Comparing Public and Private Prison Systems

Currently, more than 1.5 million people are incarcerated in the United States, which is
the highest incarceration rate after the Seychelles. According to a 2018 survey, the prison
population in the United States grew by 80% between 1999 and 2010, and while a growing
inmate population is ending up in privately run prisons, research shows that private prisons
might be less effective and dangerous to inmates compared to government-run ones
(Leighton & Selman, 2018) . Considering the danger to the correctional system, especially the
reduced capacity to reform inmates, the Obama Administration developed strategies to phase
them out. However, the Trump Administration reversed those initiatives citing negative
impacts on the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Conversely, President Biden recently signed an
executive order to “eliminate the use of privately operated criminal detention facilities” (The
White House, 2021) . The executive order aims to prevent profit-driven increased
incarceration rates in the U.S. Private prisons have been blamed for the increasing number of
inmates because they have to keep inmate counts high to attain higher profits. However, the
tendency of private-run prisons to focus more on cost-savings and higher profit margins than
on safety and efficacy of the correctional system only leads to more risks than benefits,
necessitating their elimination from the system.
Overall, the federal government is the largest contractor of private prisons in the U.S.,
accounting for about 126% increase on federal prisoners in private prisons between 2000 and
2016 (Gaes, 2019) . Immigrant detention numbers increased by 442% between 2002 and
2017, which further shows the increased dependence on private institutions (Gunderson,
2022) . Since one of the primary goals of for-profit prison companies is to make profits, the
status and size of the criminal justice system is critical. In this case, their growth primarily
depends on their ability to obtain new contracts from state and federal government.
Therefore, to overcome challenges, private prison companies join interest groups and

3
lawmakers through the American Legislative Exchange Council to advocate for privatization.
However, in reality, the theoretical foundation for privatization has been translated poorly
into practice.
According to numerous studies to assess the cost-saving benefits of private prisons,
researchers found that states utilizing private prisons did not achieve significant cost saving
benefits, and that more funds were actually funneled to private prisons than public prisons. In
most cases, staff and overhead costs were found to be significantly higher in publicly-
operated institutions than in privately-operated ones (Leighton & Selman, 2018) . In addition,
the pressure to reduce costs in private prisons introduces a fatal concern: compromising
safety, security, and efficacy within prisons. Moreover, corrections officers are compensated
remarkably lower packages compared to those in the public sector, indicating that private
prison companies lack proper incentives for employee loyalty. A recent research in Arizona
found that the cost per inmate in private prisons can be high by as much as $1, 600 per year
(Burkhardt, 2017). In other cases, private prisons achieved their cost-cutting targets by
rejecting inmates with severe illnesses or a risky history of violence. Similarly, the same
trends were reported in other states including New Jersey, Florida, and Hawaii (Harding,
2018). In addition, higher turnover rates are reported in private prisons than in public
prisons.
Private prisons lack a real incentive to reform prisoners. This is due to the fact that they
make their profits form incarcerated populations, and the higher the number of incarcerated
individuals the higher their profit margins. This explains why the GEO Group and Core
Civic donated to Trump’s presidential inauguration with the hope that he would cease the
former administration’s move to eliminate privately run correctional facilities (Dippel &
Poyker, 2019) . Some of the ways that private prisons keep their inmate population high is
through enactment of mandatory minimums and crackdown on illegal immigration.

4
Moreover, in order to cut operating costs, private prison companies hire fewer employees,
offer incomprehensive training and reduce spending on programs that are considered
mandatory in rehabilitation of the inmate.
Private-run prisons have also been associated with a higher rate of inmate-on-inmate
assaults and inmate-on-staff assaults, and harboring twice as many illicit weapons than
comparable facilities. According to a recent report, private-run prisons have a 28% higher
rate of assaults compared to public run prisons (Leighton & Selman, 2018) . Furthermore,
Bureau of Prisons agents charged with ensuring compliance to federal policies in private
institutions found that most inmates did not receive proper medical care. Despite the risks
associated with such lack of compliance, these malpractices were not reported, leading to
endangerment to the lives of inmates. In the past, private-run prisons have been reported to
go to unethical lengths to preserve profits from high numbers of incarcerated individuals
(Powers et al., 2017). For example, the Kids for Cash scandal involving two Pennsylvania
judges who were accepting bribe from two private detention centers in return for juvenile
offenders serving time in those centers.
Private-run companies have also been associated with higher recidivism and reentry
were found to be higher in private-run prisons. According to a study in 2013, there was a
statistically significant difference in recidivism rates for private prisons at 68% compared to
the 45% in public prisons (Powers et. al, 2017). However, this concept is contentious because
it can only be quantified five years after release. In addition, it is also challenging to include
this in statistics, which means that private prisons are not tainted by the poor rates. Moreover,
private companies benefit from overcrowding, which forces the public to contract private
operators. On the same note, private prisons tend to “aggressively lobby for harsher prison
sentences such as mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws” (Craig and pond cummings,
2020 p.267).

5
In cases where private institutions have been found to de-emphasize certain critical
issues surrounding key discourse on the correctional system. For example, these companies
do not directly cite their positive statistics on improving the rate of recidivism but instead
they counter discourse on the same by placing an emphasis on other facts such as security and
safety. Therefore, private prisons place an emphasis on their positive attributes and at the
same time de-emphasize their problems like violence (Gaes, 2019) . Moreover, in cases where
reentry rates into prison have been reported to be high, private institutions emphasize further
on their contribution towards higher re-entry rates into society. Some researchers have found
that private prisons deliberately jeopardize reentry programs , which means that prisoners are
at a disadvantage even before they leave prisons (Ortiz & Jackey, 2019). This could be
explained by the fact that these companies market their rehabilitation services only to gain
from them.
Although private-run prisons have garnered negative attention ever since their existence
in the 1980s, the problem of mass incarceration still remain a quagmire for state and federal
government. The existing public facilities have cannot adequately meet the country’s
incarcerations needs, hence the much-needed input from private-run prisons. Although it can
be argued that private prisons are only oriented towards filling the beds in their prison, the
dire situation at public prisons cannot be ignored. For example, overcrowding is one of the
leading challenges in government-run prisons, which consequently undermines the ability of
the correctional system to meet basic human needs such as healthcare, accommodation, and
food. Moreover, rehabilitation programs in public prisons are also overwhelmed. To make
matters worse, the rates of incarceration continue to increase due to excessive use of pre-trial
detention and incarceration of minors. Moreover, public-run incarnation centers have been
reported to have higher rates of mental health compared to private run institution.
Subsequently, this phenomenon increases rates of violence, suicide and self-harm in public-

6
run prisons. In many correctional systems worldwide, detainees and inmates do not get the
mandatory minimum space requirements set by international standards.
To overcome these challenges, some of the proposed solutions involve investing in
alternative for pretrial sentencing, diverting minor cases out of the correctional system, and
developing sustainable strategies for crime reduction and prevention. Without a doubt, policy
makers pay more attention to cutting budget allocated per inmate in both private and public
prisons but fail to invest similar strategies towards reducing crime in the streets, especially
juvenile offenders who are increasing at an alarming rate (Gunderson, 2022) . Moreover,
policy makers should make better arrangements for inmates who comprise vulnerable groups,
which would help alleviate pressure on already overstretched resources. Ultimately, the
government needs to find better ways to address problems in the incarceration system rather
than cracking down on for-profit companies for wanting to turn profit.
In conclusion, private-run prisons should be outlawed because they do not offer any
significant advantages over public-run facilities. Collectively, private prisons offer fewer
rehabilitation services at a higher risk to inmates and employees and at an insignificant cost-
cutting. In most cases, to achieve their savings goals by cutting cost to critical operations and
personnel functions such as lower compensation rates and inadequate training programs. The
findings that private prisons pay their employees significantly less and have higher inmate-to-
staff ratios fail to show the benefits of private run prisons other than a profit-driven initiative
with risks that far outweigh the benefits. Although some scholars have argued that these
private prisons can be incentivized instead of being outlawed, the increased probability to
impartial administration of justice is enough reason to end privatization.

7

References
Burkhardt, B. C. (2017). Who is in private prisons? Demographic profiles of prisoners and
workers in American private prisons. International Journal of Law, Crime and
Justice, 51, 24-33. doi:10.1016/j.Ijlcj.2017.04.004
Dippel, C., & Poyker, M. (2019). Do Private Prisons Affect Criminal Sentencing? (Working
Paper No. 25715; Working Paper Series). National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w25715
Gaes, G. G. (2019). Current status of prison privatization research on American prisons and
jails. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(2), 269–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-
9133.12428
Gunderson, A. (2022). Why Do States Privatize their Prisons? The Unintended Consequences
of Inmate Litigation. Perspectives on Politics, 20(1), 187–204.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720003485
Harding, R. W. (2018). Private prisons and public accountability. Routledge.
Leighton, P., & Selman, D. (2018). Private prisons, the criminal justice—Industrial complex
and bodies destined for profitable punishment. In Routledge Handbook of Critical
Criminology (2nd ed.). Routledge.
pond cummings, A. D., and Lamparello, A. (2016). Private Prisons and the New Marketplace
for Crime. Wake For. J. L. Pol. 6 (2), 407–440.
Powers, R. A., Kaukinen, C., & Jeanis, M. (2017). An examination of recidivism among
inmates released from a private reentry center and public institutions in Colorado. The
Prison Journal, 97(5), 609-627. doi:10.1177/0032885517728893
Smith, K. B. (2004). The politics of punishment: Evaluating political explanations of
incarceration rates. The Journal of Politics, 66(3), 925-938. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2508.2004.00283.x

8