February 20, 2006

Dear Editor:

The members of the Association of Private Correctional and Treatment Organizations (ACPTO), were disappointed in your February 16 editorial "Carefully weigh private prisons." The editorial does not tell the whole story.

The facts supporting public-private correctional partnerships are clear and compelling. Consider the following:

• US private prison operators can often build facilities faster than their public counterparts, and more cost-effectively (a reduction of 8% to 12%).
• 44% of private prisons in the United States meet the rigorous accreditation standards of the American Correctional Association, while only 10% of public prisons meet the same standards.
• A 1989 study by the Urban Institute in Kentucky and Massachusetts showed significant quality advantages in private operations, including fewer escapes and inmate disturbances.
• According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, publicly-operated prisons have a higher rate of riots and inmate deaths.
• The Reason Public Policy Foundation found that in 11of 18 qualitative studies, services at private prisons were equal to or better than their public counterparts.
• No private prison in the US is under court order to improve prison conditions.
• The recent study by the Department of Justice of the cost of private operation of the Taft Federal Correctional Institution conservatively estimates a 6% to 10% savings on operations, which translates to between $9.6 million and $16.5 million.
• In April 2003, two Vanderbilt University professors released the results of their study that clearly demonstrated that the existence of private operators in the marketplace had the "additional effect of reducing costs within the state system as well." States with no private corrections saw their corrections budgets increase by 18.9%. In states where at least 20% of inmate population was housed in private prisons, the public portion of the state budget for corrections costs rose only 5.9%.

Private prison contracts are and should be performance-based and transparent, in accordance with the open records laws of Utah. Taxpayers in Utah will be able to see the benefits of private corrections: reduced costs, a higher quality of service, and an increased level of accountability to the government and to the community.

Sincerely,
 

 
Michael LoBue, Executive Director
The Association of Private Correctional and Treatment Organizations
www.apcto.org

Carefully weigh private prisons
Deseret Morning News editorial

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Government should seek out efficiencies whenever possible. But it is not sufficient for some functions of government to simply be cost-efficient. The state prison system, for instance, must be operated in a manner that ensures accountability and public control. Any move to delegate that responsibility to a private provider deserves careful study and deliberation.

Some states have had success in privatizing certain aspects of their prison systems. But overall, the states' experiences have been a mixed bag. That should be a red flag to state lawmakers as they consider SB175, which would require the Department of Corrections to seek bids for the construction and operation of any new adult correctional facilities for medium security inmates and lesser offenders.

Legislators need to consider this proposal with eyes wide open. Utah's experience with private prisons has been less than stellar. In the mid-1990s, several Utah inmates escaped from a private prison in Texas where they were temporarily housed. Incredibly, Texas officials weren't sure how to pursue the inmates since the state then had no specific law against escaping from a private prison.

There are, of course, ways to structure contracts and write laws to help ensure the best possible operation of private correctional facilities and to ensure the public is adequately protected. But prison inmates, whether housed in a privately run facility or in a state prison, still would be the responsibility of the state Department of Corrections.

Interestingly, the bill's sponsor, Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, draws the line at facilities for maximum security inmates. Indeed, one of state's most solemn duties is housing inmates serving life sentences or those who are condemned to die. Presumably, they are among the most difficult inmates to manage.

But with the proliferation of gangs in prisons, even minimum security inmates can pose a threat to prison staff and other inmates. Even though their crimes aren't as serious as offenders serving life sentences or condemned to die, people are sent to prison because they have been convicted of violating laws and the judicial system has determined that they should be segregated from society at large.

As the Utah Legislature has considered a number of bills this legislative session that deal with open meetings and open records issues, it is appropriate to also raise a concern about the issue of transparency in dealing with the state prison system. Private providers must be subject to the same open records requirements as the state prison system. Beyond the laws themselves, there must be training so there is no misunderstanding about the requirement of the Government Records Access and Management Act and other open government requirements.

Clearly, lawmakers need to be conscientious about the best use of tax money. But in this instance, they should not be swayed simply by the low bid for a prison and its operations. Far much more is at stake, including the state's liabilities and all of the public's interests.