FACTS Opposes Privatization of Prisons But Encourages Competition Based
on Rehabilitation, Education and Job-Training Programs
Privatization is simply an easy way for politicians to pass the buck.
The further the prison institution gets away from the political process, the
easier it is for the politicians to hide and be unaccountable to it.
Privatization is a new fad that makes the politicians look like they are trying
to attack the problem, but really helps wash their hands of it.
In fact, privatization is somewhat of a myth. The public will think
that somehow private industry will be paying for the private facilities--when,
in reality, it will still be their tax dollars that will have to pay for them.
There is no way a private system can bring in revenues without taxpayers paying
for it unless the prison system starts becoming more and more like Nazi
concentration camps (which, unfortunately, sometimes looks like the way we are
going).
The only good thing privatization brings into the picture is
competition--and, if our politicians had any imagination, creativity and
long-term initiative, they would realize they could set up a competitive
atmosphere within the CDC. Simply evaluate the CDC facilities against each
other.
Competition, however, can increase the costs to society or decrease
them. If competition is based solely on cutting prison costs, then it will
increase the long-term costs to society. The facility with the worst conditions
(and thus probably the highest recidivism rates) will appear to be the most
successful. Competition should be based on ALL the costs to society. Not only
should facilities be in competition with each other for the prison costs, but
they should also take into account rehabilitative treatment rates, educational
goals, prisoner injuries and illness, prisoner deaths, prisoner suicides--and,
most importantly, recidivism rates. We are confident that if facilities were in
competition against each other based on recidivism rates, the facilities with
the best rehabilitation and education systems would turn out to be the most
cost effective systems for society.
In fact, if the politicians really want to set up a competitive
atmosphere that would track costs throughout the criminal justice system, they
should set up an information system that would make all decision-makers
accountable for their decisions. This would decentralize the decision-making
process and hold more people accountable. Imagine if there was an information
system that put police officers, prosecutors, judges and probation officers in
competition with each other and tracked the costs to society based on the
decisions they made. Police officers would be ranked based on their decisions
whether to arrest or not arrest. Prosecutors would be ranked based on the costs
to prosecute, plea bargain and recommend sentences. Judges and probation
officers would be ranked on how well they made sentencing decisions. Instead of
a political and prejudicial system, everybody would be evaluated on how well
their decisions decreased the total costs of crime to society.
Today, police officers, prosecutors and judges are afraid of the
"Willie Horton" effect. The only thing that can come back to haunt them is if
one person is let go and commits another heinous crime. The media ignore the
thousands of other decisions a police officer, prosecutor and judge made and
focus on only the one case. The result: it is politically safer for police
officers, prosecutors and judges to lock them all up. This then results in a
criminal justice system that over-incarcerates and does not spend enough on
rehabilitation, education and job training. The only way to bring sanity back
within the system is to set up an information system that tracks the aggregate
decisions of the individuals and looks at all the costs to society that result
from their decisions.
Because of the "Willie Horton" effect, the system has also tried to
wash its hands of offenders as quickly as possible. The system does not look
like it can be blamed if it simply opens the doors of prisons and let the
inmates go once their time is served. If the person is not in a program or on
parole, then the system looks like it is blameless. But this is a farce.
Research indicates that work-release and parole programs are much better for
lowering recidivism rates rather than simply giving a bus ticket to the inmate
after he or she does their time. An information system that rewards and tracks
parole programs would also be more beneficial for society.
To extend the competition even further, there should be competition
based on preventative programs. Job-training programs, community programs,
after-school programs, and education programs in high poverty areas should all
be part of the competition against each other. The individuals that are part of
the best programs that prevent crime would be rewarded the most.
Privatization is a short-term, political cop-out. If our politicians
reacted in a manner where they really wanted to do something about crime, they
can do it by bringing competition within their own system.
Please send questions or comments to factsla@sbcglobal.net.
Everything on this web site can be distributed to the general public,
reprinted, or reposted without permission of Families to Amend California's
3-Strikes.
Date last modified: 2/5/98.