The prisoners also reported being provided with activities to do in both facilities but more activities were regularly availed in the prison facilities run by PFC. This further proves the cost effectiveness of the private prison systems because the facilities run by PFC were in a better position of affording to engage the prisoners in more activities regularly than were prison facilities run by DOC. Satisfaction and accessibility attained from the activities provided by PFC were rated higher.
Most inmates confined in the prison facilities run by DOC complained that they were not fully satisfied with the provided activities as they were minimal and not regularly provided. Unfortunately the efficiency of this dimension was rated to be poor because of the mistreatment subjected to the prisoners by prison warders (Gaes et al. , 2004). The private sectors are supposed to confine medium custody inmates whose maintenance and judicial procedures are not costly to the prison systems, the community and the family members of the inmates.
On the other hand the government correction facilities also confine maximum custody inmates that are overall expensive to maintain. Privatization results to cost saving module due to cost sharing mechanisms with the government sectors such as formation of medical-cost caps that the states pay. Through this initiative private prison systems have cut down on essential services by provision of lower levels of those services (Douglas et al. , 1998). This loophole has been used by critics to question the efficiency of private prison facilities in cutting down on costs as an attempt of increasing their profits.
This study will identify the problems related to privatization of prisons and discuss solutions or other alternative methods that can be used to curb the obstacles facing the process of privatization as their contracts are being reverted. The study will also outline recommendations from the alternatives that will be discussed to be implemented by the managers of the private correction facilities to help eliminate the problems that the prison system faces.
This will also improve prison services that are accorded to the society, the prisoners and the prison staff members (Gaes et al. , 2004). Private prison systems have reduced the accountability that is advocated by prison policies. In the process protection for the society, the security and safety of the prisoners has nosedived. This is because the private prison facilities aim at maximizing their profits so as to be able to survive in the stiff market competition.
The standards of quality of the services that were offered by the private prison facilities are deteriorating as the private sectors engage in programs that will enable them to reduce the overhead expenses occurred. In the process essential amenities that are availed to the prisoners are of subsequent quality and dissatisfying, for example education programs. Privatization could also lead to provision of more expensive services in regards to the market forces.
In a bid to gain contracts, privatization operates at low costs firsts but with time the prices increase with the market forces in an attempt of gaining more money to expand the profit margins attained by the correction facilities (Gaes et al. , 2004). The workforce in private prison facilities are not protected by workers unions and therefore are subject to mass layoffs and abuse of their rights as employees. This results to the employment of a small number of employees who are over strained by doing a lot of work in the prison facilities and thus are not engaged.
A profound relationship that can be beneficial to the facilities is not established thus the increased rate of prisoner abuse especially to the mentally ill who cannot mingle well into the prison setting and law suits in the private correction facilities that has made the government and federal official to revoke or publicize some of the private prison facilities so as to shift the responsibility of managing the facilities between the government and the private mangers. The workforce that is employed only speaks English which portrays difficulty for the inmates that do not understand English (Gaes et al. , 2004).