COMMENTARY ON CORRECTIONS : Hand Over the Prison, Jail Crowding Crisis to Private Sector : By putting inmate care in private hands, Orange County and the state could achieve better operations, save money.

California’s state prison population has increased from 25,000 inmates in 1980 to roughly 100,000 today, a figure expected to double over the next five years. Even with annual operating costs of $1.5 billion, California’s prison system has been ranked among the 10 most overburdened state prison systems, with the number of inmates approaching double the intended capacity.

Similarly in Orange County, the average daily population of the county adult detention system has increased from 1,103 in 1970 to 4,359 in 1991, a compounded annual rate of increase of 6.8%.

This compares to a much smaller annual percentage increase in the county’s population of 2.6% over the same period. By 1995, the county’s inmate population is projected to swell to 5,461 and, as in the case of California, be roughly double the currently available rated capacity.

As a result of the overcrowding, California, Orange County and several other counties have been placed under federal court orders. These orders ultimately have the effect of limiting the length of time an inmate can spend in jail.

The problem appears to be getting worse rather than better.

Even if California spends $3 billion over the next five years to add 50,000 beds to the state system and Orange County spends $45 million to add 700 beds to the Theo Lacy Jail, the state and county inmate populations will still be significantly over capacity. And with the prevalent NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude, it is unlikely that California or Orange County will be able to come anywhere near meeting their future needs.

Other states and counties experiencing similar pressures have increasingly turned to private companies to meet their prison needs. They have found that private companies, in general, can respond more quickly than their own government departments in meeting demands for space and doing it at a more economical price.

The Reason Foundation’s recently released fifth annual report on privatization suggests that service contracts with private firms have resulted in savings of between 10% and 40% because of competitively induced reductions in overall costs.

A U.S. Department of Justice report points to Hamilton County, Tenn., as saving 4% to 15% in its annual penal farm costs by contracting out to a private firm.

In a recent audit of state agencies issued by the state controller of Texas, it was estimated that prison privatization can save Texas $50 million over the next five years. This finding was based on the results of current Texas contracts with Wackenhut Corrections Corp. and Corrections Corp. of America, where average costs of $37 per day to house each convict compare to costs of $42.47 for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

In addition to management and service contracts, private firms also find jail locations and develop facilities. A housing facility, for example, was recently built by a private company in 5 1/2 months at a cost of $14,000 per bed compared to the average of 2 1/2 years and $26,000 per bed when constructed by a public agency. Financing the construction of new facilities by private companies is often done through lease-purchase agreements, where monthly rental fees are paid by a government. After completing the financing costs, the government assumes title to the facility.

Since private companies can develop facilities at lower costs and site them in areas where prisons are perceived as desirable because of their positive economic effects in employment and spending, the prospect for meeting our future prison needs is significantly greater under a privatized system.

But the benefits of privatizing jails goes far beyond cost savings and shorter response times.

In a report to the National Institute of Justice written by Charles H. Logan, professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut, private prison firms were found to significantly outperform state and federal prisons in nearly every measure of prison quality. According to Logan, the factors contributing to that higher quality include “(1) a well-designed facility; (2) greater operational and administrative flexibility; (3) decentralized authority; (4) higher morale, enthusiasm, and sense of ownership among line staff; (5) greater experience and leadership among the top administrators; and (6) stricter, ‘by the book’ governance of inmates.”

Another factor to be considered is that prisoners have legal remedies to poor-quality care if housed in private correctional facilities. Unlike state employees who are fairly well insulated from legal liability, private companies must be responsive to the potential legal challenges of inmates.

The fact that private jails outperform their public counterparts should not be surprising. Competition forces firms to be accountable and offer quality products and services in the most efficient manner possible.

If a private firm fails at these things, it will not be around for long. But if a government enterprise fails, there is always the taxpaying public to bail it out.

This difference between private and public operations explains why the monopolistic enterprises of communistic governments failed so miserably.

And just as these governments are now marching to the drumbeat of free markets, we should follow the same drumbeat.

By allowing private firms to provide the jail services we need, we will reduce the cost and improve the quality of providing those services.