private incarceration companiesstop implementing new contracts with

these companies and allow existing agreements to expire. For states with little reliance on

private companies, this may be the only thing it takes to eliminate for-profit prisons entirely in

their state. In other cases, states may choose to buy out contracts which include lockup quotas;

in this way, theyll end their reliance on private facilities and will allow themselves to assign

inmates to their own government prisons instead of for-profit ones. In cases of severe reliance

on private incarceration, states may decide to buy for-profit facilities and bring them into their

own correctional systems; this would allow states to break their reliance on private companies

while still maintaining a significant prison capacity. No matter the method, states must focus

their efforts on the long-term goal of closing the private prisons within their borders.
 Stauffer 10

In order to truly rid the United States of reliance on supplementary private incarceration

facilities, we need to ensure that our country never falls back into the situation that initially

prompted the advent of for-profit prisons. In other words, we need to make sure that we never

fall into a situation again in which our inmate population outgrows the capacity of our

correctional system. With space for over 2.14 million people in the prison system,30 and the

United States crime rate hovering around a historic low,31 we should never again have to worry

about expanding our prison capacity. Still, though, we need to make meaningful changes to our

justice system to assure that we never risk having to rely on a corrupt system of for-profit prisons

again. The only way to do this is to make a serious effort at reforming the sentencing system in

our courts. First, we need to decriminalize and reduce the penalties related to drug-related

offenses. Nearly half of all inmates in federal prisons and almost 20% of inmates in state prisons

are locked up due to drug-related offenses.32 Reducing the penalties for those convicted for

nonviolent offenses would go a long way to minimizing the countrys prison population. In

addition, we also need to reduce mandatory sentences and get rid of three strikes laws that can

significantly lengthen sentences for those who have already been convicted of a crime. These

measures would minimize the amount of time inmates have to spend in prison, reducing the

likelihood of prison overcrowding. To ensure that the United States never needs to fall back on

the support of for-profit prisons, we need to reform our sentencing system.

While weve created a set of actions to reach long-term independence from the for-profit prison

industry, there are still several pressing issues that must be addressed immediately; those stuck in

private prisons right now cannot be forgotten because weve succeeded in establishing a path to

improvement. Many of the most convincing reasons to close private prisons involve the unfair

treatment of, and poor conditions for, the inmates who reside in them. Before we enact
 Stauffer 11

legislation to close the prisons altogether, we first need to address the immediate futures of their

inhabitants. Essentially, we need to bring private prisons into line with government facilities;

there cannot exist such significant discrepancies in staff competence, facility condition, and

inmate treatment between the two prison types. So to ensure the safety and immediate

improvement of conditions for current private prison inmates, we must place strict restrictions

and regulations on for-profit facilities and their parent companies.

Any monitoring or regulating effort would have to be done through two subdivisions of

the United States Department of Justice: the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which deals with

the upkeep and operation of jails and prisons, and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC),

which dictates rehabilitation efforts and monitors prisoner treatment. As the situation stands,

these two organizations have very little role in the operations of most private prison facilities.

But if we want to ensure improved conditions and treatment for prisoners, well need them to

have a much more significant presence in the for-profit industry.

First, the Federal Bureau of Prisons should place strict regulations on the conditions of

private prisons. Right now, federal and state prisons can be searched and inspected by a BOP

and NIC-approved jail standards and inspection agency at any time.33 However, a private prison

requires only one mandatory inspectionat the beginning of its use.34 Past that point, unless

severe circumstances arise, anyone who wishes to inspect the facility must submit a request and

wait for that request to be granted and the inspection to be scheduled.35 Obviously, there is a

problem in the fact that the prisons choose when and if inspections can occur; its easy to

imagine a prison receiving a request, hiring a few new guards and improving the facility briefly,

and then allowing the inspector to assess their work. In order to ensure that private prisons

provide the same quality of conditions as government facilities, we must pass legislation that
 Stauffer 12

allows the BOP and NIC to send a jail standards and inspection agency to a private facility at any

time. We need to place regulatory restrictions on the conditions in private prisons, and we need

to pass legislation to allow divisions of the Department of Justice to enforce those new standards.

In the same way that there currently stands a significant barrier to inspecting a private prison,

there also exists tremendous difficulty obtaining information from one. Government prisons are

subject to a federal disclosure systemthe Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)that allow

citizens, lawyers, and other agencies to obtain information on specific cases reported in the

prison as well as statistics on how the prison is run.36 So, for instance, if an independent agency

writing a report on a federal prison wanted to know the average shift length of a guard or the

specific report regarding an incident of abuse, they could obtain that information through a FOIA

request. However, private prisons are under no such legal requirement to disclose that or similar

information to requestors. In other words, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to

private prison facilities; those outside the prison have no way of legally ensuring that they can

get information on any private facility.37 Variants of bills requiring FOIA compliance from for-

profit prisons have been introduced repeatedly since 2005,38 but lobbying efforts have from the

CCA and GEO Group have proven to be too strong.39 This time around, we need to introduce

and pass a bill that requires private prisons to comply with the Freedom of Information Act; there

cannot exist an added barrier to obtaining information on the incidents reported within, and

operation of, for-profit incarceration facilities.

Finally, we must pass legislation to remedy the issues regarding prisoner treatment and

correctional officer training. Just as we need to implement a law requiring certain facility

standards in for-profit prisons, we need to implement a law that establishes requirements for

guard training and behavior. Perhaps the significant lack in training of private prison
 Stauffer 13

correctional officers in comparison to their federal and state prison counterparts contributes to

the fact that inmates at for-profit facilities receive a significantly higher number of infractions

than inmates at government ones. To fix this problem, we first need to pass a law that allows the

National Institute of Correction to establish baseline training figures for private prison

correctional officers. In addition, we should pass other legislation that allows the NIC to place

an independent arbiter for guard behavior and infraction decisions. This person would monitor

the actions of correctional officers to ensure that they maintain standards established by the NIC,

and hed also watch over the number and types of infractions given out in the prison with the

intention of assuring consistent disciplinary practice between private and government facilities.

In short, we have to pass legislation that gives the BOP and NIC more power to monitor and

regulate private prison staff and practice.

There are certainly serious issues surrounding the use of for-profit prisons in the United

States. They dont save states money, they provide inadequate facilities and services for inmates,

and theyve proven repeatedly that they value squeezing money out of prisoners more than

reforming and rehabilitating them. So we must enact a plan with both long-term and immediate

solutions. In the long-term, we need to completely end private prison usebased on each their

level of reliance on private incarceration, each state will work to cut ties with for-profit prison

companies. In the meanwhile, we must enact legislation to regulate private facilities, ensuring

safety and good conditions for inmates and easy access to key information for outside agencies.

Prisons are not like cars, real, estate or hamburgers, and the United States needs to recognize

that fact and end its reliance on for-profit prisons.

Stauffer 14
1 TruTV Network. "Adam Ruins Everything - The Shocking Way Private Prisons Make
Money." YouTube. TruTV, 23 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
2 Bureau of Prisons. "BOP Statistics: Inmate Offenses." BOP Statistics: Inmate Offenses. Bureau of
Prisons, 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
3 Prison Policy Initiative. "Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie." Prison Policy Initiative. Prison
Policy Initiative, 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
4 Political Research Associates. "The Rise of the Modern "Tough on Crime"
Movement." Defending Justice (2015): n. pag. Public Eye. Public Eye, 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
5Wikipedia. "Incarceration in the United States." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Apr. 2017.
Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
6 TruTV Network. "Adam Ruins Everything - The Shocking Way Private Prisons Make
Money." YouTube. TruTV, 23 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
7 Kuroski, John. "For-Profit Prisons: American Slavery, Under New Management." All That Is
Interesting. All That Is Interesting, 10 Feb. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
8 TruTV Network. "Adam Ruins Everything - The Shocking Way Private Prisons Make
Money." YouTube. TruTV, 23 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
9 ACLU. "Private Prisons." American Civil Liberties Union. American Civil Liberties Union, 2017.
Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
10 TruTV Network. "Adam Ruins Everything - The Shocking Way Private Prisons Make
Money." YouTube. TruTV, 23 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
11 ACLU. "Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration." American Civil
Liberties Union. American Civil Liberties Union, 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
12 Ibid
13 Harris, Craig. "Arizona Cuts Ties with Private-prison Operator over Kingman Riot." Arizona
Central. Arizona Central Times, 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
14 Ibid
15 Ibid
16 Sentencing Project. "Too Good To Be True: Private Prisons in America." Archives of
Ophthalmology 66.3 (2016): 447. The Sentencing Project. The Sentencing Project, 2016. Web. 9
Apr. 2017.
17 Ibid
18 Marshall Project. "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Private Prisons..." The Marshall
Project. The Marshall Project, 16 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
19 Carissimo, Justin. "24 Astounding Facts About the Private Prison Industry." Alternet. Alternate,
09 Mar. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
20 Ibid
21 In the Public Interest. "Criminal Lockup Quotas." In the Public Interest (n.d.): n. pag. In the
Public Interest. In the Public Interest, 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2017.
22 Canon, Gabrielle, Matt York, Sam Brodey, Alex Park, and Katie Rose Quandt. "Here's the Latest
Evidence of How Private Prisons Are Exploiting Inmates for Profit." Mother Jones. Mother Jones,
2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
23 Ibid
24 Schloss, Jason. "For-Profit Prisons: Eight Statistics That Show the Problems." Truthout.
Truthout, 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
25 Harris, Craig. "Arizona Cuts Ties with Private-prison Operator over Kingman Riot." Arizona
Central. Arizona Central Times, 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
26 Ibid
27 Sanburn, Josh. "Private Federal Prisons Closing: Where Will Prisoners Go?" Time. Time, 2016.
Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
28 Ibid
29 Ibid
30 Prison Studies. "United States of America." United States of America | World Prison Brief.
Prison Studies, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
31 Federal Bureau of Investigation. "FBI Releases 2015 Crime Statistics." FBI. FBI, 26 Sept. 2016.
Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
32 Ibid
33 National Public Radio. "Investigation Into Private Prisons Reveals Crowding, Under-Staffing
And Inmate Deaths." NPR. NPR, 25 Aug. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
34 Ibid
35 Ibid
36 Stroud, Matt. "Private Prisons Are Exempted From Federal Disclosure Laws; Advocates Say
That Should Change." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 07 Feb. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.
37 Ibid
38 Ibid
39 Ibid