Prison Privatization: A Multi-State Comparison Content Analysis

Prison Privatization: A Multi-State Comparison Content Analysis

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Young, Richlynn C.
Language:English
Published: Youngstown State University / OhioLINK 2011
Subjects:
Comparative
Comparative Literature
Criminology
prisons
private prisons
privatization
public prisons
Online Access:http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ysu1310737776
id ndltd-OhioLink-oai-etd.ohiolink.edu-ysu1310737776
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-OhioLink-oai-etd.ohiolink.edu-ysu13107377762021-08-03T06:18:11Z Prison Privatization: A Multi-State Comparison Content Analysis Young, Richlynn C. Comparative Comparative Literature Criminology prisons private prisons privatization public prisons <p>This thesis project measured the effectiveness of prison privatization at a multi-state level. A content analysis of existing data on a convenience sample of seven states that have a large percentage of their prisons privatized: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Oklahoma was compared to seven non-or-low privatized states that do not have a large percentage of their prisons privatized: Louisiana, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alabama, Maryland, and Illinois. A convenience sample was taken of public and private states on available data supplied by the Bureau of Justice Statistics which was used to ascertain differentiating factors on both the public and private levels.</p><p>There are three factors that led states in this project to privatize its prison system. Results indicate that most states have made the decision to privatize for three reasons: lower cost; to reduce over-crowdedness, and consent decree. Several states have enacted laws that mandate either some sort of cost savings through privatization or simply an increase in quality standards by the private vendor operating the institution. In examining the cost per inmate among all fourteen states, it appears that the low-to-non privatized states spend the least amount of money per inmate to house its prisoners. </p><p>In addition, many states have specific positions within their departments that monitor and maintain privatization standards. Monitoring privatization consisted of on-site monitoring, facility inspections and the oversight and monitoring of contracts. As private prisons are studied in the future, researchers should take a regional look at other aspects affecting privatization such as recidivism, turnover, and number of escapes.</p> 2011-07-18 English text Youngstown State University / OhioLINK http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ysu1310737776 http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ysu1310737776 unrestricted This thesis or dissertation is protected by copyright: all rights reserved. It may not be copied or redistributed beyond the terms of applicable copyright laws.
collection NDLTD
language English
sources NDLTD
topic Comparative
Comparative Literature
Criminology
prisons
private prisons
privatization
public prisons
spellingShingle Comparative
Comparative Literature
Criminology
prisons
private prisons
privatization
public prisons
Young, Richlynn C.
Prison Privatization: A Multi-State Comparison Content Analysis
author Young, Richlynn C.
author_facet Young, Richlynn C.
author_sort Young, Richlynn C.
title Prison Privatization: A Multi-State Comparison Content Analysis
title_short Prison Privatization: A Multi-State Comparison Content Analysis
title_full Prison Privatization: A Multi-State Comparison Content Analysis
title_fullStr Prison Privatization: A Multi-State Comparison Content Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Prison Privatization: A Multi-State Comparison Content Analysis
title_sort prison privatization: a multi-state comparison content analysis
publisher Youngstown State University / OhioLINK
publishDate 2011
url http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ysu1310737776
work_keys_str_mv AT youngrichlynnc prisonprivatizationamultistatecomparisoncontentanalysis
_version_ 1719434327762141184

Similar Items