Private and Public Prisons: Studies Comparing Operational Costs and/or
Quality of Service (Letter Report, 08/16/96, GAO/GGD-96-158).
GAO reviewed several studies that compared privatized and public
correctional facilities in terms of operational costs and quality of
service.
GAO found that: (1) five studies comparing operational costs or quality
of service at private and public correctional facilities in California,
Tennessee, Washington, Texas, and New Mexico had been completed since
1991; (2) it could not draw any conclusions about cost savings or
quality of service, since the four studies that assessed operational
costs indicated little difference or mixed results, and the two studies
that addressed quality of life reported either equivocal findings or no
differences between private and public facilities; and (3) the studies
provide little information that is applicable to various correctional
settings, since states may differ widely in terms of correctional
philosophy, economic factors, and inmate population characteristics. GAO
believes that future comparative studies of public and private
correctional facilities should: (1) focus on both operational costs and
quality of service; (2) evaluate operational costs at existing
comparable, not hypothetical, facilities; (3) employ multiple indicators
or data sources to objectively measure quality of service issues; and
(4) be based upon data collected over several years.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-96-158
TITLE: Private and Public Prisons: Studies Comparing Operational
Costs and/or Quality of Service
DATE: 08/16/96
SUBJECT: Privatization
Cost effectiveness analysis
Correctional facilities
Comparative analysis
Facility management
IDENTIFIER: Texas
Washington
California
Tennessee
New Mexico
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives
August 1996
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PRISONS -
STUDIES COMPARING OPERATIONAL
COSTS AND/OR QUALITY OF SERVICE
GAO/GGD-96-158
Private and Public Prisons
(182827)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
ACA - American Correctional Association
BOP - Federal Bureau of Prisons
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-261797
August 16, 1996
The Honorable Bill McCollum
Chairman
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Crime
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Since 1991, when we issued our earlier report on private prisons,\1
various jurisdictions and levels of government have made or planned
greater use of this alternative to publicly run correctional
facilities. At the federal level, plans for privatization of
correctional facilities have changed in recent years. For example,
the administration's fiscal year 1996 budget proposal reflected a
commitment to increase the use of privatized correctional facilities
in the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Specifically, under the BOP
privatization initiative presented in the budget request, the bureau
proposed to contract with private firms, where most appropriate, to
operate the majority of all future federal pretrial detention
facilities as well as the majority of all future federal minimum- and
low-security correctional facilities. The Department of Justice's
fiscal year 1997 budget justification projected the activation of two
privatized facilities in that year. However, in June 1996, the
Justice Department reversed its plans for using private contractors
to operate the facilities identified in the 1996 and 1997 budget
proposals. In explaining its decision to staff these facilities with
BOP employees, the Justice Department noted that it was "unable
contractually to reduce the risk of a strike or walk out" of
correctional officers employed by private firms.\2
Proponents of privatization assert that the experiences of several
states demonstrate that private contractors can operate prisons at
less cost than the government, without reducing the levels or quality
of service. In contrast, other observers say there is little or no
valid evidence that privatization of corrections is a cost-effective
alternative to publicly run facilities.
To help frame the continuing deliberations of the Justice
Department's privatization plans, we self-initiated this review to
(1) identify studies (completed since 1991) comparing the operational
costs and/or the quality of service\3 of private and public
correctional facilities; (2) determine, based on these studies, what
could be concluded regarding the operational costs and/or quality of
service of comparable private and public facilities; (3) assess
whether the reported results are generalizable to correctional
systems in other jurisdictions; and (4) identify lessons learned to
help guide future comparative studies of private and public
correctional facilities. Our work basically was a form of evaluation
synthesis whereby we assessed existing studies, particularly with
respect to the strength of evidence supporting the reported findings.
Appendix I presents further details about our objectives, scope, and
methodology.\4 We are addressing this report to you because of your
Subcommittee's interest in prison issues, as exemplified by the
hearings you held on June 8, 1995.
We conducted our work from June 1995 to June 1996 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. We received oral
comments on a draft of this report from BOP and written comments from
the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs; the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency; and a Northeastern University
(Boston, MA) professor of criminal justice, who is a nationally
recognized authority on corrections administration. These comments
and our evaluation of them are discussed at the end of this letter.
--------------------
\1 Private Prisons: Cost Savings and BOP's Statutory Authority Need
to Be Resolved (GAO/GGD-91-21, Feb. 7, 1991).
\2 Letter, dated June 5, 1996, from the Assistant Attorney General
for Administration, Department of Justice, to various congressional
committee and subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members.
\3 As discussed in appendix I, we did not attempt to generically
define "quality of service." Rather, we accepted the definition
and/or evaluation criteria used in each applicable study that we
reviewed. Some studies, for instance, used a variety of quality
measures or outcomes, such as safety and incident data and the extent
of treatment programs for inmates.
\4 Although not addressed in this report, the privatization of
corrections has, at times, raised various other issues besides cost
and quality of service issues. For example, there has been some
debate over the issue of whether administration of justice (which
includes the operation of prisons) is an inherently governmental
function not appropriately delegable to the private sector.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
On the basis of literature searches and discussions with correctional
officials and criminal justice researchers, we identified five
studies completed since 1991 that compare private and public
correctional facilities in relation to operational costs and/or
quality of service. Three states sponsored comparative studies of
correctional facilities in their states--Texas, California, and
Tennessee. The National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons,
and the National Institute of Corrections funded a comparative study
that focused mainly on facilities in New Mexico. Washington state
studied facilities in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Washington state.
The correctional facilities that were the focus of these studies
varied in terms of geographic location and the types of inmates
housed. There was also variation in the methodologies and
measurements employed by the researchers.
Three of the studies we reviewed (California, Tennessee, and
Washington) made comparisons of costs between reasonably matched
private and public facilities that were operating within each state
that was studied. Of the four private/public comparisons reported in
these three studies, two showed no significant differences in
operational costs, one showed a 7-percent difference in favor of the
private facility, and the other reported the private facility to be
more costly than one public facility but less costly than another
public facility. One additional study (Texas) reported a 14- to
15-percent savings from privatization; however, the analysis for the
Texas study was problematic because the comparison was based on
hypothetical public facilities, not existing ones. We could not
conclude from these studies that privatization of correctional
facilities will not save money. However, these studies do not offer
substantial evidence that savings have occurred.
Two studies (New Mexico and Tennessee) assessed a wide variety of
factors in their reviews of comparative quality of private and public
facilities. These factors, among others, included measures of
safety, personnel qualifications, physical conditions of the
facilities, health care, and inmate activities. One of these two
studies (Tennessee) reported no difference between private and public
facilities. The other study (New Mexico) reported a higher quality
score for one private facility compared with two public facilities.
However, on the inmate survey portion of the assessment, one public
facility had higher scores in all of the areas that were assessed,
except one. One additional study (Washington), using a less detailed
approach to assessing comparative quality, found no differences
between private and public facilities.
These studies offer little generalizable guidance for other
jurisdictions about what to expect regarding comparative operational
costs and quality of service if they were to move toward privatizing
correctional facilities. First, several of the studies focused on
specialized inmate populations, such as those in prerelease
situations, that limited their generalizability to a wider inmate
population. Second, methodological weaknesses in some of the
comparisons--such as using hypothetical facilities or nonrandom
survey samples--make some findings questionable, even for the study
setting. Third, a variety of differences in other states and regions
could result in experiences far different from those of the states
that were studied. For example, cost of living and a state's
correctional philosophy could affect the comparative costs and
quality of private and public facilities from state to state.
Finally, the age or maturity of the private system could affect the
relationship between private and public facilities in terms of costs
and quality.
From a methodological standpoint, the five studies provide some
lessons learned for future comparisons of private and public
correctional facilities. The importance of focusing on both
operational costs and quality of service, comparing institutions
(both private and public) that are actually in operation, and using
multiple measures of quality are attributes that worked well in
selected studies.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
A generally accepted evaluation criterion is that any comparative
study of private and public prisons should be based upon the
selection and analysis of similar facilities. For example, the
private and public prisons selected for comparison should be as
similar as possible regarding design and capacity, security level,
and types of inmates. Otherwise, any comparative analysis of
operational costs or quality of service could be skewed. On a
per-inmate basis, for instance, higher security prisons can be
expected to have higher operating costs than lower security prisons
because the former type of facilities generally have higher
staff-to-inmate ratios.
Even if similar private and public prisons are available for study, a
comparison of operational costs can still present difficulties in
ensuring that all costs, direct and indirect, are consistently and
fully quantified. Possible difficulties can arise due, in part, to
differences in budgeting and accounting practices between and even
within the private and public sectors. Determining the appropriate
allocation of corporate headquarters overhead and government agency
overhead, for instance, can be particularly difficult.
Comparing the quality of service at private and public prisons also
presents challenges and, in fact, can be more difficult than
comparing costs. The concept of "quality" is neither easily defined
nor measured. For example, although the American Correctional
Association (ACA) sets accreditation standards for prisons,
accredited facilities can vary widely in terms of overall quality.
According to ACA officials, such variances occur because ACA
accreditation means that a facility has met minimum standards.
Generally, however, assessments of quality can take several
approaches. For example, one is a compliance approach, that is,
assessing whether or to what extent the prisons being compared are in
compliance with applicable ACA standards and/or other relevant policy
and procedural guidelines and/or court orders and consent decrees.
Another approach is to assess performance measures.\5 For example,
measures of safety could include assault statistics, safety
inspection results, and accidental injury reports.
The difficulties of comparatively assessing private and public
prisons--regarding operational costs and/or quality of service--are
further complicated if the prisons are not located in the same state.
Each state and its correctional system have characteristics and
conditions that must be recognized in conducting interstate analyses.
For example, economic conditions and cost-of-living factors can vary
by state and by regions of the nation. Similarly, each state's
correctional system may be somewhat unique regarding the extent of
overcrowding, the history of court intervention, the emphasis given
to ACA accreditation, and the presence or influence of various other
factors. As an illustration, with respect to the five studies we
reviewed, appendix III presents state-specific details regarding some
relevant factors that could affect interstate comparisons of prison
costs and/or quality of service.
--------------------
\5 Charles H. Logan, "Criminal Justice Performance Measures for
Prisons," Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System, U.S.
Department of Justice, Oct. 1993.
FIVE COMPARATIVE STUDIES
COMPLETED SINCE 1991
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
On the basis of extensive literature searches and inquiries with
knowledgeable corrections officials and criminal justice researchers
(see app. I), we identified five studies completed since 1991 that
compared private and public prisons in reference to operational costs
and/or quality of service. The following is a brief overview of each
study:\6
-- Texas study (1991): Conducted by the Texas Sunset Advisory
Commission, this study compared (1) the actual costs of
operating four privately managed prerelease minimum-security
facilities for male prisoners and (2) the estimated costs of
operating similar but hypothetical public facilities in Texas.
The study did not empirically assess quality of service.
-- New Mexico study (1991): Funded by the National Institute of
Justice, the Bureau of Prisons, and the National Institute of
Corrections, this study compared the quality of service at three
multicustody facilities (minimum- to maximum-security levels)
for women, i.e., a private prison and a state-run prison in New
Mexico and a federal prison in West Virginia. The study did not
include a detailed analysis of operational costs.
-- California study (1994): Conducted by California State
University with funding from the California Department of
Corrections, this study focused on three community correctional
facilities for males. All three facilities were operated (under
contracts with the state) as for-profit alternatives to
state-operated prisons. One facility (medium-security) was
operated by a private corporation, the second (high-security) by
a local police department, and the third (low- to
medium-security) by a city administration. The study compared
operational and construction costs and quality of service. More
specifically, regarding costs, the study compared the three
facilities (1) with one another and (2) with other state
correctional facilities. Both operational and construction
costs were included in the comparison of the three facilities
with one another. The statewide comparison did not include
construction costs for the California Department of Corrections
facilities. Regarding quality of service, the study compared
the three facilities with two state facilities.
-- Tennessee study (1995): Conducted in two parts, one for
operational costs and one for quality of service, by the
Tennessee state legislature, this study compared three of
Tennessee's multicustody (minimum- to maximum-security) prisons
for male inmates. One prison was privately managed, and the
other two were state-run prisons.
-- Washington study (1996): At the time of this study, the state
of Washington had no privately run prisons but was considering
the feasibility of such. Therefore, the study, conducted by the
Washington State Legislative Budget Committee, analyzed
pertinent information available in other states. Regarding
operational costs, for, example, the study looked at the three
Tennessee facilities (mentioned above) as well as three
multicustody male prisons in Louisiana (two private and one
public).\7 Regarding quality of service, the study compared the
three Tennessee facilities, the three Louisiana facilities, and
two Washington facilities.
In summary, the California, Tennessee, and Washington studies
assessed operational costs and quality of service.\8 The Texas study
analyzed operational costs only, and the New Mexico study analyzed
quality of service only.
--------------------
\6 As presented, each study is introduced with a short title showing
the sponsoring state and/or the state wherein the compared facilities
are located. Also, the studies are listed in chronological order by
the date of completion or publication indicated in parentheses.
Appendix II provides a more detailed overview of these five studies.
\7 As discussed in appendix II, the Washington study also included
some interstate comparisons of operational and construction costs.
\8 The authors of the California study noted, however, that their
findings regarding quality of service were based upon a small,
nonrandom sample of inmates.
DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM THE
FIVE STUDIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
While the five studies varied in terms of methodological rigor, they
do, to differing degrees, offer some indication of comparative
operational costs and/or quality of service in the specific settings
they assessed. However, regarding operational costs, because the
studies reported little difference and/or mixed results in comparing
private and public facilities, we could not conclude whether
privatization saved money. Similarly, regarding quality of service,
of the two studies that made the most detailed comparative
assessments, one study (New Mexico) reported equivocal findings, and
the other study (Tennessee) reported no difference between the
compared private and public facilities.
COMPARISONS OF OPERATIONAL
COSTS INDICATED LITTLE
DIFFERENCE AND/OR MIXED
RESULTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
Four of the five studies (Texas, California, Tennessee, and
Washington) assessed operational costs of private and public
correctional facilities. In three of the studies (California,
Tennessee, and Washington), comparisons of private and public
facilities indicated little or some differences in operational costs.
Only the Texas study reported finding substantially lower (14- to
15-percent) operational costs for private versus public correctional
facilities.
Using fiscal year 1990 data, the Texas study reported average daily
operational costs of $36.76 per inmate for the private facilities,
compared with estimates of $42.70 to $43.13 for the public
facilities. However, the results of the Texas study are not fully
based on actual experience. Rather, the study compared existing
private facilities (prerelease institutions) to hypothetical public
facilities. This type of hypothetical comparison does not allow for
consideration of any unanticipated changes in components such as
staffing levels, other expenses, rate of occupied bed space, or many
other factors that could affect actual costs. Changes in any single
assumption, or set of assumptions, for the hypothetical institutions
could change the size or even the direction of the differences in the
comparative operational costs.\9
Based upon our experience in designing and assessing evaluation
methodologies, we found the Tennessee study (of the studies we
reviewed) to have the most sound and detailed comparison of
operational costs of private and public correctional facilities. The
study compared three mixed-population (minimum- to maximum- security)
institutions (one private and two public). All three facilities were
located in Tennessee, and all three had relatively comparable inmate
populations, in terms of numbers and most demographics, except race.
Also, direct and indirect costs were considered in the analysis, and
representatives from both the private and the public facilities
agreed on the cost components and relevant adjustments prior to data
collection. The analysis showed very little difference in average
inmate costs per day among the three facilities--$35.39 for the
private facility and $34.90 and $35.45, respectively, for the two
public facilities.
The Washington study, which made intrastate comparisons of
correctional facilities (minimum- and maximum-security populations)
in Tennessee and Louisiana, also found very little difference in the
operational costs of private and public facilities. For Tennessee,
the private facilities' average daily operational costs per inmate
($33.61) were lower (about 7 percent) than the comparable costs for
the two public facilities studied ($35.82 and $35.28, respectively).
It should be noted that the Tennessee facilities, which were analyzed
and reported on in the 1996 Washington state study, were the same
facilities that are discussed in the 1995 Tennessee study cited
above. For Louisiana, the average inmate costs per day for the two
private facilities studied were $23.75 and $23.34, respectively, and
the comparable daily operational costs for the public facility
studied were $23.55 per inmate.\10
The 1994 California study compared three for-profit community
correctional facilities located in that state--one run by a private
firm and two run by local governments. The study found that the
private facility's average annual costs per inmate ($15,578) were
higher than comparable costs for one of the government-run facilities
($13,195) but were lower than such costs for the other government-run
facility ($16,627). The lower cost government-run facility had a
disproportionate share of drug offenders, which could have affected
overall costs. Further, the authors of the study noted that the
results of this study must be viewed with some additional caution
because of inconsistencies in the underlying or supporting cost
figures obtained from different sources within the state.
--------------------
\9 Moreover, in response to competition from the private sector,
public prisons could, over time, become more cost efficient. As
discussed later, this was one of the conclusions of the Washington
study.
\10 As presented in the study, the costs for the Tennessee and
Louisiana facilities were calculated after an adjustment to equalize
prison inmate population numbers. The adjustment was necessary
because, among other things, comparisons of per-capita costs should
be based upon equivalent levels of capacity. Otherwise, a facility
operating at less than full capacity, for example, generally will
show higher per-capita costs than a facility operating above its
rated capacity.
COMPARISONS OF QUALITY ARE
UNCLEAR
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
Although comparative costs are very important, they are not the only
factors considered by policymakers in deciding the direction or
extent of corrections privatization. A principal concern is whether
private contractors can operate at lower costs to the taxpayers,
while providing the same or even a better level of service as the
public sector, particularly with respect to safety and security
issues.
Of the studies we reviewed, two (New Mexico and Tennessee) assessed
the comparative quality of service between private and public
institutions in much greater detail than the other studies. Both
studies used structured data-collection instruments to cover a
variety of quality-related topics, including safety and security,
management, personnel, health care, discipline reports, escapes, and
inmate programs and activities. The New Mexico study reported
equivocal findings, and the Tennessee study reported no difference in
quality between the compared private and public institutions.
The findings in the New Mexico study are difficult to interpret. On
the basis of surveys of correctional staff and reviews of
institutional records, the study reported that the private prison
"outperformed" the public facilities on most of the measured quality
dimensions. However, the author noted that the results from one of
the data-collection instruments--the inmate surveys--showed an
opposite result, with one of the public facilities "outperforming"
the private facility on every dimension except inmate activities
(e.g., work and training programs).
The Tennessee study, in assessing the quality of service at one
private and two public prisons, reported that "all three facilities
were operated at essentially the same level of performance." This
conclusion was largely based on the results of an operational audit
conducted at each of the facilities by an inspection team. Composed
of private and public sector members, the team used a structured
survey instrument to conduct a detailed review of records, observe
operations and practices, and conduct interviews.
The Texas study did not empirically assess the quality of service at
the private correctional facilities. Rather, the study noted that
all four of the privately operated prerelease facilities were in
general compliance with
11 of the 16 mandates of court rulings applicable to Texas prisons.
Also, the study noted that two of the four private facilities had
received ACA accreditation, and the other two were still involved in
the accreditation process. ACA officials told us, however, that ACA
accreditation means that a facility has met minimum standards and
that accredited facilities can vary widely in terms of overall
quality. To reiterate, because it was based on hypothetical public
facilities, the Texas study made no attempt to comparatively assess
the quality of service across private and public facilities in Texas.
The California study, in assessing quality of service, used inmate
and staff surveys to compare the three community correctional
facilities with two state prisons. However, the results could not be
generalized to the inmate or staff populations of the respective
facilities because small, nonrandom samples were used.
The California study also attempted to compare the three community
correctional facilities with the state's other correctional
institutions with respect to recidivism rates. The study reported
that, of the three community correctional facilities, one of the
publicly managed facilities was "most impressive" in performance
based on recidivism rates. Sufficient data were not available to
adequately complete the analysis comparing the inmates released from
the community correctional facilities with inmates released from
other correctional institutions in the state.
The Washington study assessed the quality of service at the three
facilities (one private and two public) in Tennessee, three
facilities (two private and one public) in Louisiana, and two
facilities (both public) in Washington. While not as detailed as the
New Mexico and the Tennessee studies, the Washington study concluded
that the private and public prisons studied within the respective
states (Tennessee and Louisiana) were generally similar in quality of
service. However, the study noted that Washington's two state-run
facilities had more counselors per inmate than the other states'
facilities.
GENERALIZABILITY OF THE
STUDIES' RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
The few studies that have compared the operational costs and/or the
quality of service of private and public prisons provide little
information that is widely applicable to various correctional
settings. For example, while these studies compared private and
public facilities that generally were similar (in terms of
capacities, inmate demographics, etc.), the selected facilities were
not necessarily typical or representative of prisons in either the
state studied or other jurisdictions. Also, a variety of factors
that relate to a given location or correctional system may render the
experience of one jurisdiction with private prisons very different
from that of another. Further, the passage of time could alter the
relationship between private and public correctional facilities in
terms of costs and quality. For these reasons, among others, the few
studies that we reviewed do not permit drawing generalizable
conclusions about the comparative operational costs and/or quality of
service of private and public prisons.
Jurisdictions, such as states, vary on several dimensions that could
have an impact on the comparative costs of private versus public
prisons and, in turn, affect the generalizability of a given study's
results. First, other states' correctional philosophies could differ
from that of the states studied. Some state correctional
philosophies are more punitive in nature (as reflected, for example,
by higher incarceration rates), whereas other states are less
punitive and more inclined toward treatment.\11
California, for example, which is one of the states discussed in the
five studies we reviewed, generally has had incarceration rates above
the national average. Also, the Washington study noted that the
adjusted estimated per-bed costs for a state-run facility in
Washington ($60,400) were almost double Florida's costs ($33,900)
due, in part, to state differences in operating and programming
approaches.
Second, jurisdictions also vary in relation to a variety of economic
factors that could affect the relationship between private and public
prison costs. Differences in the costs of living could affect both
private and public prison costs, but in some jurisdictions, one more
than the other. For example, a labor shortage could result in higher
operational costs for private and public prisons.
Third, in some jurisdictions, the inmate population to be
incarcerated in private facilities may be different from those inmate
populations in the five studies. Three of the five studies focused
on inmate populations that were not representative of the broader
prison population--prerelease prisoners (Texas study), female
prisoners (New Mexico), and those housed in community correctional
facilities (California). Only two studies (Tennessee and Washington)
focused on costs in relation to facilities housing a more mainstream
prisoner population.
Finally, regarding both operational costs and quality of service, the
comparative performance of private versus public correctional
facilities is not likely to be static. Changes over time could alter
the comparative performance. For example, the first year of a new
prison--either private or public--could reflect expenses for training
inexperienced staff as well as hiring replacements for those unsuited
to the work. Inexperienced staff could also have a negative effect
on some measures of quality. Also, in the initial years of managing
a prison, a private firm may choose to bill for its services at rates
below costs to obtain or extend a contract. As time goes by,
however, to remain a viable business entity, the contractor's
cost-recovery practices would have to change. Similarly, over time,
public prisons could become more cost efficient in response to
competition from the private sector. For instance, this conclusion
was reached by the Washington study, which was commissioned to help
the state determine the potential benefits of privatization.
--------------------
\11 The rate of incarceration is the number of sentenced prisoners
(per 100,000 resident population) in correctional facilities. Since
the mid-1980s, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data, the
southern and western regions of the nation have had higher
incarceration rates than the northeastern and midwestern regions.
LESSONS LEARNED FOR FUTURE
COMPARATIVE STUDIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
The results of studies comparing private and public prisons obviously
are of interest to any jurisdiction whose policymakers are deciding
whether or to what extent corrections should be privatized. Ideally,
to be most useful, such studies should be based upon representative
samples of prisons, with sufficient statistical controls in place to
measure and account for any differences. However, because the number
of private correctional facilities is still relatively small (see
app. IV)--and, given the fact that each stand-alone facility
(whether private or public) may have some unique
characteristics--conducting a truly optimal comparative evaluation
may be impractical.
Nonetheless, the five studies completed since 1991 offer several
lessons learned to guide future studies, even if such studies focus
on comparing only one private facility and one public facility. In
reviewing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each study to
formulate lessons learned, we largely relied on our extensive
experience in designing and assessing evaluation methodologies--that
is, our experience with generally accepted methodological standards
and practices. Specifically, on the basis of our review of the five
studies, we identified the following lessons learned:
-- In considering the extent to which corrections should be
privatized, a key question is whether private contractors can
operate at lower costs to taxpayers, while providing at least
the same level of service as the public sector, particularly
with respect to security and safety issues. Thus, it is
important that any study focus on both operational costs and
quality of service. Two of the studies we reviewed (Texas and
New Mexico) did not have this dual focus.
-- The best approach for evaluating operational costs is to study
existing comparable facilities, not hypothetical facilities.
One of the studies we reviewed (Texas) used hypothetical similar
public facilities.
-- Generally, there is more than one way to objectively measure or
compare prison security, safety, order, and various other
dimensions that constitute quality of service. In this regard,
it is important to use multiple indicators or data sources to
provide cross-checks. The New Mexico study, for example,
illustrates that divergent results can be reached by using one
data source (e.g., inmate surveys) versus another source (e.g.,
staff surveys).
-- Comparative findings with respect to operational costs and/or
quality of service in any given year may not hold true for other
years. Similarly, because trends are not self-perpetuating,
even findings based on multiyear comparisons must be carefully
considered. Nonetheless, all other factors being equal,
comparative evaluations based upon several years' data
potentially have more value than evaluations based upon 1 or 2
years of data. Nearly all five of the studies we reviewed were
based upon 1 or 2 years of data.
These lessons learned could be particularly applicable to BOP if, in
the future, it resumes its plans for contracting with private
companies to operate selected federal correctional facilities.\12
For instance, according to April 1995 congressional testimony by the
BOP Director, BOP's privatization initiative, if implemented, would
provide an opportunity to undertake some thorough comparative
evaluations:
"I know that the Attorney General and . . . [the Office of
Management and Budget] are very interested in working carefully
with us in the Bureau of Prisons to track, on these new
contracts, very carefully, what the cost impact truly is,
because there are a lot of hidden costs in privatization . . .
[T]here has never been, we don't believe, a real good cost
analysis to determine, apples to apples, what is the cost of a
traditional prison system and private contracting. The private
contractors claim they can do it at great savings, and so we are
very interested in monitoring the ones that we have projected
for the next few years and determining . . . how well the
taxpayers are being served on either side."\13
The BOP Director noted that by contracting out the management of
selected facilities incarcerating general inmate populations, BOP was
moving to the "next level of privatization," which would provide a
good basis for comparative evaluations focusing on "like or similar
institutions." In this regard, the lessons learned from previous
comparative studies should be useful to BOP if the federal
privatization initiative is revisited.
--------------------
\12 For example, the Justice Department's budget justification for
fiscal year 1997 projected the activation of two privatized
facilities in that year--a detention facility (677 beds) in Seattle,
WA, and a multicustody (minimum- and low-security) facility (2,048
beds) in Elkton, OH. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1997:
Hearings before a Subcomm. of the House Comm. on Appropriations,
104th Cong., 2d Sess. 1655 (1996). However, in June 1996, the
administration announced that plans to privatize these facilities
were being suspended.
\13 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996: Hearings on
H.R. 2076 before a Subcomm. of the Senate Comm. on Appropriations,
104th Cong., 1st Sess. 303, 308 (1995).
COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from BOP and
written comments from the Department of Justice's Office of Justice
Programs; the National Council on Crime and Delinquency; and a
Northeastern University (Boston, MA) professor of criminal justice,
who is a nationally recognized authority on corrections
administration.
BOP commented that the report was accurate, well done, and useful.
The Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice
Programs, concurred with the report and noted that additional study
of the privatization of correctional facilities is needed. The
National Institute of Justice, a component agency of the Office of
Justice Programs, commented that the report appeared "to be as
comprehensive as the available data permits." Also, the Institute
commented that the report's discussion of the strengths and
weaknesses of the five studies "is excellent."
In commenting on the draft, the Executive Vice President, National
Council on Crime and Delinquency, said that the report is accurate in
concluding that few studies have been completed to date and that
these studies have methodological problems that limit understanding
the actual cost-benefits of privatization. He noted, however, that
our report could place more emphasis on the Tennessee study, which is
the most rigorous study to date. Although we concur with the
reviewer's assessment of the study, our objective was to provide
similar information for each of the studies reviewed. Further, he
noted that the report could add more emphasis to evaluating the
claims of private providers that they can construct new facilities
faster and cheaper than public entities. Since the studies reviewed
did not assess these claims, this issue was beyond the scope of our
work.
The Northeastern University reviewer\14 commented that (1) our
evaluation synthesis was an important contribution to the corrections
field, (2) the report's conclusion that the five studies offer little
generalizable guidance for other jurisdictions regarding the
comparative cost and quality of service of private and public
correctional facilities was "right on point," and (3) our cautions
concerning interstate comparisons were "well-founded."
However, the reviewer underscored the need also to focus
privatization research on crime reduction and various philosophical
questions underpinning the privatization debate. These issues were
beyond the scope of our work. In addition, the reviewer suggested
that it would be valuable to the corrections field if the report
included a short, concise statement describing the critical dependent
and independent variables that should be considered in comparative
analyses of private and public corrections facilities. Because of
variations in available data and possible measurement adjustments
required in specific research situations, we are hesitant to
prescribe what variables should be studied. The studies reviewed,
however, suggest possible variables. Furthermore, citing the
difficulties researchers have in accessing data from private firms,
the reviewer proposed that the report contain a recommendation that
would facilitate researchers' access to proprietary information
needed for evaluation of private corrections. In the case of federal
corrections-related contracts, we would likely have access to data,
but we have considerably less jurisdiction at the state level.
--------------------
\14 Dr. Edith Elisabeth Flynn, College of Criminal Justice,
Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We are providing copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the House Judiciary Committee, the Attorney
General; the Director, BOP; and other interested parties. Copies
will also be made available to others upon request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
Please contact me on (202) 512-8777 if you or your staff have any
questions.
Laurie E. Ekstrand
Associate Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
In initiating this review, our specific objectives were to answer the
following key questions:
-- What studies, completed since 1991, have compared the
operational costs and/or the quality of service of private and
public prisons?
-- From these studies, what can be concluded with respect to the
operational costs and/or the quality of service of comparable
private and public facilities?
-- Are the results of these studies generalizable to correctional
systems in other jurisdictions?
-- From these studies, what are the "lessons learned" to help guide
future comparative studies of private and public prisons?
IDENTIFICATION OF COMPARATIVE
STUDIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
To identify relevant studies, we requested and obtained literature
searches from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service and the
National Institute of Corrections. Also, within the Department of
Justice, we contacted knowledgeable officials of the component
agencies responsible for managing federal correctional
facilities--the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), U.S. Marshals
Service, and Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Similarly, to query knowledgeable state agency officials, we first
contacted the Director of the Private Corrections Project at the
University of Florida's Center for Studies in Criminology and Law to
obtain information about the number of privatized facilities in each
state (see app. IV).\1 Then, for each applicable state, we contacted
officials at the state's corrections department and/or corrections
research agency and inquired about any completed, ongoing, or planned
studies comparing private and public prisons. Further, we contacted
the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and various nationally
recognized researchers in academia.
--------------------
\1 Established in 1988 to conduct policy-relevant research on
corrections privatization, the Private Corrections Project publishes
(semiannually) the Private Adult Correctional Facility Census.
ASSESSMENT OF STUDIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
We assessed each of the five relevant studies that we identified.
Our
work in assessing the conclusions or results of each study and the
generalizability of same--as well as identifying any lessons
learned--can be characterized as a form of evaluation synthesis. By
definition, an evaluation synthesis is a systematic procedure for
organizing findings from several disparate evaluation studies. That
is, the procedure addresses key questions or issues by assessing
existing studies or evaluations, rather than by conducting primary
data collection.
In reviewing the studies, we focused on the findings and conclusions
of each study and evaluated these in relation to the methodology used
by the respective study.\2 As an initial and fundamental inquiry, for
instance, we focused on the similarity of the private and public
facilities being compared in each study. That is, we wanted to
determine (1) if the facilities were reasonably well matched in
relation to design and capacity, security level, inmate demographics,
and other relevant institutional characteristics and (2) whether the
facilities were actually in operation and, if so, for what length of
time prior to the comparative evaluation.
In reviewing each applicable study's comparative evaluation of
operational costs, we focused on whether (1) both direct and indirect
cost components were considered for the private and public
facilities, (2) actual data versus estimates were used, and (3)
consistent cost components were used. We did not independently
verify any of the cost data presented in the studies.
In reviewing each applicable study's comparative evaluation of
quality of service, we focused on whether the private and the public
facilities were consistently evaluated in the respective study. That
is, in reference to both the private and the public facilities
compared in a given study, we were interested in whether the same or
similar methodology and data sources were used to evaluate quality of
service. Thus, we did not attempt to generically define "quality of
service;" rather, we accepted the definition and/or evaluation
criteria used in each applicable study. Also, we did not
independently verify the reported quality measures or outcomes, such
as safety and incident data and the extent of rehabilitation and
treatment programs for inmates.
We reviewed the relative strengths and weaknesses of each study to
formulate lessons learned for future comparative studies. In doing
so, we largely relied on our extensive experience in designing and
assessing evaluation methodologies--that is, our experience with
generally accepted methodological standards and practices.
--------------------
\2 Two of our staff--senior analysts with specialized training and
years of experience in designing and assessing evaluation
methodologies--independently reviewed each of the five studies.
PRIVATE SECTOR CONTACTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3
Initially, in September 1995, to obtain a practical understanding of
privatization issues, we visited two privately operated facilities
housing federal inmates. These facilities, which held deportable
aliens, are located in west Texas and were operated by private firms
under the general authority of intergovernmental agreements entered
into by BOP and the respective city governments of Big Spring and
Eden. We toured the facilities and interviewed managers and staff of
the private firms. Also, we interviewed the on-site federal
monitors.
Further, to obtain additional overview information on privatization
issues, we interviewed a senior executive (the Director for Strategic
Planning) of one of the nation's largest private corrections firms.
This official was a former director of BOP.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDIES COMPARING
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PRISONS
========================================================== Appendix II
We identified five studies completed since 1991 that compare private
and public correctional facilities in relation to operational costs
and/or quality of service. Table II.1 briefly describes each of
these studies. Following the table, separate sections respectively
provide more details about each study.
Table II.1
Citation, Evaluation Parameters, and
Reported Results of Five Studies
Comparing Private and Public Prisons
State Study citation Evaluation parameters Reported results
---------- --------------------- --------------------- ----------------------
Texas "Information Report Operational costs The private prisons'
on Contracts for were studied. operational costs were
Correction Facilities 14 to 15 percent less
and Services," Four private, than the costs of the
Recommendations to prerelease, minimum- hypothetical state
the Governor of Texas security prisons (500 facilities.
and Members of the beds each) for males
Seventy-Second were compared with
Legislature, Sunset hypothetical public
Advisory Commission, facilities in Texas.
Final Report, Texas
Sunset Advisory Fiscal year 1990 data
Commission (Austin: were analyzed.
1991).
An empirical The study noted that
assessment of quality two of the four
of service was not private facilities had
conducted. received ACA
accreditation, and the
other two were still
involved in the
accreditation process.
Also, the study noted
that all four
facilities were in
compliance with 11 of
the 16 mandates of
court rulings
applicable to Texas
prisons.
New Mexico Charles H. Logan, A detailed analysis Not applicable.
Well Kept: Comparing of operational costs
Quality of was not conducted.
Confinement In a
Public and a Private
Prison, National
Institute of Justice
(1991).
Quality of service The results of the
was studied. study depended on the
data-collection
Three multicustody instruments that were
facilities (minimum- employed. For example,
to maximum-security) data from staff
for women were surveys and official
compared: a private records showed that
prison and a state- the private prison
run prison in New "outperformed" the
Mexico and a federal state and federal
prison in West prisons across nearly
Virginia. all dimensions.
However, inmate survey
The data analyzed for data showed that one
the private facility of the public
covered June 1989 facilities
through November "outperformed" the
1989; data for the private facility on
state facility every dimension except
covered June 1988 "activity" (e.g., work
through November and training
1988; and the federal programs).
data covered December
1987 through May
1988.
Dale K. Sechrest and Operational and The private facility's
California David Shichor, Final construction costs average annual costs
Report: Exploratory were studied. per inmate ($15,578)
Study of California's were higher than
Community Corrections Three for-profit comparable costs for
Facilities, community one of the government-
California State correctional run facilities
University (San facilities--one ($13,195) but were
Bernardino: 1994). managed privately lower than such costs
(medium-security) and for the other
two managed by local government-run
governments (low-to facility ($16,627).
medium-and high-
security)--for males Due to methodological
were compared with limitations,
one another and with conclusions could not
other state be reached by
correctional comparing the three
facilities. for-profit community
correctional
Fiscal year 1991- facilities with other
1992 data were state correctional
analyzed. facilities. For
example, different
cost components were
used for the two sets
of facilities in the
comparison. In
addition, it is likely
that the universe of
the state's
correctional
facilities reflected
wide-ranging
differences concerning
inmate populations and
services.
Quality of service Due to methodological
was studied. limitations,
conclusions could not
The same three be reached by
community comparing the
correctional community correctional
facilities \for males facilities with two
were compared with state facilities. For
two state example, the results
correctional could not be
facilities. generalized to the
inmate or staff
Data were collected populations of the
in summer 1992. facilities because
small, nonrandom
samples were used.
Tennessee Cost Comparison of Operational costs There was little
Correctional Centers, were studied. difference in the
Tennessee Legislature average daily
Fiscal Review Three multicustody operational costs per
Committee (Nashville: prisons (minimum-to inmate across the
1995). maximum-security) for three facilities--
males were compared: $35.39 for the private
one private and two facility, versus
state-run prisons. $34.90 and $35.45,
respectively, for the
Data from July 1993 two public facilities.
through June 1994
were analyzed.
Comparative Quality of service There was no
Evaluation of was studied. difference in quality
Privately Managed CCA of service between the
Prison and State- The same three private and public
Managed Prototypical multicustody prisons facilities.
Prison, Tennessee for males were
Legislature Select compared.
Oversight Committee
on Corrections Data from March 1991
(Nashville: 1995). through September
1994 were analyzed.
Washington Department of Operational costs of The average daily
Corrections the same three operational costs per
Privatization Tennessee facilities inmate for the private
Feasibility Study, mentioned above were facility ($33.61) were
Report 96-2, State of studied. slightly lower than
Washington such costs for the two
Legislative Budget Data from July 1993 public facilities
Committee (Olympia: through June 1994 ($35.82 and $35.28,
1996). were analyzed. respectively).
Operational costs of The average daily
three multicustody operational costs per
facilities in inmate for the two
Louisiana (two private facilities
private and one were $23.75 and
state-run) for males $23.34, respectively,
were studied. compared with $23.55
for the public
Projected data for facility.
July 1995 through
June 1996 were
analyzed.
Operational costs of The average daily
a Washington state operational costs per
prison were compared inmate for the
with the costs for Washington facility
one Tennessee state ($44.52) were higher
prison and a than such costs for
Louisiana state the Tennessee and
prison. Louisiana facilities
($37.07 and $24.04,
Data analyzed for respectively).
Washington state
covered calendar year
1995; time frames for
Tennessee and
Louisiana data are
mentioned above.
Construction costs The estimated cost per
were studied. bed for the Washington
state facility
The estimated costs ($60,400) was
for Washington state approximately double
to construct a the estimated cost per
planned multicustody bed for the Florida
public prison for facility ($33,900).
males were compared
with a private
company's costs for
constructing a
similar facility in
Florida.
Data analyzed for
Washington state were
based on projected
July 1998 cost
figures; and data
analyzed for the
Florida facility were
based on projected
July 1998 cost
figures.
Quality of service Site visits showed
was studied. that all prisons were
"clean and appeared to
Three multicustody be orderly."
male facilities in Additional data
Tennessee (mentioned indicated that the
above), three prisons generally were
multicustody male similar regarding
facilities in quality of service.
Louisiana (mentioned However, the
above), and two Washington facilities
multicustody male had more counselors
facilities in per inmate than the
Washington were Tennessee and
compared. Louisiana facilities.
Data analyzed for
Tennessee covered
1994 (for review of
institutional
records) and 1995
(for on-site visits);
data analyzed for
Louisiana covered
1995; data analyzed
for Washington
covered 1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO summary of information reported in the cited studies.
TEXAS STUDY (1991)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
Conducted by the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, this study
involved a comparative assessment of operational costs; an empirical
assessment of quality of service was not conducted. The actual costs
of operating four privately managed prerelease minimum-security
facilities (500 beds each) for male prisoners were compared with the
estimated costs of operating similar but "hypothetical" public
facilities in the state of Texas. Two of the four prerelease
facilities were managed by Corrections Corporation of America, and
the other two were managed by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation.
The study considered direct and indirect costs to compute operational
costs for private and public sector management of the prerelease
facilities. Direct costs included items such as salaries and fringe
benefits, food, medical services, utilities, and supplies. Also, the
study recognized that another direct cost would be the expense of
having state corrections agency staff on-site to monitor the
contractor's performance. Indirect costs included salaries and
expenses for corrections department executive personnel, an annual
audit of facilities, and "other administration items" attributable to
the private or state facilities. Construction costs were excluded
because the state built the private facilities. Also, the study did
not include depreciation expenses and capital outlays, but debt
service for construction was included.
The study concluded that the state achieved savings from the
privatized facilities. Based on requirements specified in state
statute, the state estimated the costs of operating similar state-run
prerelease facilities. Specifically, because similar state-run
facilities did not exist, the state estimated the costs of operating
hypothetical state-run prerelease facilities. Contract provisions
stipulated that contractors would receive at least 10 percent less
than the estimated costs for the state to operate each facility.\1
Therefore, in a sense, 10-percent "savings" to the state was
guaranteed. Cost data for fiscal year 1990 were analyzed. The state
estimated that the privatized facilities achieved 14- to 15-percent
cost savings (taking into consideration tax revenues paid to state
and local authorities)\2 compared with hypothetically equivalent
state-run facilities. The average daily operational costs per inmate
for the private facilities were $36.76. Because of staffing and
construction differences between the contractors, separate costs were
estimated for the hypothetical state operation of a facility for each
contractor. The estimated average daily operational costs per inmate
for the hypothetical state-run facilities were $42.70 for one
contractor and $43.13 for the other. However, because the state did
not operate any prerelease facilities nor did any of its existing
facilities have prerelease components, the cost estimates for the
state-run facilities were not based on actual state experience. The
method assumed no unanticipated changes in components such as salary
and other expenses. Thus, an error in one or more assumption could
have resulted in different cost estimates, changing the size or even
the direction of estimated differences in private versus public
management costs.
An empirical assessment of the quality of service was not conducted
due to the absence of comparable state facilities. However, the
study noted that two of the four private facilities had received ACA
accreditation, and the other two were still involved in the
accreditation process. Additionally, the study noted that all four
facilities were in general compliance with 11 of the 16 mandates of
court rulings applicable to Texas prisons.
--------------------
\1 Texas state statutory provisions authorize the Texas Department of
Corrections to contract with private vendors and county commissioners
to finance, construct, operate, maintain, or manage secure
correctional facilities. The provisions establish guidelines by
which the state can enter into a contract for such services. Among
other things, the provisions specify that a contract proposal must
provide the state with a savings of at least 10 percent below the
costs of similar state-operated facilities.
\2 According to the Texas study, the private prisons have paid an
estimated $400,000 per prison in state and local sales taxes and
payments in lieu of property taxes. The study noted that because the
state owned the prisons, property taxes were not assessed. Rather,
the private contractor paid the local taxing authorities an annual
amount, which generally approximated the taxes that would have been
owed if the property were privately owned.
NEW MEXICO STUDY (1991)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
Funded by the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice,
Bureau of Prisons, and National Institute of Corrections, this study,
of the five we reviewed, made the most systematic effort to address
quality of service. However, a detailed cost analysis was not
included. The study compared three multicustody (minimum- to
maximum-security) women's facilities--a privately run facility and a
state-run facility in New Mexico and a federal facility in West
Virginia--across eight dimensions of quality.\3
Data analyzed for the private facility covered June 1989 through
November 1989, data for the state facility covered June 1988 through
November 1988, and data for the federal facility covered December
1987 through May 1988.
The study recognized, at least indirectly, that differences among the
facilities regarding age, architecture, and inmate programs made
comparisons somewhat difficult to interpret. For example, the
private facility was new, the state facility was 4 years old, and the
federal facility was about 60 years old. The respective inmate
populations were 170 (private), 143 (state), and 814 (federal). The
inmates at the New Mexico facilities were nearly similar with respect
to characteristics of age, race, and offense type. However, they
differed from the federal inmates in race and offense type. The
study indicated that one of the factors enhancing the comparability
of the two New Mexico institutions was that both were applying for
accreditation by the American Correctional Association (ACA).
However, ACA officials told us that ACA accreditation means that only
minimum standards are met, and since there can be wide variations
among facilities in exceeding minimum standards, accreditation should
not be used to assume that two or more facilities are comparable.
In assessing and comparing the quality of service at the three
facilities, the study derived multiple indicators for each of eight
quality dimensions. Data sources for all three facilities included
various institutional records,\4 such as incident and disciplinary
reports as well as work and education records. Also, staff surveys
were conducted at all three facilities, and inmate surveys were
conducted at the private and the state facilities. In total, the
study made 595 comparisons among the institutions using 333
indicators. All of the indicators were available for the private and
state prisons, while 131 indicators were available for the federal
prisons. Thus, the study made three-way comparisons for 131 of the
333 indicators and two-way comparisons (private/state) for 202 of the
indicators.
The study concluded, generally, that "the private prison
`outperformed' the state and federal prisons, often by quite
substantial margins, across nearly all dimensions." It noted,
however, that results varied by data source. For example, contrary
to other sources used in the study, inmate survey data showed that
the state facility "outperformed" the private facility in every
dimension except "activity" (e.g., work and training programs).
While the study did not include a detailed analysis of operational
costs, it suggested that the better performance of the private
facility was accomplished at lower cost. However, the study offered
little evidence to support this assertion. For instance, the full
report consisted of 291 pages, with only 2 pages devoted to costs.
Without providing any detailed analysis, the report noted that the
average daily operational costs per inmate for the private facility
were $69.75 in fiscal year 1989-1990, the average daily costs of
housing an inmate in federal facilities (nationwide) were $39.67 in
1988, the average daily costs for New Mexico state facilities
(statewide) were $68.00 in 1988, and the average daily costs for the
particular state facility studied were $80.00 in fiscal years
1988-1989. Although no detailed cost analysis was attempted, the
study appeared to base the perception of lower costs of private
facilities on the fact that "financial analysts in the New Mexico
Corrections Department believed that the [private] contract was
saving the state money."
--------------------
\3 The New Mexico study used a "confinement model" of imprisonment to
develop quality assessment criteria. The model defined eight
distinct dimensions or performance measures on which to evaluate the
quality of a correctional facility. According to the study, these
dimensions are based on the premise that confinement "carries with it
an obligation to meet the basic needs of prisoners at a reasonable
standard of decency," including standards to evaluate health care,
safety, sanitation, and nutrition, as well as constitutional
standards to ensure due process and fairness. Examples of those
dimensions are (1) security (e.g., facility design and security
procedures); (2) safety (e.g., personal injury and harm); (3) order
(e.g., discipline and control standards); (4) care (e.g., health care
and counseling); (5) activity (e.g., work and training programs); (6)
justice (e.g., discipline and grievance procedures); (7) conditions
(e.g., food services); and (8) management (e.g., staff turnover and
job satisfaction).
\4 The study noted that fewer official records were collected for the
federal prison.
CALIFORNIA STUDY (1994)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
Conducted by California State University, this study was neither
supportive nor critical of private facilities. To assess costs and
quality of service, the study compared three for-profit community
correctional facilities for males--one privately managed (medium-
security) and two publicly managed by local governments (one low- to
medium-security and one high-security).\5 Specifically, the study
compared the three facilities with one another and with other state
correctional facilities. Both operational and construction costs
were included in the comparison of the three facilities with one
another. The statewide comparison did not include construction costs
for the California Department of Corrections facilities. Also, the
study attempted to compare the quality of service of the three
facilities with two other California Department of Corrections
facilities.
The three community correctional facilities were generally
comparable. For instance, the inmates were nearly similar with
respect to characteristics of age, race, and offender status.
However, one of the public facilities had a greater percentage of
drug offenders\6 and Anglo- and African-American inmates and a
smaller percentage of Hispanics. The private facility housed 400
inmates, compared with about 420 and about 450 housed at the public
facilities. For the period studied, the number of admissions was
1,498 for the private facility versus 392 and 1,073, respectively,
for the two public facilities. The two public facilities were
relatively new (operational by mid-1991), while the study referred to
the private facility as "older."
Using fiscal year 1991-1992 data, construction and operational cost
comparisons of the private and the two public facilities revealed
some differences. For example, the study found that the private
facility's average annual costs per inmate ($15,578) were higher than
comparable costs for one of the government-run facilities ($13,195)
but were lower than such costs for the other government-run facility
($16,627). Construction and operational costs, including overhead
and capitalization costs, were calculated for the three facilities.
Costs were based on contracts negotiated with the facilities and
included capitalization, lease, renovation, program development, and
liability insurance. Costs that were not included in the
calculations were Parole Division overhead costs (for community
correctional facilities), state monitoring, medical costs allocated
to the California Department of Corrections, inmate clothing, inmate
pay, miscellaneous contracts, interest payments, and possible tax
breaks. Also, there were inexplicable inconsistencies in the cost
data obtained from two agencies within the California Department of
Corrections. These inconsistencies may have affected the reliability
of the cost estimates.
Attempts to compare the costs of the three community correctional
facilities and other state correctional facilities were not fully
successful. The cost calculations for the other state facilities
used different components than did the calculations for the community
correctional facilities. The latter costs included construction
costs; however, the data for the other state facilities did not.
Therefore, these cost calculations were not directly comparable.
Further, given the unique characteristics of community correctional
facilities, the usefulness of comparing these facilities to all other
correctional facilities in California--many of which are likely to be
very different from the community-based facilities--is questionable.
To assess quality of service, inmate and staff surveys were conducted
at the three community correctional facilities and at two state
prisons. However, due to small, nonrandom samples, the results could
not be generalized to the inmate or staff populations at any of the
facilities.
The California study also attempted to compare the three community
correctional facilities and the state's other correctional
institutions in reference to recidivism rates. The study reported
that, of the three community correctional facilities, one of the
publicly managed facilities was "most impressive" in performance
based on recidivism rates. Sufficient data were not available to
adequately complete the analysis comparing the inmates released from
the community correctional facilities to inmates released from other
correctional institutions in the state.
In summary, the California study's methodological limitations
prohibit drawing any overall conclusions about quality of service.
The study acknowledged that any future comparative studies in
California should "incorporate more inclusive and better-selected
survey samples."
--------------------
\5 Correctional facilities that are operated for-profit by a private
corporation under contract with the California Department of
Corrections are referred to as "private proprietary facilities."
Correctional facilities that are operated for-profit by local
government agencies under contract with the California Department of
Corrections are referred to as "public proprietary facilities."
\6 This public community correctional facility housed narcotics
offenders who were sentenced under a "civil addict program" and
subsequently violated parole.
TENNESSEE STUDY (1995)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4
The Tennessee state legislature conducted a two-part study. One part
was a cost assessment, and the other was an assessment of quality.
Overall, this effort was the most systematic attempt of all the
studies we reviewed to assess both the costs and quality of service.
Three multicustody (minimum- to maximum-security) prisons in
Tennessee were compared--one privately managed prison (Corrections
Corporation of America) and two state-run prisons.
The facilities were generally comparable. All three were new (e.g.,
operational by mid-1992), and all had been accredited by ACA also had
met other applicable professional standards. The inmates were
similar on all demographic characteristics mentioned, except race.
No information was provided on capacity level, but the institutions
housed approximately the same numbers of inmates--private (961) and
state (929 and 1,029).\7 The study did not report any information
regarding the inmate-to-staff ratios for the facilities.
Similar criteria were used to compare the operational costs of the
facilities. The cost components and relevant adjustments--for direct
and indirect costs--were agreed to by all parties (private and
public) prior to data collection. Direct costs included salaries and
fringe benefits, food, professional services, equipment, maintenance,
travel, utilities, and supplies. Also, there was a cost provision
for state employees to monitor the private prison. Costs for medical
and mental health services were excluded. Indirect costs included
salaries and expenses for corrections department administration and
overhead, and interest on working capital.
Using data that covered July 1993 through June 1994, the study
concluded that the costs of operating the private and both state
facilities were virtually identical. Specifically, the comparison
showed that the average daily operational costs per inmate for the
private prison were $35.39, versus $34.90 and $35.45, respectively,
for the two public prisons.
The quality of service assessment consisted of three components--an
audit (given a weight of 60 percent), a security and safety index (a
weight of 25 percent), and a program and activity index (a weight of
15 percent). The study period for the quality of service assessment
was March 1991 through September 1994.
An operational audit was conducted at each of the facilities by an
inspection team, consisting of selected staff from the Tennessee
Department of Corrections and the Corrections Corporation of America.
The staff had varying degrees of expertise in major functional areas,
such as administration, safety and physical plant, health services,
treatment, and security. The team used a structured survey
instrument to conduct a detailed review of records, observe
operations and practices, and conduct interviews. By using the
survey instrument, the team attempted to assess compliance with the
various programs and practices within each of the functional areas.
Examples of those programs and practices were administration (e.g.,
fiscal management and affirmative action); safety and physical plant
(e.g., fire and occupational safety and sanitation); health services
(e.g., dental care and pharmacy services); treatment (e.g., inmate
orientation and social programs); and security (e.g., firearms and
armory control).
The security and safety index considered many factors, including
disciplinary reports, use-of-force incidents, assaults, deaths,
injuries, and escapes. These reports were counted over a 15-month
period (from July 1993 through September 1994) for each facility.
The program and activity index measured the percentage of inmates who
were eligible for a work or program assignment but remained inactive
and unassigned. The data used in this review were derived from
monthly reports that measured actual numbers of prisoners assigned to
the particular program or activity and the percent unassigned.
The results of the quality of service assessment stated that "all
three facilities were operated at essentially the same level of
performance." No differences were found among the facilities on the
security and safety index or on the program and activity index. All
estimated variation across the facilities was due to differences in
audit scores. The overall performance scores were 98.49 for the
private facility and 97.17 and 98.34, respectively, for the two
public facilities.
--------------------
\7 These data reflect the second year of operation.
WASHINGTON STUDY (1996)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5
When the Washington State Legislative Budget Committee conducted this
study, the state had no privately run prisons but was considering the
feasibility of such. Therefore, using pertinent information
available in other states, this study made several intrastate and
interstate comparisons of correctional facilities. For example, the
study compared the operational costs of the three Tennessee
facilities (mentioned above) as well as three multicustody male
facilities in Louisiana. Of the three facilities in Louisiana, two
were privately operated (Corrections Corporation of America and
Wackenhut, respectively), and the other was state operated. All
three Louisiana facilities were in full operation by the beginning of
1991.
Each of the Tennessee prisons had a rated capacity for 1,336 inmates,
and each of the Louisiana prisons had a rated capacity for 1,474
inmates. The average daily inmate population at each of the
Tennessee prisons was slightly over 1,300, compared with a range of
over 1,300 to more than 1,400 at the Louisiana prisons. Also, within
each state, there was little difference among the prisons' inmates
with respect to demographics such as education, age, offense types,
and sentence lengths.
Several cost comparisons were made between the private and public
facilities. First, the operational costs of the one private and the
two public prisons in Tennessee (actual data for July 1993 through
June 1994) were compared, as were the operational costs of the two
private prisons and the one public prison in Louisiana (estimated
data for July 1995 through June 1996). The unadjusted operational
costs of the three Tennessee facilities were similar. However, after
adjustments to equalize the numbers of inmates, the private
facility's average daily operational costs per inmate ($33.61) were
slightly lower than the comparable costs for the two public
facilities ($35.82 and $35.28, respectively). For the Louisiana
facilities, the average daily operational costs per inmate for the
two private prisons were $23.75 and $23.34, respectively, versus
$23.55 for the public facility.
The Washington study also compared the operational costs of one
Washington state prison with the operational costs of one Tennessee
state prison and the operational costs of one Louisiana state prison.
The three facilities were similar on some characteristics; however,
adjustments were made to the costs and number of beds of the
Tennessee and Louisiana facilities to further equalize the
comparison. The study showed that the average daily operational
costs per inmate for the Washington facility ($44.52) were higher
than the costs for the Tennessee ($37.07) and the Louisiana ($24.04)
facilities.
The comparison of the Washington facility with the Tennessee and the
Louisiana facilities was problematic. While the facilities were
similar in capacity, there were differences in inmate demographics,
such as race and offense type. Other factors (e.g., cost-of-living
differences) served to complicate further the interstate comparisons.
In any event, these interstate cost comparisons involved state-run
facilities only and did not consider any private facilities.
Further, the Washington study looked at construction costs by
comparing the estimated costs for Washington state to construct a
planned multicustody public prison for males with a private company
that was constructing a similar facility in Florida.\8 In making the
interstate comparison, the study noted that it focused on the "major
elements contributing to capital costs," which included amounts and
types of facility space, actual construction costs, and ancillary
construction costs such as design and administration.\9
Although the Washington study noted that the facilities were
comparable in terms of size and inmate mix (e.g., "large
multicustody"), it made cost and space programming adjustments to the
facilities to further equalize the comparison. For instance, land
and site-related costs, taxes, and unique local costs were excluded
from the comparison. For the Florida facility, the study made upward
cost adjustments to account for differences between the two
facilities in labor and material costs, the later completion (about 2
years of construction inflation) of the Washington facility, and
state oversight of the construction. For the Washington facility,
the study made downward cost adjustments to account for differences
between the two facilities, such as budget reductions of 20 percent,
and space reductions of 18 percent to account for differences in
inmate security levels and other space allocations. In addition, the
study made downward cost and space adjustments to reflect the Florida
facility's lower mix of close custody beds.
The study indicated that there were other differences in the space
programming between the two facilities, for which no adjustments were
made. For example, the Washington facility assumed single cells for
"Close Housing and Administrative Segregation," while the Florida
facility assumed double cells for those beds. Also, the Washington
facility's minimum-security beds had relatively high per-bed space
allocations, reflecting the incorporation of service and program
space in the housing calculation. The space allocations for the
Florida facility, however, reflected medium-security beds with
centralized program and service space.
The study showed that the adjusted estimated per-bed cost for the
Washington state facility ($60,400 per bed) was approximately double
the estimated cost for the Florida facility ($33,900 per bed). The
cost difference was explained largely as due to different operating
and programming approaches or philosophies between the two states.
The Washington study concluded that privatization per se would not
result in cost savings to the state. Rather, the report noted that
savings could be accomplished through privatization or through
changes in the state's operational policies and practices. For
example, savings directly related to privatization would be due
primarily to a private company's flexibility to operate outside state
rules and procedures, collective bargaining agreements, and the
state's employee compensation system.
Finally, the Washington study comparatively assessed the quality of
service at the selected private and public prisons in Tennessee and
Louisiana and two multicustody male facilities in Washington. While
this portion of the study was not as detailed or as comprehensive as
the portion involving costs, the quality assessment included visiting
the prisons and reviewing institutional records for several topics,
such as escapes, major disturbances, and inmate infractions. The
study concluded that the private and public prisons studied within
the respective states (Tennessee and Louisiana) generally were
similar in quality of service. However, the study noted that
Washington's two state-run facilities had more counselors per inmate
than the facilities in the other states.
--------------------
\8 When completed, the Florida facility is to be operated by
Wackenhut.
\9 The private prisons in Tennessee and Louisiana could not be used
for capital costs comparisons because the prisons were state built
rather than privately built.
FACTORS THAT COULD AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMPARISONS OF PRISON
COSTS AND/OR QUALITY OF SERVICE
========================================================= Appendix III
Several factors could affect interstate comparisons of prison costs
and/or quality of service. In addition to cost-of-living and other
economic differences among the nation's geographic regions and
states, these factors include the (1) extent of prison overcrowding,
(2) history of court interventions, (3) status of ACA accreditation
of facilities, (4) rate of incarceration (as an indicator of the
punitiveness of the corrections system), and (5) rights of
correctional employees to organize and bargain collectively.
Regarding the studies that we reviewed, the sponsoring states--Texas,
New Mexico, California, Tennessee, and Washington--are located in the
southern or western regions of the United States, the areas where
most privatized facilities are located (see app. IV). Regional
differences, such as cost of living, may affect comparisons with
other states or regions. For example, the Washington state study
adjusted Tennessee's operational costs upward by 20 percent to
account for regional cost-of-living differences between the two
states.
By definition, prison overcrowding\1 occurs when the number of
inmates actually incarcerated exceeds the rated capacity\2 of the
correctional facility. As table III.1 shows, the extent of
overcrowding (if any) varied among the five states studied--at the
time of initial privatization of selected correctional facilities
within the respective state.\3 For example, on January 1, 1991,
California's prisons held 94,050 inmates, which was 41,352 inmates
(or 78.5 percent) above the total rated capacity (52,698). In
comparison, at that time, the average state correctional system was
operating at 12.6 percent above rated capacity.
Texas was not reporting overcrowding on January 1, 1989. However,
most states, including Texas and the other states studied, have been
involved, at some point, in litigation challenging various conditions
of confinement, such as overcrowding, in their prisons. The
following general descriptions are examples of prison litigation that
have occurred in the states studied:
-- In Texas, the Ruiz v. Estelle\4 line of decisions includes a
1980 ruling, which found that various conditions (such as
overcrowding and inadequate sanitation, recreational facilities,
and health care) within the Texas Department of Corrections
violated the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the court appointed
special masters and monitors to supervise the implementation of
and compliance with its decree.
-- In New Mexico, the Duran v. Apodaca\5 line of cases includes a
1980 consent decree that contained mandatory and prohibitive
injunctions relating to conditions and practices at the state's
penitentiary. Among other subjects, the consent decree
addressed living conditions, medical and mental health care, and
inmate discipline.
-- In California, various court decisions in the 1980s addressed
segregation procedures, double-celling, and other conditions of
confinement at several prisons located in northern areas of the
state.
-- In Tennessee, the 1982 Grubbs v. Bradley\6 decision found that
certain practices and conditions of confinement at the state's
adult penal institutions were unconstitutional.
-- In Louisiana, in the 1977 Williams v. Edwards\7 decision, the
court held that conditions at the state penitentiary at Angola
violated the U.S. Constitution and certain state laws.
Another factor that could be considered in making interstate
comparisons of correctional facilities is the extent of ACA
accreditation. Obtaining ACA accreditation signifies that a facility
has met minimum standards. ACA officials told us that, at the time
of the respective state's initial privatization efforts, Texas and
Louisiana had no ACA-accredited facilities; but New Mexico,
California, and Tennessee had "some" accredited facilities. For
these latter three states, the ACA officials were unable to
specifically quantify the number of accredited facilities that
existed when the respective state began its privatization efforts.
However, the officials were able to tell us that, as of 1989, the
state-run women's facility in New Mexico was not accredited by ACA.
The degree of punitiveness of a corrections system, as reflected, for
example, by the system's incarceration rate,\8 may affect operating
and programming approaches, and therefore, expectations of service.
States with higher incarceration rates tend to be found in the west
and south, although there is variation within regions. On December
31, 1988, Texas and New Mexico had incarceration rates of 240 and
180, respectively, while the national average rate for state
institutions was 227. On December 31, 1990, the incarceration rates
in California (311) and Louisiana (427) were higher than the national
average rate for state institutions (227); Tennessee's incarceration
rate, however, was lower (207). Furthermore, the Washington study
found differences in programming (e.g., education and work programs)
when comparing Washington with Tennessee and Louisiana.
Both opponents and proponents of privatization have suggested that
active correctional employees' unions can affect whether a state
decides to privatize corrections; for example, union agreements with
the state may be a disincentive to privatization. According to the
results of an April 1994 ACA survey of state adult correctional
departments, the public employees of such organizations in the five
states studied shown in table III.1 had the right to organize.
However, the percentage of such correctional employees represented by
unions in two of the states was 20 percent or below and one state did
not provide data; in three states, the correctional employees could
not bargain collectively; and in none of the states did the
correctional employees have the right to strike.
Table III.1
Factors That Could Affect Comparisons
With States Studied
New
Mexico Californ Tennesse Louisian
Factors Texas \a ia e a
------------------------ ------ ------ -------- -------- --------
Year of initial 1989 1989 1991 1991 1991
operation of private
facilities\b
Geographic region\c South West West South South
All state facilities\d
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated capacity 41,252 2,878 52,698 8,700 15,006
Inmate population 39,525 2,932 94,050 8,380 13,849
Under or (over) 1,727 (54) (41,352) 320 1,157
capacity
Status of ACA none some some some none
accreditation of accred accred accredit accredit accredit
state correctional ited ited ed ed ed
facilities\e
Incarceration rate\f 240 180 311 207 427
Unions\g
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right to organize yes yes yes\ yes yes
Right to bargain no yes yes no no
Right to strike no no no no no
Percent of correctional not 20 83 55 12
employees represented applic percen percent percent percent
able t
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The New Mexico data apply to all state facilities, while the New
Mexico study (see app. II) focused on women's correctional
facilities.
\b The year that inmates were first sent to privatized facilities in
the respective state.
\c The Bureau of Justice Statistics groups all 50 states and the
District of Columbia into four regions--northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH,
NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT), midwest (IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH,
SD, WI), south (AL, AR, DE, D.C., FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, OK, SC,
TN, TX, VA, WV), and west (AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR,
UT, WA, WY).
\d Texas and New Mexico data are for January 1, 1989. California,
Tennessee, and Louisiana data are for January 1, 1991.
\e ACA provided us information on the general accreditation status of
state facilities in each state studied at the time of privatization;
specific numbers were not available.
\f Incarceration rates for Texas and New Mexico are for December 31,
1988. Incarceration rates for California, Tennessee, and Louisiana
are for December 31, 1990.
\g Responses shown are from an ACA-sponsored survey of state adult
correctional departments (April 1994) and refer only to public,
state-level employees. Regarding the percentage of correctional
employees represented by unions in Texas, the term "not applicable"
was not defined. The data refer only to adult correctional
departments.
Source: Data on geographic region and incarceration rates are from
Kathleen Maguire and Ann L. Pastore, eds., Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics, 1993, Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1994. Data on overcrowding are from the Corrections
Yearbook, 1989 and 1991, Criminal Justice Institute, Inc., 1989 and
1991. Data on accreditation status and union rights and
representation are from ACA.
--------------------
\1 Overcrowding, in and of itself, is not a violation of the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment unless
specific effects flowing from that condition form the basis for a
violation. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 683 F.2d 1237, 1249 (9th Cir.
1982).
\2 The term "rated capacity" refers to the maximum number of beds or
inmates assigned by a rating official to institutions within the
jurisdiction.
\3 At the time of its study, the state of Washington had no
privatized prisons. Thus, for the purposes of table III.1, we
present data for Louisiana rather than for Washington. The
Washington study included a comparative evaluation of three
multicustody prisons (two private and one state-run) in Louisiana, as
discussed in appendix II.
\4 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980), aff'd in part and vacated
in part, 679 F.2d 1115, amended in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.
1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042 (1983).
\5 C.A. No. 77-721-C (D.N.M. July 14, 1980).
\6 552 F. Supp. 1052 (M.D. Tenn. 1982).
\7 547 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977).
\8 As defined earlier, the rate of incarceration is the number of
sentenced prisoners (per 100,000 resident population) in correctional
facilities.
USE OF PRIVATE CORRECTIONS IN
STATES
========================================================== Appendix IV
As table IV.1 shows, as of March 1996, a total of 47 private
correctional facilities (secure facilities for adults) were being
operated or being planned for operations by private companies in
various states. These 47 private correctional facilities are located
in 12 states. However, the most use (actual or planned) of
privatized correctional facilities is in 3 states--Texas, with 21
facilities; Florida, with 7 facilities; and California, with 5
facilities.
Table IV.1
Private Adult Secure Correctional
Facilities Operating or Planned, as of
March 1996
Number of Security
private classification Total rated
State facilities\a of facilities capacity\b
------------ ------------ ---------------- ------------
Arizona 2 minimum to 850
medium
Colorado 1 medium 752
California 5 minimum 1,446
Florida 7 minimum/medium 4,636
to medium
Kentucky 3 minimum 1,300
Louisiana 2 medium/maximum 2,948
Mississippi 2 medium 2,034
New Mexico 1\c all security 322
levels
Tennessee 1 medium 1,506
Texas 21 minimum to 15,702
maximum
Utah 1 minimum/medium 400
Virginia 1 medium 1,500
Total 47 33,396
----------------------------------------------------------
Note: According to the author of the data, the information presented
is subject to change and represents the number of actual or planned
facilities at a particular point in time only. We did not verify the
accuracy or completeness of the information.
\a The information presented includes only state-sponsored private
facilities that primarily house inmates from the sponsoring state's
correctional system.
\b The term "rated capacity" refers to the maximum number of beds or
inmates assigned by a rating official to institutions within the
jurisdiction.
\c This is an all-women's facility.
Source: Charles W. Thomas, Private Corrections Project, Center for
Studies in Criminology and Law, University of Florida, Private Adult
Correctional Facility Census, 9th ed. (Gainesville, FL: Mar.
1996).
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Douglas M. Sloane, Assistant Director, Design, Methodology, and
Technical Assistance Group
David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
Barbara A. Stolz, Evaluator-in-Charge
Brenda I. Rabinowitz, Evaluator
Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Geoffrey R. Hamilton, Senior Attorney
DALLAS FIELD OFFICE
Danny R. Burton, Assistant Director
Steve D. Boyles, Evaluator
Donna B. Svoboda, Evaluator
*** End of document. ***