An Experiment Into Privatization of Prisons within the Idaho Department of Corrections

By Philip Turney

Back in the early 1990's I first began hearing about privatization within our prison
system Much younger then, and not so wise, I was curious just what the new concept
involved. The term privatization, as it was represented, simply stated that IDOC sought
to contract out services to private companies. It was said to be “forward thinking” and a
necessary endeavor for state corrections. Soon thereafter public policy was promulgated
that allowed IDOC to divert revenues to private contractors. Thus a new method ensued
for providing goods and services within the prison setting. Prior to this your state
government administered its justice entirely.
An unfortunate dynamic was then underway – an insatiable (and unsustainable) demand
for tough on crime sentencing laws had produced a by-product, prison growth. Prisons
began to compete for revenue that previously went to education. Voters were put on
notice. Privatization was supposed to cut costs and have a trickle down effect to save
taxpayers money. But those savings have not materialized. In fact, a comprehensive
review reveals quite a different result.
Privatization appeared reasonable on first glance. Idaho was experiencing exponential
growth in its prison population and recognized change was necessary. The theory was
taxpayers would benefit from the strategy because the private sector was thought to
function with greater efficiency than state agencies. To garner support a major selling
point was that these companies could bring common sense solutions to prison
overcrowding, and provide a release valve to what seemed like an endless financial drain
on our state budget.

The IDOC began slowly. First, they contracted with a Florida company to sell and
distribute inmate commissary in each of its prisons. As they saw things, the state had no
business acting as a convenience store for convicts. Prices for hygiene and sundry items
increased dramatically. When confined, one can't complain too much over the price of a
bar of soap – necessities after all are non negotiable, so you either pay the price or go
without. An endless cycle of usury developed within your “correctional” facilities.
Next up were telephone systems within the IDOC. For inmates, calling home to loved
ones remains an important component in maintaining relationships, e.g. - wives,
children, parents, grandparents etc. Rates for phone calls were once a reasonable
amount - .80 cents or $1.20 – That is until IDOC's greed was set in motion and prison
administrators designed a scheme whereby they could charge upwards of $3.40 per call.
Contracting with private providers (Phone Correctional Services, Los Angeles, CA)
they were able to jack up prices and generate sizable amounts of revenue. The fact is
that eventually these people will be released and living next door to you in the
community. When prisoners can no longer afford to maintain family contact everyone
looses. The practice seems to conflict with the IDOC mission statement which purports
to value family contact and community re-integration.
Rarely, if ever, do we hear IDOC talking specifics about their profit sharing return on
these ventures. It is unlikely the money ever makes its way back into the state's general
fund. Nor does our legislature's Joint Finance Appropriation Committee enjoy oversight
as to how those revenues are spent.
These days we are all conscious that health care is expensive. It is even more costly to
provide care for patients in a correctional setting. Nevertheless, a cautionary approach
towards privatization was quickly tossed to the wayside. Officials rationalized that if
privatizing their commissary had worked out well, why not do the same with prison
medical.
Conventional wisdom said the state had no obligation to employ a criminal's doctor,
nurse or dentist for that matter. Contracts for managed health care were initiated. Two
providers were brought in – Prison Health Services and Correctional Medical Services.
These are contracts that amount to big money with crafty HMO's who specialize in the
prison medical industry.
Prisoner's medical issues soon became a very sore subject. Instead of going to the
dentist, in what was previously a situation for routine care, inmates are now told by
private providers “all I can do is pull your tooth”, or “they won't allow me to fix your
problem, sorry”. Serious medical conditions are frequently overlooked. Prisoners with
a hernia are provided an elastic belt and informed that no surgery will take place! Men
have died when expensive prescriptions were discontinued. Private companies profit
when they reduce expenditures. Therefore, saying no is a good practice for prison
medical firms. It is quite another thing to those who are confined inside a mortar and
bricks gulag and cannot get help for their serious medical conditions.
Many perceive the situation as deliberate indifference to their medical needs. Lawsuits
ensued. Local courts have been inundated with filings of this nature. A collateral
consequence is that the state must now defend their actions, and/or inaction, at
significant cost to the general public.
In 1997 officials obtained a one time, 52 million dollar appropriation to build a state of
the art prison complex, the Idaho Correctional Center. Long term (30 year) bonds
funded the project. In an effort to modernize the plan involved contracting the operation
of ICC to a private company. Thus began a lengthy relationship with Corrections
Corporation of America, a Tennessee based company. CCA is the country's largest
private prison conglomerate, and today remains one of IDOC's most favored “business”
associates.
Awarding these contracts has taken on a dubious pall. I call it “brother in-law business”.
High ranking state officials, many of whom have personal investments in these
companies, were given free reign to negotiate goods and services via prison reform
policies. It's like putting a fox in the hen house and expecting a good result.
There is absolutely no transparency within the IDOC and you the taxpayer are footing
the bill. Mismanagement, graft, and other outrageous conduct has become
commonplace. If privatization was truly a good direction for Idaho, why have all the
contracts been awarded to out of state entities? In these tough economic times it is
absurd to award big dollar contracts to out of state companies. Under the current
scheme, a majority of taxpayer revenues are filtered away from our local economy and
into banks located in places like Tennessee, Florida or Texas. An exact figure is
unknown, but I suspect the dollar amount is staggering.
Nobody foresaw the problems this penny wise and pound foolish proposition would
create. For 20 straight years correction budgets have soared beyond comprehension.
The problem is further compounded by an economic recession and we now see
education funding eviscerated, teacher pay cuts (or layoff's entirely), as we continue to
pump millions into a private prison complex.
However, it would be unfair not to mention the numerous state legislators who opposed
privatization from the beginning. Their concerns were numerous, primary among them
was the belief it is immoral to relegate judicial responsibility into the hands of
businesses whose only interest is making a profit. Let the record reflect they were right.
If only we had listened to them. You may have heard it said; hind-sight is indeed 20/20.
Recently the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a 155 million dollar lawsuit
against CCA. Civil rights don't appear to be a primary focus for CCA. Concern for
inmate welfare, or the potential liability to taxpayers, seems a secondary consideration to
the company. In point of fact, CCA faces similar litigation virtually all across the
country and has developed a poor reputation consistent with this trend.
It wasn't long before I began to re-think my perception of this whole privatization
concept. And citizens know when they've been sold a bill of goods. We all expect such
behavior from carnival workers at the Midway. But for correction administrators and
their lobbyists to have clearly misled taxpayers, well, the public deserves much better.
Once again, a new direction turned out to be nothing more than an elixir of rhetoric
pushed upon taxpayers by snake oil salesmen. Call it whatever you want – when public
policy makes no sense (not cents), why continue the charade?
Corrections, what a sham! Here's a news flash for John & Suzy Q. Public: Nobody is
being corrected out there.