Private and Public Prisons

Pointing to the experiences of several states, supporters of prison privatization contend that contractors can run prisons at less cost than the government can, without reducing the quality of service. On the other hand, critics of privatization say that little valid evidence exists to support the argument that prison privatization is a cost-effective alternative to publicly run facilities. This report (1) identifies studies, completed since 1991, comparing the operational costs and the quality of service of private and public correctional facilities; (2) determines what can be concluded about the operational costs and the quality of service of comparable private and public prisons; (3) assesses whether the reported results are generalizable to correctional systems in other jurisdictions; and (4) identifies lessons learned that could help guide future comparative studies of private and public correctional facilities. GAO's work is basically a form of evaluation synthesis in which it assesses existing studies, particularly with respect to the strength of evidence supporting the reported findings.

GAO found that: (1) five studies comparing operational costs or quality of service at private and public correctional facilities in California, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, and New Mexico had been completed since 1991; (2) it could not draw any conclusions about cost savings or quality of service, since the four studies that assessed operational costs indicated little difference or mixed results, and the two studies that addressed quality of life reported either equivocal findings or no differences between private and public facilities; and (3) the studies provide little information that is applicable to various correctional settings, since states may differ widely in terms of correctional philosophy, economic factors, and inmate population characteristics. GAO believes that future comparative studies of public and private correctional facilities should: (1) focus on both operational costs and quality of service; (2) evaluate operational costs at existing comparable, not hypothetical, facilities; (3) employ multiple indicators or data sources to objectively measure quality of service issues; and (4) be based upon data collected over several years.