NCJ Number
199980
Date Published
January 2002
Length
29 pages
Annotation
This document discusses cost and quality comparisons of outsourcing correctional services.
Abstract
The decision to privatize or not is deliberative and requires weighing a number of factors, such as cost. Government procurement and service contracting are moving toward “best-value” evaluations, where governments choose the best combination of both cost and quality rather than selecting a private provider based on low cost alone. The most important cost-comparison information for policymaking is between competitive and non-competitive regimes. Privatization brings competition into the corrections industry and affects the behavior of individuals throughout the system. Workers and managers respond to privatization by improving cost efficiencies and the quality of their work. There are 28 studies that analyze costs data to measure the relative costs of correctional facilities managed by government versus private firms, 22 of which found significant savings from privatization. The major charge against privatization is that quality and security are sacrificed by reducing costs, yet there is clear evidence that private facilities provide at least the level of service that government-run facilities do. The cost- and quality-comparison literature shows that privatization saves money without reducing quality, and comparisons should continue to be conducted and data collection and comparison techniques improved. There is also clear evidence that private prisons actually improve quality. In choosing whether or not to privatize, decisionmakers should recognize the varied motivations for privatization, avoid over-reliance on cost-comparison data, use current best practices for contracting to ensure optimal results, and recognize the benefits of meeting needs and having options. 2 figures, 4 tables, 45 endnotes