The Record — For-Profit Prisons Threaten Public Safety

The Record — For-Profit Prisons Threaten Public Safety


Corrections is an inherently dangerous profession. The best way to deal with the dangers inside the walls of a prison is to have an experienced corrections staff that is properly trained and paid decent wages and benefits. High turnover, poor training, and understaffing are a recipe for disaster in corrections, yet these characteristics are common in for-profit prisons. According to a national study by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, for-profit prisons have lower staffing, lower salaries and a higher rate of assaults on staff and inmates than public facilities.77 According to The Corrections Yearbook, 1998, the average turnover rate for correctional officers in for-profit prisons was 41.2 percent, compared to 14.9 percent in publicly run prisons.78 (Again, the for-profit prison turnover rates were self-reported while public-sector turnover is from public records.) In 1999, the Tennessee Department of Corrections released a report on system wide turnover rates among corrections officers from Jan. 1, 1998 to Dec. 1, 1998. According to the report, the average turnover rate in the publicly run facilities was 34 percent while the average in private facilities was 92 percent.79

When there is a high level of employee turnover, the health and safety of staff, inmates and the public suffers from staff inexperience. High employee turnover also leads to a poorly trained staff because of the need to expeditiously fill empty positions. The danger of having improperly trained employees in a corrections setting came to light when a prison guard was killed at a Wackenhut-run facility in Santa Rosa, N.M. It was discovered that the guard was not certified to work in an armed post as a corrections officer. Five other guards working at the prison were also not certified.80 In another case in Youngstown, Ohio, “CCA guards said the company did not train its employees to use firearms because state certification cost up to $3,000 a person.”81 According to The Corrections Yearbook, 1998, the average number of pre-service training hours for corrections officers in a for-profit prison was 189 hours, compared to 232 hours in a state-run facility.82

The low wages and benefits paid by for-profit corrections firms can attract workers who would not be qualified to work in a public correctional setting. For instance, published reports revealed that Cornell Corrections knowingly hired convicted felons to work as guards inside Santa Fe County’s juvenile jail. The felons were discovered during an investigation into the rape and molestation of a female inmate by a Cornell employee.83 In addition, Cornell Corrections hired a warden for the Sante Fe County Detention Center who was fired as head of the state prison in Roswell, N.M. The warden had been accused of “conspiring to misappropriate public funds for private gain” while employed by the state.84 In another example, one of the for-profit jail guards seen manhandling a Missouri prisoner in the Brazoria County, Texas, videotape was once convicted and sentenced for beating a state prison inmate.85

Consider that, in 1999, during the week of Thanksgiving, CCA, the biggest for-profit operator, had three different escapees on the run, including two murderers. One of the escapees was convicted murderer Kyle Bell, who was convicted in North Dakota of killing an 11-year-old girl that he also molested. Bell’s escape illustrated how the dangers inside a for-profit prison can quickly threaten innocent citizens. Bell escaped in New Mexico from CCA’s transport company, TransCor America, but had been spotted as far away as Wisconsin. Bell escaped because the for-profit prison employees were sleeping on the job.86

77 Ziva Branstetter and Barbara Hoberock, “When Trouble Strikes: Prisons’ Security Lapses Include Assaults, Escapes,” Tulsa World, December 13, 1999, pg. 1.

78 Camille Camp and George Camp, The Corrections Yearbook, 1998 (Middletown, Connecticut: Criminal Justice Institute Inc., 1998), pgs. 150, 401.

79 Tennessee Department of Correction Planning and Research, “Tennessee Department of Correction, Correctional Officer Turnover 1/1/98 – 12/31/98,” September 1, 1999, pg. 4.

80 “Guard Not Certified to Work in Prison,” Associated Press, September 8, 1999.

81 “CCA-run Prison Under Attack by Former Employees,” The Tennessean, October 31, 1998, pg. B1.

82 Camille Camp and George Camp, The Corrections Yearbook, 1998 (Middletown, Connecticut: Criminal Justice Institute Inc., 1998), pgs. 146, 389.

83 “Three Felons Hired as Juvenile Jail Guards,” Associated Press, April 27, 1999.

84 “Jail Warden Was Fired from State Prison Position,” The Santa Fe New Mexican, June 2, 1999, pg. A4.

85 “Videotaped Guard Was Convicted in ’83 Beating of Inmate,” Houston Chronicle, August 20, 1997, pg. 1.

86 “No Excuses Offered for Sleeping Guards,” Albuquerque Journal, November 6, 1999, pg. E3.

Conclusion

The case against prison privatization is clear. The profit motive does not improve prison operation, nor does it save taxpayer money. Prison privatization only benefits corporations and their shareholders. Meanwhile, taxpayers are sold a bill of goods with the promise of jobs and tax revenues that too often do not materialize. Cost-cutting, in the pursuit of profits, leads to dangerous conditions inside — as well as outside — the prison walls. Constant employee turnover leads to understaffed prisons with untrained employees. As the evidence mounts, the public is rejecting the idea of turning this fundamental government responsibility over to for-profit corporations.


An AFSCME-commissioned poll conducted in August 1999 by the renowned research firm of Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates confirmed America’s growing mistrust of for-profit prisons. The survey questioned a sample of 800 likely voters. It showed that 51 percent opposed the idea of privatizing America’s prisons. The survey showed that voters opposed for-profit prisons because they think government-run prisons do a better job of rehabilitating prisoners, that they are more accountable, and that they do a better job of protecting public safety. They believe that for-profit prisons cut corners.

AFSCME has closely monitored the track record of for-profit prison firms since they came into existence. Our members know that prisons must be staffed by professional sworn officers and administrators that are dedicated to preserving public safety, not by corporate bigwigs that are beholden to their stockholders. As we grapple with the significant challenges facing our criminal justice system, we must bear in mind that responsibility for this system ultimately remains with the government. That responsibility is too important to turn over to an entity that exists solely to generate profits.