Private Prisons: The Public's Problem PDF
Preview Private Prisons: The Public's Problem
Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem A Quality Assessment of Arizona’s Private Prisons February, 2012 Arizona Program 103 N. Park Avenue, Suite #111 Tucson, AZ 85719 520-623-9141 [email protected] Illustration by Jeffrey Collins The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that in-‐‑ cludes people of various faiths who are committed to social justice, peace, and humani-‐‑ tarian service. Our work is based on the principles of the Religious Society of Friends, the belief in the worth of every person, and faith in the power of love to overcome vio-‐‑ lence and injustice. AFSC was founded in 1917 by Quakers to provide conscientious objectors with an opportunity to aid civilian war victims. The Arizona office of AFSC was established in 1980 and focuses on criminal justice reform. About the Author Caroline Isaacs is the Program Director for the American Friends Service Committee of-‐‑ fice in Tucson, Arizona. She has worked at AFSC for over 15 years, focusing on criminal justice reform in Arizona. Isaacs has a Bachelor’s in Political Science from the College of Wooster and a Master’s in Social Work from Arizona State University, where she teaches as an adjunct faculty member and serves as a Field Student Liaison. Acknowledgments The American Friends Service Committee expresses profound appreciation to all the im-‐‑ prisoned men and women, ex-‐‑prisoners, and their family members whose lives are im-‐‑ pacted every day by Arizona’s criminal justice system. Their words and testimonies make this a powerful document, from which change is possible. Our sincere gratitude to Maureen Milazzo, who compiled, sorted, and analyzed piles of data for the report. We are also grateful to Eisha Mason, King Downing, Alexis Moore, Richard Erstad, and Aaron Crosman for their assistance in editing this report. Thanks to Ken Kopczynski and Frank Smith at Private Corrections Working Group for their support of our efforts in Arizona and to Grassroots Leadership for their assistance. AFSC would also like to acknowledge the wonderful work of all of our persistent volun-‐‑ teers, committee members, and interns. Published by American Friends Service Committee-‐‑Arizona 103 N Park Avenue, Suite #111 Tucson, AZ 85719 520.623.9141 [email protected] © 2012 American Friends Service Committee. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-‐‑NonCommercial-‐‑NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-‐‑nc-‐‑nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA. Printed copies of this report are available from the AFSC’s Arizona Criminal Justice program. Available online at: http://afsc.org/arizona-‐‑prison-‐‑report. Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................................. 1 Department of Corrections’ 2011 Biennial Comparison of Private and Public Prisons . 3 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 6 Background and History .............................................................................................................. 10 Arizona Prison Population Growth ..................................................................................... 12 2010: Unprecedented Prison Expansion in Arizona ......................................................... 15 Arizona’s Cost Comparison Study ...................................................................................... 19 Who’s Doing Business In Arizona? ...................................................................................... 22 Performance Measure I: Safety and Security: ........................................................................... 29 State-‐‑Contracted Private Prison Security Assessments .................................................... 30 Security Assessments of CCA Facilities .............................................................................. 40 Assaults: Inmate-‐‑on-‐‑Inmate ................................................................................................. 41 Assaults: Staff on Inmate ...................................................................................................... 47 Riots .......................................................................................................................................... 49 Escapes ..................................................................................................................................... 57 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 59 Performance Measure II: Staffing ............................................................................................... 60 Staffing: State Contracts ........................................................................................................ 62 Staffing in CCA Prisons in Arizona ..................................................................................... 67 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 69 Performance Measure III: Programs and Services ................................................................... 70 Deaths in State-‐‑Operated Facilities: ..................................................................................... 70 Deaths in Privately Operated State Prisons ........................................................................ 71 Recidivism ............................................................................................................................... 74 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 79 Performance Measure IV: Transparency and Accountability ................................................ 80 Transparency ........................................................................................................................... 80 Accountability ......................................................................................................................... 82 Are Prison Corporations Are Writing Arizona’s Laws? ................................................... 84 Private Prison Influence-‐‑Peddling in Arizona ................................................................... 86 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 93 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 95 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 97 Executive Summary Arizona has enthusiastically embraced When AFSC learned that the state had not prison privatization, with 13% of the state properly monitored and reported on pri-‐‑ prison population housed in private facili-‐‑ vate prison operations since state law ties (the 11th highest percentage in the na-‐‑ mandated it in 1987, AFSC undertook its tion). Motivated by a belief that private own investigation into the private prison enterprise could build and manage pris-‐‑ industry in Arizona. The Arizona De-‐‑ ons safely and at lower cost than the state, partment of Corrections (ADC) later an-‐‑ the legislature has mandated construction nounced that it would complete the statu-‐‑ of thousands of private prison beds. Lit-‐‑ torily-‐‑required biennial comparison re-‐‑ tle was done over the years to test actual view, which was released on December 21, performance of private prisons or to de-‐‑ 2011. termine their cost effectiveness. The ADC study contains very little meth-‐‑ In the summer of 2010, three inmates es-‐‑ odological information or supporting data, caped from the privately operated King-‐‑ suffers from inconsistent data collection man prison, killed two people, and shat-‐‑ procedures, and overlooks important tered the myth that private prisons can measures of prison safety. By contrast, keep us safe. Since that time, more evi-‐‑ AFSC’s report incorporates data that was dence has come to light unmasking the omitted or deemed to be outside the scope truth about the private prison industry in of the ADC review, including security au-‐‑ Arizona: It is costly, plagued by security dits of private prisons before and after the problems, and in some cases is violating state Kingman escapes and data on six prisons and federal law. State leaders have failed in operated by Corrections Corporation of their responsibility to protect the public, to America that are located in Arizona but do provide adequate oversight of this indus-‐‑ not contract with the state, putting them try, or to hold the corporations accounta-‐‑ outside state oversight. ble for their failures. In addition, AFSC’s analysis incorporates This report is the first of its kind in Arizo-‐‑ additional performance measures which na. To date, no independent analysis of the have emerged as important aspects of the performance and quality of all private and pub-‐‑ debate over prison privatization: recidi-‐‑ lic prisons has been undertaken. Such an vism, accountability, and transparency. analysis is long overdue, given that pri-‐‑ The most common measurement of the vate prisons have operated in Arizona for effectiveness of a prison is its ability to re-‐‑ decades, and the state has invested billions duce recidivism. Yet private prison corpora-‐‑ of taxpayer dollars into this industry. The tions flatly refuse to measure their recidivism people of Arizona have had little or no rates. evidence that these prisons are safe, cost effective, or competent at fulfilling the job The issues of accountability and transpar-‐‑ taxpayers pay them to do. ency made headlines in 2010 when it was Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem Page i revealed that lobbyists for Corrections combined with poor state oversight leads Corporation of America may have had a to assaults, disturbances, and riots. For-‐‑ hand in drafting SB 1070, Arizona’s con-‐‑ profit prison staff members are too often troversial anti-‐‑immigrant bill, which po-‐‑ unprepared, or unwilling, to intervene in tentially represented millions of dollars in these events, and risk losing control of the revenue for the corporation through lucra-‐‑ facilities. Insufficient rehabilitation pro-‐‑ tive immigrant detention contracts. grams, educational opportunities, or jobs for the prisoners provide idle time for con-‐‑ Since then, more and more evidence has flicts to brew. The result is facilities that surfaced revealing the various prison cor-‐‑ are unsafe for the people living and work-‐‑ porations’ efforts to buy influence with ing inside them, as well as the surround-‐‑ state and federal governments, particular-‐‑ ing community. ly through the involvement of the Ameri-‐‑ can Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Regardless of differing political views, most a group whose members consist of elected Arizonans want the same thing from their officials and corporate lobbyists. ALEC prisons: Increased public safety. holds conferences at exclusive resorts Yet the state has deliberately obscured in-‐‑ where legislators and corporate represent-‐‑ formation that would cast private prisons atives draft model legislation that mem-‐‑ in a negative light. It is critical that the bers introduce in their various home people of Arizona and our elected repre-‐‑ states. Yet this activity is not considered sentatives have solid, objective data on lobbying under many states’ law, and the which to base important decisions about reimbursements ALEC provides to legisla-‐‑ the future of our prisons. Billions of tax-‐‑ tors (and their spouses) for travel and payer dollars and the safety of our com-‐‑ lodging at these conferences are not re-‐‑ munities hang in the balance. ported as political contributions. ADC cancelled the Request for Proposals Most importantly, AFSC’s analysis found (RFP) for 5,000 private prison beds in De-‐‑ patterns of serious safety lapses in all the cember 2011, but issued a new RFP for private prisons for which data was availa-‐‑ 2,000 private prison beds in early February ble. Together, this data demonstrates a set 2012. The taxpayers of Arizona deserve an of problems endemic to the industry that honest accounting of what we stand to could lead to future tragedies like the gain and lose if we continue to follow the Kingman escapes. “tough on crime” mantra. This report of-‐‑ Malfunctioning security systems go unre-‐‑ fers new insights and original data that paired for months, leading staff to ignore reveals the truth about for-‐‑profit prisons safety protocols. Under-‐‑trained guards in Arizona. Key Findings 1. Arizona does not need more prison beds. Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem Page ii Arizona’s prison population grew by only 65 prisoners (net) in 2010 and actually declined by 296 prisoners in FY2011—the two lowest growth rates on record (dating back to 1973). ADC projects zero growth in the adult prison population for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 2. Arizona is wasting money on prison privatization. ADC cost comparison reviews of public and private prisons found that in many cases, private prisons cost more than their public equivalents. Between 2008 and 2010, Arizona overpaid for its private prisons by about $10 million. If the requested 2,000 medium secu-‐‑ rity private prison beds are built, Arizona taxpayers can expect to waste at least $6 million on privatization every year. 3. All prisons in Arizona for which security assessment information was available had serious security flaws. The Arizona Auditor General found a total of 157 security failures in the 5 private prisons under contract with ADC for just the first three months of 2011, including malfunctioning cameras, doors, and alarms; holes under fences; broken perimeter lights and cameras; and inefficient or outright inept security practices across the board by state and private correc-‐‑ tions officers and managers. 4. Private prisons have serious staffing problems. Many of the problems in private prisons stem from low pay, inadequate training, poor background screening procedures, high rates of turnover, and high staff vacancy rates. These problems contribute to larger safety problems in private facilities, where inexperi-‐‑ enced and undertrained guards often are unprepared or unwilling to handle serious secu-‐‑ rity breaches or disturbances. 5. For-‐‑profit prison corporations do not measure recidivism rates. The main purpose of a prison is to reduce crime. The only measurement available of how well a prison performs this function is its recidivism rates. None of the corporations op-‐‑ erating in Arizona measure recidivism. Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem Page iii 6. For-‐‑profit prison corporations are buying influence in Arizona government. The companies operating prisons lobby aggressively, make large political campaign con-‐‑ tributions, and secure high-‐‑level government appointments for corporate insiders. 7. For-‐‑profit prison corporations are not accountable to Arizona tax-‐‑ payers. They are not subject to the same transparency, reporting or oversight requirements as government agencies. For the six private prisons that do not contract with the state of Ar-‐‑ izona, there is virtually no state oversight whatsoever. Attempts to hold the corporations accountable are sometimes thwarted by threats of legal action. The solution is greater public control over prisons in Arizona, not less. Given that private prison corporations are ment, this report reveals that all prisons in not required to make their records public, Arizona require more oversight and monitor-‐‑ it was impossible to present a full quanti-‐‑ ing to ensure that the public is protected and tative comparison of public and private getting its money’s worth. It is clear that prisons housing similar types of offenders. simply handing over control of prisons to Instead, this report presents the detailed private corporations does not provide information that has been collected on the higher quality or effectiveness, but instead many failings of private prisons in Arizo-‐‑ creates a new set of problems that are of-‐‑ na, to help state leaders make informed ten harder to eradicate. decisions about Arizona’s prisons. If any-‐‑ There is ample evidence of systemic, thing, this report points to the need for chronic and endemic failures in the privat-‐‑ further study and analysis of the cost, ization of incarceration. These failures put quality, and performance of the private the public at risk. They compromise the prison industry. The fact that this data is integrity of our legislative process and so difficult to obtain reveals the lack of they undermine the state’s ability to fund transparency and accountability of private programs that support education and oth-‐‑ prisons in Arizona. er important state services. The ADC is far from blameless in the Fortunately, states like Texas, Mississippi, troubles plaguing the private prisons con-‐‑ and South Carolina point the way toward tracting with the state, and AFSC has sub-‐‑ a long-‐‑term solution: Sentencing reform. stantial criticisms of the Department’s management of its own facilities. Rather Over half of US states have reduced their than a simplistic black-‐‑and-‐‑white assess-‐‑ prison populations through evidence-‐‑ Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem Page iv based reforms utilizing diversion, alterna-‐‑ completely unnecessary by reserving pris-‐‑ tive sentences, and reform of parole and ons for those who truly need to be sepa-‐‑ probation. These states have not only saved rated from society and by using a range of millions of taxpayer dollars, but reduced crime less expensive and more effective inter-‐‑ rates significantly. ventions with the rest. Arizona legislators could render the need for more prison beds—public or private— Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem Page v Recommendations Immediate Measures 1. The Governor or Legislature should institute an immediate moratorium on new pris-‐‑ on construction. Existing RFP’s should be cancelled, no new RFP’s should be issued and no new state beds, private or state, should be funded. 2. Existing contracts with private prison operators should be closely reviewed in light of the findings in this report and the report issued by the Arizona Department of Correc-‐‑ tions. In particular, the state should consider cancelling contracts for those private prisons that are found to be more expensive or of poorer quality than equivalent state beds. 3. The Secretary of State and/or the Attorney General of Arizona should investigate: a. Expense reimbursement policies of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and for-‐‑profit prison corporations to Arizona legislators, pursuant to ARS 41-‐‑1232.03: ‘Expenditure reporting; public bodies and public lobbyists; gifts’. b. ALEC’s legal status as a non-‐‑profit organization. c. The role of lobbyists or other for-‐‑profit prison industry representatives in the crea-‐‑ tion of specific legislation in Arizona, including ALEC’s model legislation. Additional Measures 1. All prison and detention facilities in Arizona should be subject to permanent review and monitoring by an independent body empowered to hold the prison operator and the state accountable and enact necessary reforms. 2. The legislature should pass legislation that enacts strict oversight and reporting re-‐‑ quirements for those private prisons located in, but not contracted with, the state of Arizona. These rule must: a. Require immediate notification to local and state authorities in the event of a major incident that threatens the health and safety of the prisoners, staff, or the public. b. Allow state inspectors to enter the facility at any time. c. Prohibit acceptance of high security prisoners, prisoners convicted of class 1 or 2 felonies, or prisoners with a history of escape, assaults on staff or other inmates, or rioting. d. Require information about any prisoners prior to their arrival in the facility to be reported to the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections, including their names and identifying information, the crime for which they are incarcerated, and the state or federal entity that convicted and sentenced them. e. Require all privately operated prisons in Arizona to provide the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections with a monthly report on the prisoner count, the capacity of the facility, and information on their staffing levels. f. Require all privately operated prisons in Arizona to make their records public to the same extent that is required of the Department of Corrections and county jails. g. Report all assaults, disturbances, deaths, and hospitalizations. Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem Page vi 3. The Legislature should require all prisons in Arizona—public and private—to public-‐‑ ly report their recidivism rate annually 4. All state contracts with for-‐‑profit prison operators should include the following re-‐‑ quirements (current contracts should be amended at the earliest opportunity): a. The state may cancel a contract without cause with 90 days notice. b. The state may assess damages using the formula in Attachment A for non-‐‑ compliance with contract requirements, including: Security and control, use of force, escapes, employee qualifications and training, operating standards, mainte-‐‑ nance and repairs, food service, and medical care. c. The private operator must demonstrate compliance with all Department of Correc-‐‑ tions policies. d. The state has unimpeded access to all areas of a facility at all times, including un-‐‑ announced visits. e. The state may assess damages for staff vacancies and high turnover rates. f. The state may view facility cameras from a remote site. g. The Director of the Department of Corrections may take over control and opera-‐‑ tion of the facility if there are substantial or repeated breaches of contract or if the Director determines that the safety of the inmates, staff, or public is at risk. 5. Arizona should follow the recommendations of the state Auditor General and the ex-‐‑ ample of states like Michigan, Texas, and Mississippi and enact sensible reforms to their criminal sentencing laws to safely reduce prison populations. Through expan-‐‑ sion of diversion and early release, use of non-‐‑prison alternatives and reduction of pa-‐‑ role violation revocations, these states have saved millions of taxpayer dollars and significantly reduced their crime rates.1 1 Office of the Auditor General, Department of Corrections-‐‑Prison Population Growth, September, 2010, Private Prisons: The Public’s Problem Page vii
Description:The list of books you might like
