Privatized corrections in the 21st century

• Date: 01 May 2019
• Published date: 01 May 2019
• Author: Daniel P. Mears,Andrea N. Montes
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12444

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12444

RESEARCH ARTICLE

REFRAMING THE PRIVATIZATION DEBATE

Privatized corrections in the 21st century

Reframing the privatization debate

Andrea N. Montes1Daniel P. Mears2

1Arizona State University

2Florida State University

Correspondence

AndreaN. Montes, Ph.D., School of

Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona

StateUniversity, 411 North Central Avenue,

Suite600, Phoenix, AZ 85004.

Email:andrea.montes@asu.edu

Research Summary: Governments historically have

relied on private organizations to assist with the provision

of correctional punishment and services. This reliance

continues but has engendered considerable debate that

stems from ideological divides. Debate stems as well

from a disjuncture between the limited evidence about

privatization and calls for evidence-based policy. In this

article, we present a conceptual framework for identifying

what is and is not known about privatization and for

guiding scholarship and policy. We then discuss key

issues that must be addressed to advance knowledge about

privatization and productively inform policy debates.

Policy Implications: In our review, we highlight that

little is known not only about the benefits and harms of

private corrections but also about the operations, impacts,

and cost efficiency of public corrections. Scholarship on

privatization can be used to shed light on contemporary

punishment practices and how they impact individuals and

influence corrections systems and society.

KEYWORDS

corrections, evidence, policy, private prisons, privatization

1INTRODUCTION

Governments havelong relied on pr ivatefor-profit or nonprofit organizations to administer community

supervision, jails, prisons, and other types of punishments. Despite the history of privatization, debates

about it have become increasingly contentious (Armstrong & MacKenzie, 2003; Culp, 2005; Feeley,

2014; Logan, 1988, 1990, 1992; Makarios & Maahs, 2012; Perrone & Pratt, 2003; Sessions, 2017;

Yates, 2016). Advocates extol privatization’s putative virtues, whereas critics proclaim its failings.

This debate has arisen during an era in which policy makers have called for evidence-basedcor rections

(Blomberg, Brancale, Beaver, & Bales, 2016; Latessa, Listwan, & Koetzle, 2014; Mears, 2010). Yet,

Criminology & Public Policy. 2019;18:217–239. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp © 2019 American Society of Criminology 217

218 MONTES AND MEARS

little empirical research on privatized corrections has been conducted (Camp & Gaes, 1999; Camp,

Gaes, Klein-Saffran, Daggett, & Saylor, 2002; Gaes, Camp, Nelson, & Saylor, 2004; Harding, 1997;

Lindsey, Mears, & Cochran, 2016; Lundahl, Kunz, Brownell, Harris, & Van Vleet, 2009; Perrone &

Pratt, 2003; Pratt & Maahs, 1999). Its theoretical underpinnings remain mostly unarticulated. Not least,

no systematic and credible evidence exists about its benefits or harms.

The situation is complicated by the fact that discussions about privatized corrections tend to ignore

the changing definition of privatization over time. They tend to ignore the diversity of correctional

system activities that have been and are privatized. Theyalso tend to ignore a wide range of dimensions

and issues relevant for evaluating the merits of privatization. In addition, arguments about privatized

corrections typically do not consider the operations and impacts of public corrections. We argue that

productive advances in science and policy require that the privatization debate be reframed in a way

that captures the full range of relevant dimensions and that considers in each instance the precise public

corrections counterfactual condition—that is, what would have happened if a particular privatization

effort had not been implemented?

Accordingly, the goal of this article is to identify what is and is not known about privatized correc-

tions and to provide a framework that can be used both to evaluate extant research and to guide future

scholarship and policy debates. We highlight that little is known about privatization. We argue that

this situation stems in part from the fact that research and policy debates often proceed from inaccu-

rate assumptions about what “counts” as privatized corrections. It stems, too, from a lack of clarity

about the relevant point of comparison or outcomes necessary for assessing impacts and efficiency.

And it stems as well from failing to apply standards of evaluation equally to both private and public

corrections.

In this article, we review how the meaning and uses of privatized corrections havechanged over time,

and what privatized corrections means in contemporary corrections systems. Second, we describe the

traditional framing of the privatization debate. Here, we highlight why this framing obscures rather

than aids in guiding scholarship and efforts to provide a balanced and credible assessment of privati-

zation. Third, to highlight what is and is not known about privatized corrections and to point the way

toward improving scholarship and policy on this phenomenon, we present a conceptual framework for

reframing the privatization debate. Drawn from Lindsey et al. (2016) and prior research, this framework

entails recognizing that (a) privatization includes far more than private prisons, (b) relevant counterfac-

tual conditions must be identified to arrive at valid estimates of impacts, and (c) relevant outcomes must

be identified and measured. It considers seven dimensions, including the extent to whichpr ivatizedcor-

rections is needed and provides services comparable in amount and quality to what public corrections

provides, the impact of privatization on various outcomes, and the extent to which privatization results

in cost savings. Fourth, we identify key issues that must be addressed to advance scholarship on pri-

vatized corrections and to elevate corrections policy to an evidence-based foundation. In so doing, we

highlight that many criticisms of privatization can be leveled as well against public corrections. The

bulk of public corrections, for example, operates in the equivalent of a “black box,” with little known

about its operations, impacts, or cost-efficiency.

2DEFINING PRIVATIZED CORRECTIONS

2.1 Privatized corrections

A fundamental role of government is to punish and rehabilitate offenders. The role amounts to a moral

obligation, one that the government is uniquely equipped to fulfill. Governmental entities, however,