Private prisons thrive despite repeated failures to justify a costly, dangerous industry

Private prison companies – the few, huge and proud companies contracted to help the federal government and many states deal with their overcrowded prisons – are under attack. The Huffington Post has run a few very good stories recently (particularly this one) about the problems that arise when prisoner populations are attached to Wall Street profits. The Atlantic has made similar points referencing private prison companies’ connection to immigration reform, and The Nation is in the midst of a marketing campaign with the ACLU and Beyond Bars to bring more attention to the ​“Prison Profiteers” that not only thrive when people are imprisoned, but that write penalties against governments into their contracts when enough people aren’t thrown behind bars. A report in Cincinnati City Beat about the continued failure of the first Ohio prison to be sold to a private company also hit the web this week, along with more fallout from the disgraceful conditions discovered within Idaho’s private prisons. Plus, there’s the recent $2.5 million civil settlement in the wake of the infuriating ​“kids for cash” scandal in which two Pennsylvania judges took kickbacks from a private prison operator to lock up increased numbers of juveniles.

Since it’s the largest private prison company in the nation, responsibility has fallen by default to the Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of America to make some kind of argument in favor of private prisons. And on Wednesday, in The Tennessean, its chief corrections officer, Harley Lappin, offered Goliath’s side of the story. CCA has provided ​“millions in savings” to states such as Tennessee, he wrote, ​“which was deemed by public officials to be the most cost effective following a competitive process.” Furthermore: ​“A recent independent study” – which he fails to cite – ​“reviewed state government data and found that we generate more than 17 percent in cost savings for Tennessee’s taxpayers. Those are savings that can be used for public safety and programming to help inmates develop the skills and values they need to be successful.”

Like the brief Heritage argument about the irony of the private sector’s role in fixing health​care​.gov, Lappin’s argument has a glimmer of logic to it. If private prison companies are able to provide cost savings over state-run prisons without putting the lives of prisoners at risk or subjecting those prisoners to cruel and unusual environments, then, sure, let them work their magic.

But as Alex Friedmann – a former prisoner in a private prison who now runs the ruthless and indispensable newsletter and website, Prison Legal News – responded in this morning’s Tennessean, Lappin’s argument leaves out the facts that render it absurd. It would be funny if it weren’t so egregious. Friedmann points out that CCA’s Tennessee contract ​“includes contractual ​‘bed guarantees’ that compensate the company for a minimum number of prison or jail beds … even when they’re empty,” which ​“has resulted in CCA receiving $487,917.27 for vacant beds….” He continued:

Despite this questionable use of public funds, Lappin contends that a ​“recent independent study” found that CCA-run facilities ​“generate more than 17 percent in cost savings for Tennessee’s taxpayers.” He also mentions in passing that the study received support from the private corrections industry.

However, he didn’t disclose that the study, by two Temple University professors, was in fact partly funded by CCA — which makes one wonder whether it is really ​“independent.” In short, Mr. Lappin relied on a study, paid for by CCA and other private prison firms, to support his position that private prisons are cost-effective.

Other studies, conducted by government agencies that did not receive funding from CCA and other private prison companies, have found that prison privatization results in few, if any, savings — and may even cost more than publicly run prisons.

Mr. Lappin also cites CCA’s ​“secure facilities” and implies that bed guarantees are somehow needed to operate prisons safely. Tell that to the family of Gerald Ewing, who was murdered at the CCA-operated South Central Correctional Facility on Sept. 1 during gang-related brawls that sent four other prisoners to local hospitals.

CCA’s argument is, in other words, meaningless. Weak. It collapses on itself immediately.

The misfired Heritage argument referenced above and the failure of CCA’s chief correction officer to defend private prisons show that the hard right and the private prison industry are seemingly aligned in their inability to prove a point without overlooking key facts.

But the sad truth is that both organizations have little need for reform, little need for change. Heritage recently passed 1 million ​“Likes” on Facebook (many anthropological among them, I imagine) and still maintains an $80 million budget. And CCA, with its $4.38 billion market cap and its stock value consistently on the rise since 2001, has no one to placate but the politicians who continue to buy their misleading arguments on a grand scale.

I have no problem with either of these organizations doing what they can to make their argument and justify their existence in public. The First Amendment applies to all of us, after all. I just have a problem when these organizations misconstrue facts to prove their points. And I have a problem when the people who should care – the people who hand them millions of dollars (in taxpayer money, as is the case with CCA and other private prison companies) – apparently don’t. 

That’s nothing to laugh about.

 — — —

Follow me on Twitter where I post fascinating information and news about crime, law enforcement, and the prison industry.