Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability

Review of Correctional Privatization

Report 95-12, November 1995

View Report

Report Summary

  • The Department has generally required the vendor to mirror its own operations, which may limit cost savings and the identification of innovative approaches to corrections;
  • The Department's request for proposals (RFP) was perceived by vendors as overly demanding and highly restrictive, resulting in only two vendors submitting bids;
  • The Department changed its mission for the private facility nine days before the opening date;
  • The Commission's contract award procedure may not optimize the cost savings of correctional privatization. The Commission could have achieved an additional three-year cost savings of $26 million by selecting the lowest bid from the three highest qualifying vendors for each of the six contracts;
  • The Commission has executed vendor contracts obligating the Department of Corrections without the Department's review or agreement;
  • Although cost savings of 10% or more have been projected for the private prisons, differences in programs provided by the Department and the private prisons hinder the measurement of cost savings resulting from privatization. In addition, differences in factors such as size and mission could affect comparisons of the costs and outcomes of public and private facilities; and
  • Evaluation of program outcomes will be hindered if inmates are transferred out of private prisons before completing vendor programs. Because the transfer agreement required by s. 957.06, F.S., had not been executed as of September 22, 1995, it is unclear whether inmates will remain in private prisons for the duration of their sentences.
  • Cost: Construction, operating, and any other costs incurred during the contract period;
  • Management Performance: Compliance with American Correctional Association standards; monitoring plans, monitoring reports, and reports of corrective actions taken; and results of grievances, investigations, and litigation;
  • Intermediate Outcomes: Educational measures such as the percentage of General Education Diplomas (GEDs) awarded per capita, and the percentage of grade advancements per capita; substance abuse treatment measures such as the percentage of inmates graduated from treatment programs; and vocational measures such as the percentage of inmates achieving proficiency in a marketable occupation; and
  • Final Outcomes: Reincarceration rates (as a measure of recidivism) and rates of post-release employment.

Related Reports
  1. While DMS Has Improved Monitoring, It Needs to Strengthen Private Prison Oversight and Contracts
    Report 08-71 December 2008
  2. Progress Report: Bay and Moore Haven Private Prison Contracts Renewed; Bay Costs Increase
    Report 99-46 April 2000
  3. South Bay Correctional Facility Provides Savings and Success; Room for Improvement
    Report 99-39 March 2000
  4. Lake City Correctional Facility Experienced Start-Up Problems, But It Has Improved
    Report 99-33 February 2000
Copies of this report in print or alternate accessible format may be obtained by email OPPAGA@oppaga.fl.gov, telephone (850) 488-0021, or mail 111 W. Madison St., Room 312 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1475.
Copies of this report in print or alternate accessible format may be obtained by email OPPAGA@oppaga.fl.gov, telephone (850) 488-0021, or mail 111 W. Madison St., Room 312 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1475.
criminal justice, juvenile justice, crime, corrections, privatization