In recent years, politicians and the public have criticized mass incarceration over ethical and economic concerns. This has forced private prison corporations (PPCs) into the difficult position of balancing an appeal to public opinion with the unpopular ways they make their profits. As rehabilitation and community corrections have become publicly-supported solutions to mass incarceration, PPCs are eagerly looking to enter the market.
PPCs are expanding their businesses into community corrections, such as halfway houses, residential facilities, and rehabilitation programs. However, these corporations are still profit-oriented, and there should be some caution regarding their incentives to keep people under their control, even if those people are not physically imprisoned. When it comes to policy surrounding PPCs and their expansion into community corrections, governments should be cautious of their motivations when considering potential contracts.
Community corrections are “correctional control outside of jails and prisons,” including halfway houses, drug treatment facilities, and probation and parole. The term “correctional control” implies that offenders who are moved into community corrections programs are still under the control of the PPCs themselves. This idea emphasizes that while these companies may be getting involved in programs outside of incarceration, they are still profiting off of offenders and their control over those offenders.
A national wave of criminal justice reform has led many Americans to reassess how the government should approach criminal justice policy and the significant number of individuals behind bars. For example, in a 2017 poll, 71% of respondents said it was important to reduce the prison population in America, and 72% supported rehabilitative programs and improving inmates’ reentry into society. Since community corrections are seen as a viable strategy for implementing these changes, some of the nation’s largest PPCs, such as CoreCivic and the GEO Group, have been diversifying their market offerings to reflect the demand for a new approach.
CoreCivic began expanding into community corrections after purchasing Correctional Alternatives in 2013. Between 2015 and 2016, it further expanded by purchasing Avalon Correctional Services Inc, Correctional Management Inc, and four other residential reentry facilities. As a result, CoreCivic is now one of the largest owners of community corrections beds in the US. CoreCivic’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K note that for both 2013 and 2014, CoreCivic only owned two community corrections facilities. This number jumped to 13 in 2015, 25 in 2016, and then 33 in 2017. The number of community corrections facilities then leveled out in the following years: 26 in 2018, 29 in 2019, and 27 in 2020. However, CoreCivic’s increased efforts in community corrections only shifts their profits from the incarceration of offenders to housing them in different CoreCivic-owned facilities. CoreCivic has used community corrections as a method of expanding the services it provides into more publicly approved domains that will still earn it a profit while protecting its public image.
Comprehensive studies have shown that, while the public supports community corrections programs as alternatives to imprisonment, these programs must be facilitated in specific ways to actually reduce recidivism. What we do know is that community corrections programs are less disruptive to an offender’s employment, family, and community life than incarceration. While there is some value in having more individuals in community corrections facilities rather than being physically incarcerated, governments should be cautious of PPCs and their expansion into community corrections. The profit motivations contributing to mass incarceration have not fundamentally changed just because the type of facility differs. We also do not yet know if the methods of community corrections that PPCs are enacting are truly effective.
PPCs make more money when more people are incarcerated within their prisons. When recidivism is high, PPCs earn more as they house repeat inmates. As a result, high recidivism contributes to mass incarceration while lining the pockets of these corporations. Additionally, there is little evidence that PPCs who operate community corrections facilities will face a different phenomenon. Keeping repeated offenders within community corrections facilities for as long as possible increases their profits, just as it did when these offenders were being housed in prisons.
Another concerning outcome of increased involvement of PPCs in community corrections is net widening. Net widening refers to the use of alternatives to incarceration programs to “extend social control mechanisms” to individuals who might not have previously been subject to sanctions at all, thus increasing the overall number of people under some form of criminal justice control. While community corrections may reduce the number of people in prisons, it can increase the number of people under correctional control, leading to PPCs reaping bigger profits.
However, there can certainly be spillover benefits of having private companies involved in community corrections. If governments implement new, innovative policies, they may reduce risks of working with these companies. Corporations are driven by profit, and while it would be ideal if community corrections were pursued simply for the sake of rehabilitating inmates and providing more humane punishment, the fact that CoreCivic has become involved in it does not mean there are no benefits. In the end, reducing the number of individuals physically incarcerated and shifting offenders into community corrections programs – even if more work needs to be done to ensure the effectiveness of those programs– is a step toward reducing mass incarceration and recidivism.
In addition, the Brennan Center for Justice suggests some unique and innovative policy solutions from other countries that could incentivize PPCs to prioritize reducing recidivism instead of filling beds. According to the article, Australia and New Zealand are experimenting with performance-based contracts that would give PPCs bonuses for doing better than public prisons at reducing recidivism and would charge them for riots, escapes, and unnatural deaths. Performance-based contracts such as these could be applied to community corrections facilities as well as private prisons in order to incentivize a reduction in recidivism.
Overall, the increased involvement of PPCs in community corrections is not necessarily a bad thing. Community corrections contribute to reducing mass incarceration and cause less disruption to an offender’s life than a prison sentence would. However, it is essential to be cautious of the motives of private companies in getting involved. If governments want to better ensure the successful rehabilitation and reentry of offenders, they should consider implementing performance-based contracts in their work with private prisons.
About the Author
Alex Parker is a Junior Spring Editor and a first-year MPP student at the McCourt School of Public Policy. She has worked in local, state, and national government and is interested in policy surrounding criminal justice reform and voting rights. She has Bachelor’s degrees from the University of Arizona in Political Science and Criminal Justice
Established in 1995, the Georgetown Public Policy Review is the McCourt School of Public Policy’s nonpartisan, graduate student-run publication. Our mission is to provide an outlet for innovative new thinkers and established policymakers to offer perspectives on the politics and policies that shape our nation and our world.
