Evaluation of Prison Privatization
Privatizat
This is an excerpt from the paper...
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 prisonersĘ 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 cons of this strategy and identifying both the advantages and disadvantages that impact upon the process. Judd Metzgar (1999) reported that the major reasons advanced for privatizing prisons at the county level of government are anticipated cost savings, improved quality of services, a reduction in government bureaucracies, and improvements in accountability and transparency of operations. In Pennsylvania, where several counties including Delaware County have turned to privatization to realize economies of both scale and cope, State law had to be amended by the legislature to permit this form of outsourcing. Despite a firm foundation in law, Delaware County is identified by Metzgar (1999) as
. . .
enues to fund prison operating costs, while private prisons charge a per diem rate for inmates. In Tennessee, private jails averaged $33.61 per inmate per day, while public prisons charged between $35.28 and $35.82 per day. In Louisiana, private facilities cost between $23.34 and $23.75, while the public prison cost was $23.55, which is cheaper than some of the privately-run facilities.
An analysis of one privatized prison system was conducted by Anderson and Cannan (1996), who examined activities undertaken by the Wackenhut Corporation, which was hired to renovate and reopen the Central Texas Parole Violator Facility in San Antonio. In this case, the firm had entered the prison management market in 1987 and procured contracts to manage a total of 33 facilities in 11 states, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Puerto Rico. In its prisons, Wackenhut supplies security, food, health care, education, rehabilitation, and facility management services. The company also hires, screens, trains, and manages all prison personnel.
Typically, Wackenhut oversees all aspects of prison construction from the very beginning of groundbreaking through to daily operations. Anderson and Cannan (1996) argue that the biggest challenged faced by
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
United Europe, Supreme Court, Delaware County, Municipal Employees, Tennessee Washington, , Englander MississippiĘs, Rhode Island, Anderson Cannan, Justice Department, prison privatization, private prisons, law 1997, cavise 1998, private sector, privatization prisons, metzgar 1999, privatization prison, anderson cannan, lepore 1999, anderson cannan 1996, private prisons 1998, inmates inc 1996, privately operated prisons, ultimately result decline,
Approximate Word count = 2208
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
