|
|
| To Privatize or Not to Privatize: Jail Officials Debate the Pros and Cons |
| By Meghan Fay, Assistant Editor |
| Published: 07/27/2000 |
|
As the American Jail Association's (AJA) National Conference takes place this week in Sacramento, California, leading jail administrators will discuss issues of concern facing their jurisdictions and privatization is sure to be on the list. “There are certain duties and responsibilities that are governmental in nature and corrections is one of them,” said Steve Ingley, Executive Director of AJA. Although Ingley is opposed to jail privatization, he is not opposed to contracting out on non-mission oriented services such as food and medical. “It's the liberty interests that we're concerned with. We're concerned with corrections for profit.” According to Richard G. Kiekbusch, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Criminology at the University of Texas and veteran public jail administrator, the debate jurisdictions face regarding jail privatization occurs on multiple levels with the most common being moral, legal or philosophical. From the moral perspective, some argue that it is morally wrong to incarcerate offenders and incorporate the use-of-force for profit. Legally some states explicitly prohibit the option to privatize. While others argue philosophically that the responsibility of government is to administer criminal justice and to contract out for only non-critical functions, such as those that do not concern security. Although these arguments against privatization exist, jurisdictions continue to look to private corporations to manage their jails and find no moral, legal or philosophical dilemma in doing so. “There are circumstances and situations where the private sector should be looked at as a possible resource,” said Kiekbusch. “I don't see anything philosophically or morally wrong with a private company operating a jail.” Bay County, Florida, which includes Panama City, privatized its only jail in 1984 with Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). “In retrospect it has probably been the best thing that has ever happened to the sheriff's office,” said Captain Jerry Girvin, Commander of Community Services Division of the Bay County Sheriff's Office. He believes the sheriff, at the time, was displeased with the loss of control, but the county board of commissioners made the decision from a fiscal perspective. CCA is under contract with the County Board of Commissioners who has an ombudsman monitor the activities of the facility. According to Girvin, its expensive to run a jail and since going private it has, “freed us up to do what we're supposed to do and that's protecting the community.” However, other jail administrators disagree and see the management of a jail as the core function of the sheriff's office. A positive of public jail management is that it is a, “responsibility of the government that you want to have control over facility,” which includes control over its security and personnel, said Mike Pinson, Corrections Director of the Arlington County Sheriff's Department in Virginia. Virginia is a state that does not allow for the privatization of jail management. Costs Are Important Broward County, Florida began its privatization debate about seven or eight years ago. According to Peter Corwin, Assistant County Administrator for Broward County, the County Board of Commissioners was not interested in privatization unless it saved the county a measurable amount of money. The move to investigate privatization raised such heated discussions that the board moved to look into privatization as an option for new facilities only. The most recent project to come under consideration has been the construction and operation of a 500-bed women's jail. After opening the bidding up to both the sheriff's office and private companies, the final three contestants were the sheriff's office, Wackenhut and CCA. The sheriff's office won the bid to manage the jail and Wackenhut was chosen to construct the jail. CCA withdrew its bid. “I think you can make a good case that the private sector can build faster and less expensively, [however] I am not ready to buy that they can run them less expensively,” said Kiekbusch. He believes that fundamentally running a jail is expensive and the primary expense is personnel. “Whether you're private or public you have to have the officers. You have to staff it (a facility) properly,” said Kiekbusch. Although Broward County will retain public management of its jail, Wackenhut does manage a work release center for the county located in Deerfield Beach. ”The sheriff and I are both not pleased with how they are running the work release center,” said Patrick Tighe, Lieutenant Colonel and Director of the Department of Detention for the Broward County Sheriff's Office. “Private industry is there for one reason to make a profit and they're making that profit at the expense of the inmates and taxpayers.” Kiekbusch believes that if jurisdictions accept private corrections including private jails as a reality then the responsibility rests with the government to write a tightly worded contract to specify expectations and they have a responsibility to monitor the private entity. Michael Gilbert, D.P.A., Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at San Antonio agrees that contracts need to be worded carefully. Although he feels that privatization may be appropriate in certain situations, the contract is a crucial element to a successful partnership between a county and a corporation. When privatization is chosen as an option, there is a responsibility to run a tightly controlled and monitored contract that also features accountability and monitoring systems. In Gilbert's upcoming book Privatization in Criminal Justice: Past, Present and Future, which will be available this summer through Anderson Publishing, he addresses the Thirteen Guidelines for Controlling Privatization and Risk to Public Interest. They are listed below. 1. Privatization should augment but not replace capacity to exert formal social controls. In many cases, a private company comes in and wants to take over the entire system. “Don't allow the creation of a private monopoly in place of a public monopoly,” said Gilbert. 2. Privatization should be understood as a reactive policy response driven by excess demand for justice services. Privatization will increase criminal justice capacity but do little to reduce street crime. 3. Don't totally privatize core component and mission essential functions. A default level of public capacity must be retained to assure public resumption should a market failure occur. Gilbert advises that if a jurisdiction has only one jail then don't privatize it. If there are two facilities, privatize one. He recommends maintaining a default level of service in the event anything should happen a county has the ability to turn the facility back into a public entity. 4. Don't privatize to a single provider. Whenever possible use multiple providers to ensure competition and avoid the creation of a private monopoly. 5. Remember
that taxpayers always pay for criminal justice production
6. Remember that lower unit costs are likely to increase system costs by increasing demand for criminal justice services. “Lower unit costs don't usually translate into lower system costs,” said Gilbert. He believes that in the long run counties will most likely end up paying more because they will end up incarcerating more people. The cheaper the beds, the more likely the county is to want to fill up the beds. 7. Remember that the business logic of criminal justice markets is expansionistic and continuous growth of private capacity is likely to have a destructive, parasitic relationship to the society. “Corporations can't sustain losses for any extended period of time and remain in business,” said Gilbert. “You won't have public entities going bankrupt.” 8. Privatization contracts must be detailed and establish all the necessary standards, monitoring procedures and restrictions to ensure that public authority can hold contractors accountable. A defective contract is difficult, if not impossible, to correct after it is signed. 9. There must be a formal process for contracting monitoring. It is the only independent means to verify contract compliance. Given the risks that criminal justice privatization presents, public officials who fail to establish an effective monitoring program increase public liability, the threat to civil rights and the potential for abuse of citizens. “If you are not willing to provide a meaningful monitoring system, then you are asking for trouble,” said Gilbert. “It is probably an unwise decision to make.” 10. Contract monitors are targets for co-optation and corruption to hide non- compliance, misfeasance and malfeasance by the contractor. Consequently, monitors must be insulated, as mush as possible, from corruption or political pressure to undercut their effectiveness as monitors. 11. Formal boundaries around the contractor's role in the formation of public policy are needed. Contractor participation and influence in policy making must be transparent. Public disclosure of contractor involvement in political campaigns, the amounts spent on each lobbying activity; the individuals, parties and campaigns to whom funds were given; and, the use of mass media outlets to sway public opinion would help ensure criminal justice policy remains publicly controlled. 12. Set the standards necessary to ensure long-term public interests are preserved. It is the responsibility of government to preserve sovereignty and protect public interests when criminal justice services are privatized. Cost reduction should be a secondary concern. Gilbert feels that the real concern is not whether the private sector can run an good facility, but whether or not they will dominate the policy arena. 13. Be prepared to resume public production at any time. The resumption of public production must be a realistic option if monopoly conditions are to be avoided. Kiekbusch also believes that when the private sector enters the criminal justice policy arena it's a negative step. Government delivers services and establishes policy on how those services should be delivered; a private company could run a jail as long as it does not get involved in the policy-making aspect, he said. *Note
Methods of Jail
Management: Public Versus Private
This workshop will examine issues of public and private jail management including the pros and cons on all levels of management for both sides. Speakers: Richard G. Kiekbusch, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Criminology at the University of Texas and Mike Pinson, Corrections Director of the Arlington County Sheriff's Department Resources
Screened Images Inc., Copyright 1999, all rights reserved
|
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think