prison privatization
Please use the APA 7th edition template attached above to format your article critique template. Review additional support content in the announcements. This will help you understand how to critique and the type of information that should be found in each section of your critique.
For each article critique, you will select 2 peer-reviewed articles no older than 5-10 years. Using concepts presented in the weekly reading and study, you will write a paper critique that is at least 4 pages but no more than 7 pages of these articles in current APA format.
Article Critique 3
Locate 2 peer-reviewed articles no older than 5-10 years that discuss prison privatization. One article must present arguments advocating for American prison privatization and the second article must present arguments against American prison privatization. Provide a critique of each authors position on the privatization of prisons. from a Christian worldview, critique the current state of private prisons and present a clear argument on how to fix the system.
**follow the template thats attach
and use the peer reviewed articles that is attached
1
PUT A RUNNING HEAD HERE
1
PUT A RUNNING HEAD HERE
Article Critique
Name
Liberty University
Class #
Professor Name
Date
Abstract
Start text here
Article Critique
Start here . You need an introductory paragraph and thesis statement here.
Article 1-Background
Start text here include parenthetical citations
Article 1 – Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
Start text here include parenthetical citations
Weaknesses
Start text here include parenthetical citations
Article 2-Background
Start text here include parenthetical citations
Article 2 – Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
Start text here include parenthetical citations
Weaknesses
Start text here include parenthetical citations
Summary of Articles
Start text here include parenthetical citations
Conclusion: Personal Reflection, Position, and Christian Worldview
Start text here include parenthetical citations
References PRISON PRIVATIZATION 1
PRISON PRIVATIZATION 2
Article Critique Three
Abstract
Although prison privatization trends have a long history in the American justice systems, numerous debates regarding its merits and demerits have intensified in the recent past. It is postulated that a total of 158 private correctional facilities operate within 30 states of the United States of America. Consequently, most of these private prisons are located in the Western and Southern parts of the United States. Therefore, this article’s objectives would be to debate the pros and cons of the prevalent privatized correctional facilities compared to the public corrections. Additionally, this article seeks to advance a critique of some existing research works regarding this topic to point out some of the strengths and weaknesses. The critique would be based on two previously done research works advocating and opposing the privatization of prisons. By so doing, the article would highlight some of the unanswered concerns regarding the privatization of correctional facilities within the United States. The conclusion of the work would highlight opportunities that may advance prison privatization debates and research. Comment by Dr. Jade Pumphrey: ABI
Article Critique on Prison Privatization
One of the demanding challenges that plague and informs prison privatization is overcrowding. It is argued that the number of offenders under control and jurisdiction has doubled over the past two decades in the United States. Therefore, this increase in the prison population has called for developing alternative privatized forms of correctional facilities. However, debates and research works have been advanced to provide highlights on the appropriateness and mishaps of privatizing prison systems. Critique of two scholarly articles presents arguments advocating for prison privatization, and the second one presenting arguments against the privatization. To point out arguments advocating prison privatization, a critique of Driving Influences and Performance Evaluation by Carla Schultz give insights on the weakness and strengths of privatization. Consequently, a critique of Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons by James Austin represents opposing arguments towards prisons’ privatization. Comment by Dr. Jade Pumphrey: Titles of articles in the text will be capitalized, surrounded by ” ” marks and written in Title Case; not italicized
Article 1- Prison Privatization: Driving Influences and Performance Evaluation
In this article, the author depicts prison privatization within the United States as a widely debated aspect. In a strong belief towards prison privatization, economists, social scientists, and criminologists have been pointed as determinants of privatization and possible privatization consequences. In the first section of the article, the author investigates both the economic and political aspects that push for prison privatization. In this perspective, the article points out neoliberalism, conservatism, and ethical moneymaking from incarcerated individuals as determinant factors. In the second section, the author brings out the effectiveness of prison privatization in terms of inmate rights, recidivism, quality of confinement, and the costs involved in setting up these facilities. The author devotes policy implications in the last section and provides a roadmap to justice systems regarding prison privatization.
According to Schultz (2015), historical political and economic influences have caused privatization interventions in American criminal justice. For instance, the author states that tough economic times promoted welfare policies where conservatism and neoliberalism were practiced. Neoliberalism defines an economic philosophy where deregulation, minimal government involvement, and privatization aspects are promoted (Schultz, 2015). The implications therein made policymakers to shift costs of social service institutions like prisons onto privatized entities rather than state-owned. Privatization has been assumed to encourage competition, reduce costs, and improve service quality by collaborating government, justice experts, as well as politicians.
Strengths
In the article, the author points out ethical issues and the quality of confinement as the obvious reasons for contracting criminal systems out to private management. Owing to the lucrative nature of the justice systems, ethical issues and inmate rights often get ignored and overlooked in terms of quality of confinement. The article starts by demystifying arguments that private corporations cannot adequately manage state services. As prisons are regarded as inherent public entities that can only be efficient when managed by state officials, private entities can relinquish housing and supervision responsibilities. According to Schultz (2015), private prisons offer back up to overcrowded state prisons by placing bids to accept mates. Because of these factors, private prisons are capable of experience to enable them to push ethical boundaries. Consequently, the article points out that private prisons also afford fundamental inmate and defendant rights as stipulated in the constitutional amendments. Conditions and care factors complement each other to successfully implement quality confinement dimensions through proper diet, sanitation, and adequate healthcare.
Weaknesses
According to the author, there are two policy implications avenues regarding the current future of prison privatization, and these are discussed as either reforming it or abolishing it. However, the author fails to show how prison privatization reforms would be in the future. Rather than asking for what can be operated and offered differently, the article concentrates on cheaper and better private institutions that would provide more rehabilitative and treatments. The benefits of focusing on these rehabilitative privatized prison models would only legitimize the thinking of neoliberalism and capitalism (Schultz, 2015). Reforming the privatization of prison for future circumstances, according to the article standards, could alternatively be substituted by the privatization abolishment altogether.
Article 2- Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons
In the article, the author, James Ashcroft, points out the 1998 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act as the basis of arguing against the privatization of prisons. The article regards prisons as an inherent governmental social facility operated by government officials, and private contractors may run only their commercial aspects. As Ashcroft (2016) pointed out, the FAIR statute bears great implications regarding the legality of the privately operated prisons. This implies that these social facilities cannot be separated from governmental functions both under the exercise of discretion and nature of the functionality. Based on the degree of discretion, the author states that philosophical ideas regarding the nature of imprisonment override privatization interests that are merely based on accountability, behavior, and outcome mechanisms. Consequently, based on the nature of functionality, the article reflects how wrong it is to privatize certain inherent government functions due to the underlying moral fundamentals. The Christian perspective concurs with the philosophical ideas of criminal justice that advocate humanity in terms of medications, care, and mental health.
Strengths
The efficiency of a social facility like federal prison can be gauged depending on their performance. The article points out how the effectiveness of privatization be done based on recidivism and financial costs. The article brings out the inefficiencies in privatized prisons through recidivism by claiming that inmates released from private prisons were still likely to commit serious criminal offenses. Additionally, one of the founding principles for the privatization of prisons is the potential of reducing costs and save the taxpayer some dollars (Ashcroft, 2016). The article states that despite saving the overcrowding in the federal public prisons, privatization of prisons does not offer any financial relief as the taxpayers are still required to pay operational costs.
Weaknesses
The article fails to clarify what happens in the legality of prison privatization if these facilities’ operations meet the tests on the exercise of discretion and the nature of the function. Therefore, privatized prisons would be unlikely to develop strong markets in high-security inmate populations due to the great scrutinizes and resistance they face from both the state and federal correctional institutions (Ashcroft, 2016).
Summary Comment by Dr. Jade Pumphrey: centered; Keep the heading written as I show in the template
In Schultz’s (2015) assertions, privatization of prisons can be addressed as a multi-faceted idea that has been influenced by both the doctrines of neoliberalism and conservative policies to create their market niche. On the other hand, Ashcroft (2016) depicts prison privatization as failed attempts to improve quality, reduce costs, and alleviate overcrowding within federal and state prisons, leaving the future of privatization to face either abolition or reformation.
Conclusion
Despite the shortcomings of prison privatization, private prions’ functions remain relevant within the justice system. It can be agreed that privatized prisons have not kept their missions of advancing prison effectiveness; privatization still holds its mere significant impacts on traditional prisons. In the context of the Christian worldview, it can be acknowledged that privatization has caused the public prisons to reexamine how to deal with humanity by incorporating public-private partnerships.
References
Schultz, C. (2015). Prison privatization: Driving influences and performance evaluation. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 3(1), 5.
Ashcroft, J. (2016). Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons. http://biblioteca.cejamericas.org/bitstream/handle/2015/1945/Emerging_Issues_Privatized_Prisons.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Comment by Dr. Jade Pumphrey: this is a monograph and not a peer-reviewed journal article – please revise and replace all content for this article Social Science Research 42 (2013) 596610
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Social Science Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / s s r e s e a r c h
Prisons, jobs and privatization: The impact of prisons
on employment growth in rural US counties, 19972004
0049-089X/$ – see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.12.008
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 509 335 6419.
E-mail address: [emailprotected] (G. Hooks).
Shaun Genter a, Gregory Hooks b,, Clayton Mosher b
a Tacoma Community College, Building 18, 6501 South 19th Street Tacoma, WA 98466, United States
b Department of Sociology, 204 Wilson-Short Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4020, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 September 2010
Revised 7 June 2012
Accepted 12 December 2012
Available online 11 January 2013
Keywords:
Incarceration
Prison expansion
Community economic development
Rural employment
Privatization
a b s t r a c t
In this study of prison privatization we draw on the insights of a recent body of literature
that challenges a widespread belief that prisons help to spur employment growth in local
communities. We look to these studies to provide an empirically and theoretically
grounded approach to addressing our research question: what are the benefits, if any, to
employment growth in states that have privatized some of their prisons, compared to
states with only public prisons? Our research makes use of a large, national, and compre-
hensive dataset. By examining the employment contributions of prisons, as recent research
has done, we were able to corroborate the general findings of this research. To study prison
privatization we distinguish between states in which privatization has grown rapidly and
those states in which privatization has grown slowly (or not at all). Our findings lend sup-
port to recent research that finds prisons do not improve job prospects for those commu-
nities that host them. We contribute to this literature by demonstrating that new prisons in
states in which privatization is surging impede employment growth in the host commu-
nity. To explain this we highlight the significant reduction in prison staffing in both pri-
vate and public prisons where privatization is growing quickly.
2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
This article focuses on the intersection of three trends in criminal justice and local economic development. First, in abso-
lute and relative terms, the United States has dramatically expanded the number of prisons and prisoners. Fueled by get
tough on crime policies (Dyer, 2000), incarceration rates soared. In 2010, over 1.6 million individuals were incarcerated,
with an incarceration rate of approximately 500 per 100,000 (US Department of Justice, 2012). While this incarceration rate
is slightly lower than the peak (506 per 100,000 in 2007), this represents a dramatic increase relative to the 1970s and one of
the highest in the world. To accommodate this growth, correctional officials filled prisons beyond their capacity (Besser and
Hanson, 2005), converted old buildings to prisons, transferred inmates to correctional institutions in other states, and con-
structed new facilities (Lawrence and Travis, 2004). Second, over this same period, state and local governments have priv-
atized a number of public services including corrections Gaes et al., 2004; Hallett, 2006; Logan, 1990; Shichor, 1995). Third,
a disproportionate number of new prisons were built in nonmetropolitan counties. Rural counties and communities aggres-
sively campaigned to attract prisons. As Besser and Hanson (2005:2) note, what had been viewed as a LULU [locally unde-
sirable land use] became a last resort for promoting economic development.
The sharp recession that began in 2008 and the enormous pressure placed on state and local budgets has stalled and
may lead to a reversal of the incarceration trend (Coleman, 2008; Lotke, 2008). Even before this recession, the local benefits
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.12.008
mailto:[emailprotected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.12.008
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0049089X
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch
S. Genter et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 596610 597
of prison expansion have been called into question (Besser and Hanson, 2005; Gilmore, 2007; Glasmeier and Farrigan, 2007;
Hooks et al., 2004, 2010; King et al., 2004). The pervasive finding in recent research that prisons bring few if any economic
benefits contradicts the hype surrounding prisons. But this finding is consistent with Easons (2010) assertion that prison-
building has compounded problems for struggling rural communities. Even if the rate of incarceration declines, the privati-
zation of prisons will likely continue (Burnett, 2011; Caputo, 2011; Vardon, 2011). In fact, Corrections Corporation of
America (CCA) recently extended an offer to buy prisons from cash-strapped states. This offer is contingent on a commitment
to have CCA manage the prisons for 20 years and that the facility is at least 90% full over the period (Kirkham, 2012).
Whereas supporters of privatization tout savings for the public sector and attractive employment options for nearby resi-
dents, critics dispute these claims and stress the profits flowing to out-of-state corporations. Our research is focused on priv-
atized prisons and employment. To the extent that privatization delivers on the promise of lowering costs, it does so by
reducing labor costs. As such, it is possible that private prisons generate fewer secure and well-paying jobs than comparable
prisons managed by the public sector. In turn, the counties hosting private prisons are less likely to experience a net increase
in employment when a prison opens.
To establish a baseline for comparison, we use measures and methods that have been employed to examine the relation-
ship between prisons and local economic trends (Hooks et al., 2004, 2010). We then distinguish between states in which the
privatization of prisons has grown rapidly and those states in which privatization has grown slowly. Consistent with trends
in the literature, our empirical research provides no evidence that prisons contribute to local economic growth. Specific to
private prisons, our analyses provide evidence that they have a negative impact on host counties. Where privatization is
increasing at a rapid rate, we find a negative and significant relationship between prisons and local job growth.
2. Private prisons and local employment trends
Privatization refers to the transfer of state managed and owned bureaucracies and the public function they serve to
private management and ownership (see Sclar, 2000). In important respects, critics and proponents of privatization agree
about the mechanisms through which privatization reduces costs. Public bureaucracies are labor intensive, the savings (if
any) will come from reducing outlays for labor. The executives of firms bidding on privatization contracts receive lucrative
compensation (Mattera et al., 2003). As such, cost saving must come from other levels of the organization: fewer employees,
fewer full-time employees and lower salaries.
Market fundamentalism refers to a strong adherence to an idealized free market and a belief that markets should be
sheltered from political intervention and operate freely (see Somers and Block, 2005). For fundamentalists, unfettered
markets offer the most efficient, highest quality, and most cost effective means of responding to human needs and desires.
Unleashing the pressures of supply and demand enforces efficiency by virtue of [the ability of buyers] to cease transacting
with one provider in favor of another (Hallett, 2006: 134). For proponents of privatization, the pressure of competition and
avoidance of suffocating civil service rules insures that privatization will lower costs while maintaining or improving service
delivery. Because private corporations can hire and fire personnel with fewer constraints, privatization allows for more nim-
ble and responsive management than is possible with an ossified public bureaucracy.
Skeptics doubt that private prisons will display creativity and fresh thinking. Managers of private prisons are constrained
by corporate executives and by a board of directors focused on profitability and growth. Moreover, all prisons must conform
to the complex legal and political framework that constrains prison management (Ogle, 1999, p. 588). These cross-cutting
pressures will likely result in private prisons mimicking publicly managed prisons. In a study sponsored by the Department
of Justice, Austin and Coventry (2001) found little evidence of organizational innovation. With regard to budgetary savings,
private prisons achieved modest cost savings, at least initially, by making modest reductions in staffing patterns, fringe ben-
efits, and other labor-related costs. . .. The promises of 20-percent savings in operational costs have simply not materialized
(Austin and Coventry, 2001, p. 58).
Critics are not surprised to find few cost savings. But problems go further. This is not the first time that prisons have been
privately run in the United States and the record is disturbing (Durham, 1993; see also ACLU of Ohio, 2011; Walker, 1994).
History shows that privately operated prison facilities were plagued by problems associated with the quest for higher earn-
ings. The profit motive produced such abominable conditions and exploitation of the inmates that public agencies were
forced to assume responsibility (Austin and Coventry, 2001, p. 17). With the emphasis on reducing labor costs, there is
no reason to expect that contemporary private prisons will avoid such abuses. For the present purposes, this larger debate
over prison privatization provides a context for considering local employment impacts. If the defenders are correct when
they paint a positive view of working conditions, then host counties should be better off for housing a private prison (or
at a minimum, no worse off). If, however, the critics are correct when projecting fewer jobs and if these jobs pay less
and are less secure than at public prisons then host counties may be significantly worse off for housing a private prison.
2.1. Prisons and employment growth
As incarceration increased in the 1980s and 1990s, economic developers and policymakers espoused the virtues of this
industry and promoted it to solve local economic problems. Communities, especially rural communities, competed fiercely
to win prisons by offering large, public subsidies (Beale, 1997; Glasmeier and Farrigan, 2007; King et al., 2004). Academics,
598 S. Genter et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 596610
policy makers, and journalists of the 1980s and 1990s generally supported the economic claims of proponents, entrenching a
conventional wisdom that a prison provided direct benefits in terms of employment opportunities at the prison. In addition,
proponents claim a number of indirect benefits, including increased demand for local goods and services, increased tax rev-
enues for local governments, upgrades of the local infrastructure, and population increase (creating opportunities for in-
creased funding from a variety of federal programs) (Glasmeier and Farrigan, 2007, p. 277). This conventional wisdom
was reinforced by commissioned impact studies designed to generate findings favorable to prison expansion (McShane
et al., 1992) and by a host of academic studies that concluded prisons generated jobs for local communities (Abrams and
Lyons, 1987; Carlson, 1992, 1991; Sechrest, 1992, 1991; Shichor, 1992). Indeed, the view that prisons boost local economies
was so widespread that opponents conceded the point, even as they condemned economic development plans rooted in hu-
man suffering (see Hooks et al., 2004).
Recent studies have challenged these optimistic claims (see Hooks et al., 2004; McShane et al., 1992). Most important,
prisons do not generate local economic benefits (King et al., 2004), and in some cases can be harmful (Besser and Hanson,
2005; Gilmore, 2007; Hooks et al., 2004, 2010). Furthermore, simply identifying that a prison creates employment without
tracing the recipients of that employment provides little useful information for citizens of a potential host community.. . .
When prisons are promoted to a community as a solution for economic distress, the belief by the community is that not only
will the prison bring jobs, but also that the current residents will fill the jobs (King et al., 2004, p. 457). But this is often not
the case. Thies (1998) found that workers from outside of the county typically occupy new prison jobs, effectively narrowing
opportunities for local residents (see also Beale, 1997; Gilmore, 2007). Partly, this can be explained by seniority privileges,
especially where corrections personnel are unionized (King et al., 2004; see also Dao, 1997; Thies, 1998). Nor are these
dynamics limited to high-wage jobs; prisons generate surprisingly few low-wage jobs. Janitorial positions are out of reach
because they are typically filled by the prisoners themselves. In fact, a number of prisons provide janitorial, landscaping and
similar services to government, church and other community groups paying well below the minimum wage. This can result
in direct competition between local residents and inmates for jobs (King et al., 2004:474; see also Blankenship and Yanarella,
2004).
Recent literature casts doubt on the local benefits of large public infrastructure outlays more generally, e.g., sports venues
and casinos. Such projects are often highly visible and politically popular, but empirical evidence casts doubt on claims of
local benefits (Wolman and Spitzley, 1996). When local and county governments invest in prison construction they may
be left with fewer resources to invest in other services that are more effective (Hooks et al., 2004). Furthermore, prisons gen-
erate few linkages with the host community and thus leak important local dollars that are essential to job creation. During
the construction phase, local firms and workers may be squeezed out. Prisons are large facilities. Especially in rural counties,
local construction firms and workers typically lack the expertise to compete on such projects (see Blankenship and Yanarella,
2004; Hooks et al., 2004; King et al., 2004). The exclusion of local workers may continue after the prison opens. Gilmore
(2007) notes that relatively few corrections officers live in the host community, thereby diluting their contributions to
the local economy (see also King et al., 2004).
2.2. Privatization and the management of prisons
The case for privatizing prisons rests on claims of efficiency, innovation, and flexibility. Corrections Corporation of Amer-
ica, the largest private prison company in the United States, housing some 75,000 inmates in more than 60 facilities, trum-
pets these purported benefits on its website: CCA benefits America by protecting public safety, employing the best people in
solid careers, rehabilitating inmates, giving back to communities, and bringing innovative security to government correc-
tions all while consistently saving hardworking taxpayers dollars.. . . We extend life-changing career opportunities, where
you can make a difference (Corrections Corporation of America, 2010). Evaluating whether or not privatization has deliv-
ered on these promises has sparked scholarly debate on many aspects of private prisons, including ethics, race, politics,
and inequality (ACLU of Ohio, 2011; Shichor, 1998, Shichor, 1995; Logan, 1990; Hallett, 2006; Price, 2006; Price and Riccucci,
2005). In reviewing the literature, we gleaned important lessons on two issues directly related to our research: (1) the effects
of prison privatization on labor, and (2) the generation of an economic climate of competition and the extent to which this
may trigger a race to the bottom. Specific to prisons, proponents of privatizing them believe that competition leads private
prisons to be more efficient than their public counterparts; they can, therefore, provide an equal or better service at a lower
cost. Detractors emphasize the tension between profit chasing and cost containment. Because private companies are behol-
den to their shareholders, they privilege profit over the well-being of employees, prisoners or taxpayers.
Approximately 70% of prison budgets are allocated to labor (Donahue, 1989; Gaes et al., 2004). According to Gaes et al.
(2004), the purchase of materials required for construction and operations offers few opportunities for dramatic reductions
in spending. Based on these facts, most observers including proponents of privatization (see for example Logan, 1990)
agree that the major cost savings of private prisons must come from labor expenses. A recent comparison of public and pri-
vate prisons (Austin and Coventry, 2001, p. iii) has shown that the total cost savings of private prisons is only about 1%, most
of which comes from cutting labor costs. Since the focus on trimming labor costs is taken as a given, how do proponents and
detractors envision the effect of free market discipline on the operations of private prisons? What are the consequences for
job growth in host counties?
We found several studies asserting that private prisons have generated significantly more local jobs than public prisons
if only for the wrong reasons. When comparing public and private prisons, higher turnover rates and lower morale will likely
S. Genter et al. / Social Science Research 42 (2013) 596610 599
be found at private prisons. In turn, because it leads to more job openings being advertised, high turnover may give the
appearance of a net growth in jobs available to local residents (Shichor, 1995; see also Camp and Gaes, 2002; Hallett, 2006).
According to proponents, private corporations are deft at personnel management and can cut costs without cutting sal-
aries. . .[through] [a]dequate and appropriate staffing, better working conditions, and more efficient procedures. In turn, this
superior personnel management can improve productivity and morale, decrease absenteeism and turnover, and reduce
expensive reliance on overtime (Logan, 1990, p. 81, emphasis added). Some authors have argued that the introduction of
private prisons can discipline public prisons into becoming more efficient and flexible (McFarland et al., 2002, p. 6). That
is, the innovative approach to personnel management adopted by private prisons will be adopted by the remaining public
prisons, thereby providing indirect benefits.1 Assuming for the moment that Logan is correct about the attractive salaries and
working conditions at private prisons, the only other avenue for controlling labor costs is through a net reduction in staff, leav-
ing residents of host communities with fewer opportunities to secure employment. Critics of privatization dispute the assertion
that private prisons pay higher salaries to employees, but they are in agreement that private prisons will have a relatively smal-
ler workforce (see for example, ACLU of Ohio, 2011). The issue here as it relates to impacts on the host county should be obvi-
ous: job opportunities for locals, which are limited even for public prisons, are in even shorter supply in private prisons.
2.3. Patterns of prison location and management, public and private
The US Department of Justice (various) has conducted a census of adult prisons at various points in time. We compiled
data from these censuses to track the trend
