Privatization and the prison system: stepping back to the future, /

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to examine the differences between government operated correctional facilities and privately operated correctional facilities, as seen through the eyes of the inmates. The over-riding philosophy of the criminal justice system today is that criminals should be locked up in order to protect society. The types of facilities that are being used vary greatly and they are not run the same. This research focused not on the public's perceptions, but on the inmates' impressions of the differences between private and government operated facilities. In order to accomplish this goal, inmates were surveyed who had served time in both a private and a government operated facility. Some of the factors that were used to compare the two facilities from the inmates' perspective were what type of crime they had committed and what were the differences in educational training. Which facility had better commissary, barber, food, clothing and support staff. These and several questions were complied and put on a questionnaire to be taken into the prison for the inmates to check which box he thought was more suited for him. A total of 311 questionnaires were distributed to inmates serving time in a private prison in the northeastern part of the United States. The inmates serving time in the private prison had also served time in a government operated facility. After all data were collected, descriptive and comparative statistics were conducted on the data. It was found that the majority of the inmates preferred the government operated facility over the private operated facility. In what might be described as crucial areas, the private facility was selected over the state operated facility. The correctional officers in the state run facility were perceived to be better than the correctional officers in the private run facility by inmates who were incarcerated for violent or drug offenders. The correctional officers in the private run facility were perceived better by inmates for non-violent and property offenses. (This is the type of inmate that the private facility is suppose to service). The counselors in the private facility were selected over the counselors in the government run facility by inmates who were raised in the non-traditional family setting. This factor showed that the counselors in the private facility showed more concern for these inmates' needs. Finally, it should be noted that the inmates in this survey had spent the majority of their prison time in a government operated facility and had just been introduced into the private operated prison. The results of this research should not be interpreted to suggest that the private facility is slacking in any areas. It is suggested that the survey instrument needs to be administered again in a few years and then compare the results of that study to the results of this current research. With time, inmates in the private setting will be able to see that they have more educational and vocational choices in the private operated institution than in a state operated institution. A final concern is that the physical layouts of the public and private facilities are very different and this was not addressed in the survey. Inmates, while incarcerated in the public facility had more freedom of movement than was offered at the private facility. This restricted movement may have contributed to their displeasure over minor issues.