Public-Private Partnership in Corrections:
A series of evaluation studies
Contracted Prisons Cut Costs without Sacrificing Quality: A Report from Temple University's Center for Competitive Government
April 2013
A new study by Temple University's Center for Competitive Government proves the value proposition of privately operated prisons and the quality of partnership corrections. Findings reveal that long-term partnerships with companies like CCA can cut costs by government from 12 to 58 percent in savings. This study received funding by members of the private corrections industry.
Official Temple University Center for Competitive Government Press Release
Working Paper: Cost Analysis of Public and Contractor-Operated Prisons
Reason Foundation Report on California Prisons: Saving Costs through Public-Private Partnership
April 2010
A new Reason Foundation-Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation study finds that California's soaring prison costs ($47,000 per year per inmate) could be curbed by $120 million a year for each 5,000 inmates it sends to private prisons in other states. The report details a five-year prison privatization plan that would save California taxpayers $1.8 billion over that span by gradually transferring 25,000 inmates out of state.
The Reason Foundation-Howard Jarvis report shows California spends three times as much per prisoner as Texas, which has nearly as many inmates. This prison plan, combined with other much-needed criminal justice and corrections policy changes mentioned in the report, can help reduce the size and cost of California’s prison population.
Reason Foundation Report Summary
CCA: Arizona Correctional Facilities Economic and Fiscal Impact Report
February 2010
Conducted by Arizona-based real estate and economic consulting firm Elliott D. Pollack & Company, the economic impact report provides empirical evidence of the vitality and fiscal infusion CCA can bring to partnering communities and states. The independent study reflects current partnership benefits and details how these could be magnified through the construction of more CCA facilities in the state.
The outcomes are measured in new career opportunities for Arizona residents, substantial increases in government revenues that enhance taxpayer resources, growth in local enterprise and significant payments to utility providers. Ostensibly, the findings have implications for the benefits other communities and states might realize through public-private partnership in corrections.
Download the executive summary
Download the CCA Arizona Correctional Facilities Economic and Fiscal Impact Report
Privatization in Corrections: Increased Performance and Accountability Is Leading to Expansion
December 2009
During this time of fiscal crisis, elected officials are paying attention. When contracted correctional facilities exist within a state, the budgets for the public correctional systems are reduced by millions of dollars, and savings are accrued through lower daily per inmate costs.
How Realities Change Perceptions: A Look at One CCA Community
When CCA first entered Shelby, Mont., more than 10 years ago, residents of the close-knit town were concerned about the impact of a partnership prison in their community. They posed questions about topics of interest to most law-abiding citizens interested in protecting their neighborhoods and safeguarding their families. They asked about public safety, social services, economic development, property values and more.
Local elected officials began researching these issues and conducted two analyses – five and 10 years after CCA entered the area – to see how those initial reactions to a local prison compared with the reality years later.
View the study to get a real-life look, from a community’s perspective, about how a prison affects local life. Also view this article from the Great Falls Tribune on how CCA’s Crossroads Correctional Center went from being viewed skeptically – to successfully – by even “some of the facility’s harshest critics from the days gone by.”
Blumstein, James F. and Mark A. Cohen. Written Dec. 2007; Published Dec. 2008. “Do Government Agencies Respond to Market Pressures? Evidence from Private Prisons.” Published in the Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law.
New Vanderbilt Research shows Public-Private Partnership in Corrections Lowers Rate of Growth of Public Corrections Costs
Vanderbilt University professors find that states can save substantially by having a shared system of public and private prisons. Using six years of data, the researchers found that states which house a portion of their inmates in private prisons have lower rates of growth in their public prison operating costs. These savings are in addition to the direct cost savings from the private operators. The research concluded that a state not currently using privatization could save $13 to $15 million annually from their yearly department of corrections budgets by introducing privately managed prisons. The research shows that privatization brings healthy competition and transfer of knowledge, both of which curb costs of the public sector.
Download the Vanderbilt University Press Release
Johnson, Kirk. 2006. “What To Do About the Prison Problem: The Pros and Cons of Privatized Prisons in Alabama.” Alabama Policy Institute: Birmingham, AL.
Download study
Archambeault, William and Donald Deis. 1997. “Cost Effectiveness Comparison of Private vs. Public Prisons in Louisiana: A Comprehensive Analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn Correctional Centers”. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, Vol. 4, August.
Download study
Brackel, Samuel and Kimberly Ingersoll Gaylord. 2003. “Prison Privatization and Public Policy.” Pages 125-162 in Changing the Guard ed. Alexander Tabarrok. The Independent Institute: Oakland, CA
Book – see attached
Cohen, Mark. 2006. “Report on Private Prisons.” Document submitted to the Israeli Supreme Court, August 22.
Download study
Hatry, Harry, et. al. 1993. “Comparison of Privately and Publicly Operated Corrections Facilities in Kentucky and Massachusetts.” Pages 193-237 in Privatizing Correctional Institutions eds. Gary Bowman et. al. Transaction Publishers: Edison, NJ.
Book not currently available in RCP
Joel, Dana 1993. “Privatization of Secure Adult Prisons: Issues and Evidence.” Pages 51-74 in Privatizing Correctional Institutions eds. Gary Bowman et. al. Transaction Publishers: Edison, NJ.
Book not currently available in RCP
Logan, Charles H. 1996. “Public vs. Private Prison Management.” Criminal Justice Review,Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 62-85.
Download Abstract only
Mitchell, Matthew. 2003. “The Pros of Privately-Housed Cons: New Evidence on the Cost Savings of Private Prisons.” Rio Grande Foundation: Tijeras, N.M.
Download study
Moore, Adrian T. 1998. “Private Prisons: Quality Corrections at a Lower Cost.” Policy study no. 240, Reason Public Policy Institute, Reason Foundation: Los Angeles, C.A.
Download study
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), “Private Prison Review: South Bay Correctional Facility Provides Savings and Success.” Report no 99-39, March, Tallahassee, Florida.
Download study
Segal, Geoffrey. 2005. “Significant Evidence that Prison Privatization Improves Quality: Private prisons produce cost savings, provide better or equal service.” Testimony the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons, November 2.
Download study
Segal, Geoffrey. 2005. “Contracting Out Forces Prisons to Foucus on Results, Performance.” Testimony before the Utah Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee, September 25.
Download study
Segal, Geoffrey and Adrian Moore. 2002. “Weighing the Watchmen: Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Outsourcing Correctional Services: Employing a best value approach to procurement, Part I. Reason Public Policy Institute, Reason Foundation: Los Angeles, CA.
Download study
Segal, Geoffrey and Adrian Moore. 2002. “Weighing the Watchmen: Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Outsourcing Correctional Services: Reviewing the Literature on Cost and Quality Comparisons, Part II. Reason Public Policy Institute, Reason Foundation: Los Angeles, CA.
Download study
Segal, Geoffrey. 2002. “The Extent, History, and Role of Private Companies in the Delivery of Correctional Services in the U.S.” Policy Study 302. Reason Public Policy Institute, Reason Foundation: Los Angeles, CA.
Download study
Thomas, Charles. 2003. “Correctional Privatization in America: An Assessment of It’s Historical Origins, Present Status, and Future Prospects.” Pages 57-124 in Changing the Guard ed. Alexander Tabarrok. The Independent Institute: Oakland, CA.
Book – see attached
Volokh, Alexander. 2002. “Developments in the Law – The Law of Prisons: III. A Tale of Two Systems: Cost, Quality, and Accountability.” Harvard Law Review, vol 115, pp. 1838-1868.
Download study
Volokh, Alexander. 2008. “Privatization and the Law and Economics of Political Advocacy.” Stanford Law Review, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp. 1197-1254.
Summary: A common argument against privatization is that private providers will self-interestedly lobby to increase the size of their market. In this article, Alexander Volokh evaluates the argument against prison privatization based on the possibility that the private prison industry will distort the criminal law by advocating for incarceration. The study finds that the idea that private prison operators inflate prison populations through lobbying efforts is unfounded.
Download study