Prison Privatization: An Empirical Literature Review and Path Forward

• Published date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/1057567719875791
• Date: 01 March 2022
• Subject Matter: Original Articles

Prison Privatization:

An Empirical Literature

Review and Path Forward

Dae-Young Kim

1

Abstract

A substantial body of literature has been devoted to examine the efficacy of prison privatization.

Unfortunately, the empirical findings to date are equivocal regarding whether prison privatization

fulfills its promises and our expectations of cost efficiency, prison quality, postrelease success,

nonprofit prison privatization, system-wide improvement in corrections, local economic develop-

ment, and determinants of privatizing prisons. Such inconclusive evidence may result from the

shortcomings of past research, and thus there is a continuing need for more work using a wide range

of data sources and research designs. This article conducts a review of empirical research, discusses

conceptual and methodological problems in the literature, and offers guidance for future research. It

may not only stimulate additional research but also inform public policy decision-making on prison

privatization.

Keywords

prison privatization, private prison, quality of confinement, cost efficiency, recidivism, local

economic development, determinants of prison privatization

In the United States, there have been overall increases in the number and proportion of inmates in

private prisons. In 2016, 27 states and the federal government had contracts with private prison

corporations (Carson, 2018). About 128,323 offenders were held in private prisons, representing

8.5%of the total prison population. The commitment of the federal prison system to privatization

grew more dramatically relative to that of the state prison system (Carson, 2018; Glaze & Herber-

man, 2013). At the federal level, the number (and percentage) of prisoners in private prisons

increased substantially from 9,400 (6.7%) in 2000 to 34,159 (18.1%) in 2016, excluding persons

housed in immigration detention facilities pending adjudication. At the state level, there was a

relatively small increase from 76,100 (6.5%) to 94,164 (7.2%).

In 2016, the Obama administration made a decision to phase out the federal government’s use of

private prisons (Yates, 2016). The Department of Justice concluded that private prisons failed to

1

Criminal Justice Department, Buffalo State, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Dae-Young Kim, Criminal Justice Department, Buffalo State, State University of New York, 1300 Elmwood Ave., Buffalo, NY

14222, USA.

Email: kimd@buffalostate.edu

International CriminalJustice Review

ª2019 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1057567719875791

journals.sagepub.com/home/icj

2022, Vol. 32(1)

–

24 47

Original Article

maintain the same level of rehabilitation, safety, and security as compared to public prisons. Also,

cost savings were not substantial. Recently, the Trump administratio n has recanted the Obama

administration’s decision (Sessions, 2017). Private prisons may expand again at the federal level

due in part to Trump’s get-tough approach to undocumented immigrants and drug offenders.

Although its impact is limited to the federal prison system, this shift in official U.S. policy continues

to spark national debate about prison privatization.

The remainder of the article is structured as follows. First, it discusses historical contexts of

prison privatization in the United States. Second, it describes methods for literature search. Third, it

conducts a review of empirical literature on prison privatization, discusses the limitations of prior

research, and provides guidance for future research. There has been a substantial body of empirical

research across a range of prison privatization topics. The main areas of prison privatization research

include cost efficiency, prison quality, recidivism, nonprofit prison privatization, system-wide

improvement in corrections, local economy development, and determinants of privatizing prisons.

Finally, it concludes with a summary of key discussions and implications for research and policy

development.

This article is unique in that it not only offers future research agendas but also informs policy

decision-making on prison privatization. It offers the most up-to-date information in an easy-to-read

format and helps readers clearly understand how prison privatization affects criminal justice systems

and communities. It is thus immediately useful for professional audiences as well as academic

audiences. It may serve as a bridge between academics, policy makers, and practitioners.

Historical Contexts of Prison Privatization

Traditionally, the private sector has been involved in punishment and corrections as service

providers for health care, food, education, vocational training, and inmate transportation (Moore,

1998; The Sentencing Project, 2012). Since the 1980s, private-sector involvement has shifted from

contracting for services in part to contracting for the entire operation of prisons (The Sentencing

Project, 2012). Most states and the federal government have contracted out the entire management of

prisons to the private sector. Private corporations build new prisons or take over existing public

prisons and run them under contract to government agencies.

There are two historical contexts in which the contemporary privatization of prisons emerged in

the 1980s and continues to expand in the United States. First, mass imprisonment and overcrowding

ushered in an era of prison privatization (Hallett, 2002; Logan & Rausch, 1985; Moore, 1998;

Thomas, 1997; U.S. Department of Justice, 1984). Prison populations began dramatically increasing

in the late 1970s. Due to a series of get-tough on drug and crime policies and practices, more

offenders were admitted to prison with longer sentences. As prison construction was not able to

match the pace of growth in prison populations, most prisons were operated at or above capacity.

Prison overcrowding led to deteriorating physical conditions, lack of basic necessities (e.g., health

care, food, and recreation), violence, and other problems. In 1983, 40 states and the District of

Columbia were either subjected to prisoner litigations in the courts or under court order to improve

prison conditions (U.S. Department of Justice, 1984). Facing growing prison populations, incarcera-

tion costs, and judicial interventions, federal and state governments began enacting legislation to

contract for prison privatization.

Another reason for turning to prison privatization was that neoliberal policies gained in popu-

larity (Genders, 2002; Wood, 2007). Neoliberalism is characterized by its emphasis on minimal

governmental intervention in economic affairs and its commitment to privatization of government

functions (Reich, 2007). In the early 1980s, there was widespread dissatisfaction and concern with

the quality and cost of public services provided by governments (Thomas, 1997). As the public

demanded cutbacks in government spending, neoliberal governments privatized their functions in

25

Kim