Government correction

In measuring the accountability of private correction facilities, federal prisons and state government prisons the private facilities seem to be the peak performer. The Urban Institute: Massachusetts (1989) compares the performance of two pairs of government and private juvenile correction facilities in Massachusetts by use of information from the public, inmates and prison staff members (Gaes et al. , 2004). Surveys, agency reports, interviews and general observation were some of the methods used to collect the information.

The findings showed that the private correction facilities performed slightly better than the government correction facilities. The inmates and staff members recommended these facilities by rating the services provided by the private correction units to be higher than those provided by the government correction units. The comfort level of the inmates and the staff members were also higher as there were fewer disturbances and escape rates (Gaes et al. , 2004).

The National Institute of Justice also compared the security, safety, order, activity, justice, condition, management and care of multi custody facilities for women in the private sector, state-run prison and federal prison. The results showed that the private multi custody facility efficiently offered the above requirements to the prisoners except care (Douglas et al. , 1998). Private corrections facilities are able to perform better than the correction facilities managed by the states government and the federal unit because of the stiff market competition they face (Douglas et al. , 1998).

To be able to strive in the stiff competition the efficiency and management of the units should be of high integrity. Also the management of the private correction facilities should ensure the principles and policies outlined by the government are established and implemented into the private prison system (Douglas et al. , 1998). By so doing they engage in far more rigors activities in implementing the regulation and policies than the government correction units. This is because any breach of the stipulated regulations and policies would lead to the termination of the contract that exists between the two sectors (Douglas et al. , 1998).

Insurance companies offer business terms which have also played a part in ensuring the performance of the private correction facilities is at its peak (Douglas et al. , 1998). For instance the private correction facilities in Youngstown, Ohio and the small rural towns of New Mexico have to demonstrate their ability to curb prison disturbances, escapes and deaths to qualify for insurance cover (Archambeault & Donald, 1996). The market competition that the private correction facilities face helps them to mange the facilities at lower costs.

Facilities that offer low efficiency at high costs find themselves out of the race as they experience greater over head expenses which reduce their profit margins. This fact enables the private correction units to effectively curb the expenses incurred by the government correction facilities because of the increased prisoner population which uses up almost all the money they collect from revenue for the upkeep of the prisoners. Therefore, a deficit in the proportions of running other public amenities is incurred.

On the other hand privatization of the prison units has helped tax payers to benefit by provision of quality services at lower costs. Hence more money that will be later reinvested in the facilities is saved thereby decreasing the amount of money that the public is taxed (Douglas et al. , 1998). The Southern and Western states of the U. S. are forced to rapidly expand the prison facilities in those areas as the population of the prisoners is highly growing due to a number of reasons such as their lifestyle which indirectly advocates for the commitment of criminal offenses among others.

However, the operation costs have been reported to be low due to the establishment of private prison facilities which regulate the labor-market factors, general economic forces, fiscal pressures, budgetary constraint and reliance on a non-unionized work force. Studies show that the private facilities in these areas devised more efficient mechanisms that enabled them to underlie their operations in accordance to the confinement theory model and rehabilitation-oriented operation model better than the government correction facilities, thus their rapid growth (FDCBRDA, 1998).