Sometime this year, the state of Utah will turn a portion of its criminal justice system over to a private business. So far, four companies have submitted bids to run a private penitentiary, helping the state to end its overcrowding problem.
But is Utah ready for the tradeoff? Has it put enough safeguards in place to relinquish what ought to be the most public of all government operations -- the warehousing of humans?Lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year that requires private prisons to use experienced personnel, obtain liability insurance and demonstrate the capability to meet the standards of the Department of Corrections. It allows the state access at all times to the facility and its records. But it doesn't go far enough.
The public needs access, as well. When private companies take over prisons, records and accountability generally are removed from public view. Reporters who now have access to information find themselves shut out. Without access to prison information, the public has no way of knowing whether security measures are adequate, or whether inmates are being rehabilitated and prepared for the time when they are released. They are left having to rely on the word of the private provider and the state.
What if the state doesn't like the way the private company is running the prison? According to the contract, the private company would build and own the facility. Does that give the deal a stamp of permanence? Will Utah one day find itself in the difficult situation of having to threaten to build another facility when a perfectly usable one sits nearby, all in an effort to get a private provider in line?
Private prisons do operate more cheaply than public prisons. That is beyond debate. Large prison corporations benefit from economies of scale and from volume discounts with suppliers. But when prisons want to cut costs, either to win or retain a bid, they have limited choices. They can scrimp on supplies for prisoners, or on security.
Utah already learned the hard way what can happen with a private provider that isn't responsible. Three years ago, Utah sent 100 criminals to a private facility in Texas. Six of them escaped by doing little more than simply walk away. Because they were from Utah, not Texas, a jurisdictional question arose. Also, some Texas officials questioned whether an escape from a private facility violated any state laws.
If Utah insists on turning a portion of its penal system over to a private company, it ought to insist that all records remain open and that the public has as much access as it currently does, both to the facility and to all forms of information. Beyond that, state lawmakers need to make sure the code is adequate to handle all problems that may occur.