Abstract
Like any other traditional government services, the correctional services and prison systems are also facing issues on whether to succumb to the tempting offers of privatization. To an extent, it is always beneficial for the state to hand over some of its duties to the private sector if it wants to improve on efficiency and acquire some level of cutbacks in its spending. However, debates appear to be at a rather different plane when the prison system has taken the helm. Basically, the discussions below will be pinpointing the very debate that has existed ever since the issue sprung up in the early parts of the 1970s. The discussions will be done in the perspective of a correctional administrator, both in private and public sectors as the debate progress. In any case, this study surmises that privatization could do wonders for the state as a whole. However, it is held in this paper that the management of the prison system should still be sin the hands of the state. Privatization should only go as far as outsourcing certain functions in the correctional facilities like the maintenance of the building, medical services, commissaries and the like. In this collaboration of both public and private sector will essentially combine the individual strengths and in the same time limit the weaknesses by meeting some requirements which the private or the public could not complete on its lonesome.
Keeping it in the Public Sector
In the eyes of a public sector prison administrator, there are certain elements that could be considered arguments in favor of keeping the prison service in the hands of the public sector. One argument for the public control over the correctional facilities is that there is a guarantee that certain standards are going to be upheld as the protocols and certain procedures are covered by legislation. (2001) This means that since the state is carrying out the specific established activities in the correctional facilities, handing it over to private control does not place promise that these standards will be implemented just the same.
Another argument in favor of keeping the prison services to the public domain is focused primarily on the dynamics of industrial relations. For employees sanctioned by the government are barred from staging any form of protest or strike. (2004) When the private sector takes on the prison service, this clause is waived. An attached issue will then be seen in the context of security in the prison itself once an employee strike takes place.
Moreover, the state has established certain disciplinary procedures to rehabilitate its convicted offenders. These disciplinary procedures could be compromised once a private company comes in to take the reins of the operation. (2001) Though this may not be entirely dreadful, there is room for doubt regarding the effectiveness of the possible changes in the disciplinary procedures as compared to the existing procedures taken by the public sector.
Moreover, given that full authority is given to the private organization once privatization takes place in the prison service, there is a possibility that they invoke their option to accept or reject any inmate. (2004) To a certain extent, this goes entirely contrary to the espoused principles of efficiency and effectiveness of privatization. Once this takes place, there would be an imminent issue on where to place offenders once private prisons reject them. Ironically, these convicts will inevitably end up in a public controlled correctional facility.
In the same manner, there is also the possibility for the private sector to encounter financial problems. This could be an issue in the public sector but it will always find ways to manage and acquire other means of capital. (2001) The more pressing issue on the private sector is the possibility that they could go bankrupt. In this setting, they don’t have a lot of options and the main recourse is to send the services back to the control of the state. Once this happens, the state is now burdened with another transition and the inmates and the employees of the correctional facility will be the most affected. In the case of state operations, they could still operate despite the lack or insufficiency of finances because they have the option of practicing deficit spending. This would not be very difficult, if not impossible, in the case of private institutions since they could only resort to filing Chapter 11 claims to protect their interests, which in some way will adversely affect the operations of the prison systems. A worse case would be apparent when these private institutions ask for higher fees once they encounter some financial hurdles which essentially defeat the purpose of privatization.
Potentials of the Private Management
On the part of a private correctional facility manager, privatization still is the best possible option for the prison system. If what is desired is actual change, that privatizing the prison management services is still the way facilitate this process. Besides, there are certain elements in the operations of the state that could be improved when these are transferred to private management. One element is the actual operating costs of the prison. Given the fact that efficiency and profit is seen as the basic premise of the private sector, it could find ways to minimize the expenditures and maintain a level of operation that could equal or even surpass those offered by the state.
In the same reason, employees in the prison system and correctional facilities will have the opportunity to acquire a more reasonable pay which in turn could boost their morale. (2004) In any case, this could always be an indication of progress for any organization. There is also the preconceived notion that private firms could always surpass the performance of the state. In this regard, there is an assumed notion that when the prison system is placed in the hands of the private firms, then a higher state of public safety is seen as a major outcome.
Moreover, there are certain articles that indicate that the private sector tends to acquire the control of prison system to get the services of the inmates in terms of labor at a significantly lower cost. (2001) This also means that once private sectors get a hold of the management of a correctional facility, they could help the convicted offenders serving their time to have a livelihood and even allow them to acquire some additional cash to pay for the punitive damages and restitution to their victims.
Perceived Challenges for the Competing Sectors
The debate relating to the competing sectors of private and public management tends to highlight certain challenges. For instance, there is a study that points out to the inconsistency of comparing public and private organizations. (2005) Specifically, there is a problem in terms of comparing the efficiency of the performance of private firms and public management in the context of the prison systems. To a certain level, the claims of the said study are rather accurate. For some reason, it is doubtful that comparing performance on such a singular baseline would be an indication of actual improvement in the prison industries. Yes, there will be some level of changes in terms of the financial aspect of the operations of the prison system once it has transferred management to the private sector. However, would the basic intention of rehabilitation of the inmates achieve its optimum level once privatization takes place? Would the quality of rehabilitation of those inmates in the publicly managed prison or a privately managed correctional facility be different?
There are also other issues forwarded in terms of limitations and accountability in imposing privatization among the state. In the study of Beermann (2001, 1507) there may be a problem in terms of the leadership in these privatized correctional facilities. Issues on the accountability of these leaders would be lingering in as much as these privatized prisons appear to be self-governing.
Legal Issues of Privatization of Prison Systems
A prevailing issue that states should recognize is whether privatizing a prison system is within the bounds of their power. This means that they should consider the Tenth Amendment principles held by the US Constitution. (2001) For prison systems, there is apparently no clear limitation on the states’ capability to consign the operations of these institutions to private care. To a certain extent, this regard is placed on the responsibility of the state since they are accountable to the courts if they are charged against the constitutionality of a privatized action.
Another issue that has been discussed in literature is the legal responsibility of privatized prisons. The case of Richardson v. McKnight has given light in this issue. As stated in the decision of the case, private prisons are able to impose an immunity defense on the charge of the claimant that the guards placed the handcuffs on him too hard. This immunity defense is available to these private firms because these private prisons are carrying out a public duty as mandated by correctional facilities.
Conclusion
The discussions above have presented a presentation of the observations made regarding the privatization of correctional facilities. As seen in the discussions above, privatization does offer some level of financial advantages on the part of the state. However, the issue on accountability still hangs in the balance. At this point, it is only the state that could impose certain standards such that laws and regulations are effectively implemented in prison systems. However, one must realize that it would be for the benefit of the public that the public and private sectors collaborate in the operations of the prison systems and correctional facilities. This way, issues on accountability could be addressed. A much safer environment is offered to the public. Rehabilitation would be top rate. Thus, this paper recommends that states should avoid placing total control of the correctional facility on the private sector. They could satisfy their need of efficiency by meeting the offer of the private sectors such that certain parts of their operations should be contracted out. Elements like the infirmary services and commissary operations are among the elements that should be consigned to the private sector. Management of such institutions should still be held by the state.
Unit 4 DB Leadership, Communication, and Motivation
June , 2007
The responsibility of the prison administrator is not limited to the personnel and the maintenance of the correctional facility. Recent developments in the prison settings tend to highlight several issues. For instance, the study of (2002) reveal that there is an increase in the incidence of sexual coercion in women’s correctional facilities in the Midwestern part of the United States.
Actually, these have been a “dirty little secret” in women’s correctional institutions for ages. (1998) In the said study, the correctional officers tend to have absolute power over the women inmates. Aggravating this problem is the fact that prison administrators are often left in the dark as the other correctional officers have the propensity to keep mum about such incidents to protect their fellow officers. This also means that the window of opportunity for abuse to take place is significantly wide.
In looking at the findings of these works, it is apparent that the inmates of the correctional facility have no recourse in given their situation. (2005) Thus, prison administrators could provide a venue where inmates, especially in women’s correctional facilities, could forward their grievances. In this manner, this could serve as a deterrent for correctional officers in coercing inmates for further sexual favours.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment