Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee
Members Present:
Sen. Michael G. Waddoups, Chair Sen. Pete Suazo
Rep. Perry L. Buckner Rep. Gary F. Cox
Rep. Neal B. Hendrickson
Rep. David L. Hogue
Rep. Susan J. Koehn
Rep. Carl R. Saunders
Members Absent:
Sen. LeRay McAllister
Rep. Robert H.M. Killpack
Rep. David L. Gladwell
Rep. John E. Swallow
Staff Present:
Ms. Chyleen A. Arbon, Research Analyst
Ms. Susan Creager Allred, Associate General Counsel
Ms. Wendy Bangerter, Legislative Secretary
Note: A list of others present and a copy of materials distributed in the meeting are on file in the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.
1. Committee Business - Chair Waddoups called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
MOTION: Rep. Hogue moved to approve the minutes of the June 17, 1998 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Prison Privatization
Ms. Chyleen Arbon, Research Analyst, Office of Legislative Research & General Counsel, explained that privatizing governmental functions has become a growing trend that has affected the criminal justice system in areas of treatment, services, facility design and construction, prison industries, and overall management. She explained that in the 1998 General Session, the Legislature voted to begin funding a private prison. She said there are 142 privatized facilities in 30 states plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, and enabling legislation to contract for private facilities exists in 35 states. She informed the committee that private prisons constitute a $600 million industry, which is growing about 30 percent annually. The two largest companies, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), control almost 75 percent of the total private facility capacity. Both companies are publically traded on the New York stock exchange.
In the early studies conducted on private prisons, there have been weaknesses in the methods of measuring differences, which resulted in mixed conclusions. There is, however, a trend indicating that private facilities can be less expensive to operate without compromising the conditions of confinement or the safety of correctional officers. The question which has not been answered is whether recidivism and rehabilitative outcomes are different for private and public facilities. She mentioned that the Legislature may want to consider creating a method for measurement of the private facility, and that model legislation exists that could help in building in safeguards in the contracting process.
Representative Gerry Adair shared observations based on his visits to privatized facilities. He indicated the state needs to consider:
Using moderation in privatization, as well as continuing to improve the existing system;
Being prepared to step in and take over if privatization fails;
Sending prisoners that come from out of state back to their own state to be released; and
Offering inmates the opportunity to develop a skill.
Mr. Pete Haun, Director, Department of Corrections , stated that he feels secure in recommending privatization to the Legislature, but that the process should be approached cautiously and prudently. He explained that the oversight committee has gathered valuable information from other states, and that national operational and constructional standards will be adopted for the private facility. However, the department does not know at this point what it is going to cost to operate the private facility per inmate per day. He added that one of the long-term cost savings is in hiring fewer state employees. However, if the state has to provide facilities for the more difficult inmates and those with more serious medical problems, the state's costs may increase. A well-trained monitor on site at the private facility is necessary to ensure compliance.
Mr. Haun expressed concern that the private company would build larger facilities than necessary and would end up bringing inmates in from other states to fill those beds. Those inmates could then be released here in Utah at the end of their incarceration period. He noted that whether the inmate is from Utah or somewhere else, the liability to the state is the same. He stated the department's intent is to keep most of the difficult inmates in state facilities where they have the means to handle them. He intends to keep 75 percent of the inmate population in state owned and operated facilities. He spoke in favor of the element of competition that privatization offers.
Mr. Dave Walsh, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, said there were several issues that would need to be considered, which included grievance procedures and emergency contingency plans and intervention. He stated that private organizations may or may not be able to provide the same service at a lower cost, but they may be able to satisfy unique demands. A correction system that employs both sectors could be an effective solution.
Mr. Walsh distributed a copy of Governor Leavitt's position on privatization of correctional operations and facilities. The governor believes that privatization is appropriate and should be considered, but that it is important for the state to maintain oversight and ensure compliance.
Mr. William R. Jensen, Utah Citizens Education Project, spoke against privatization, stating it is morally and ethically unsound. He distributed a formal report on the issues his group has studied. He believes the increase in the number of prison inmates over the past few years reflects a systemic social problem that cannot be corrected by selling prisoners to private companies. Privatization denies due process and undermines inmate rights. He stated there is little or no savings when hidden costs are considered, and there is no accountability to the citizens. He noted accounts of brutal treatment in private facilities for both the inmates and the officers, which makes the state vulnerable to litigation.
Mr. Ross Anderson, Citizens for Penal Reform, stated that the need for privatization reveals fundamental issues that have been ignored in the state for a long time. The waste and inefficiencies in our correction system are attributable to disastrous public policy, which will be locked in if the state turns to profit-motivated private corporations rather than reforming the current system. He noted the continual increase in the Department of Correction's budget because of the approach the state has taken regarding corrections. Several task forces have tried to convey to the Legislature the need for a fundamental shift in what is being done in the criminal justice system. Needed changes include making sure people are sanctioned for their conduct from the beginning and considering other alternatives to incarceration. There can be community programs for non-violent offenders, which allow offenders to work and thus pay a portion of their own expenses, as well as support their families. He spoke in favor of the Project Horizon, a recidivism reduction program modeled after the Canadian system.
Mr. Anderson distributed and referred to the recommendations for legislative action found in the minutes of the Restorative Justice Committee meeting held December 15, 1994, which included lifting the burden from taxpayers for the costly incarceration of non-violent offenders, requiring restitution and reparation for victims, and giving inmates the tools necessary to lead law-abiding lives. He stated that prisons should be utilized only where incapacitation is required for the protection of society, or as a last resort when offenders do not comply with the requirements of other alternatives.
Ms. Carol Gnade, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Utah (ACLU), reviewed some of the past abuses that had been brought to her attention in corrections, but that were not acknowledged by the administration or the Legislature, and which resulted in litigation. She noted that there is now more open communication with corrections, and inmate complaints have dropped 66 percent from last year. She expressed concern that the channels of communication already established between the ACLU and the Department of Corrections will be negatively affected by privatization efforts. She questioned whether information would be made public under a privatized system. She suggested that the contracts have incentive programs built in to reduce recidivism, improve treatment, and measure the success of rehabilitation efforts.
Mr. Marvin Wiebe, Senior V.P., Cornell Corrections, stated he has participated in prison privatization to try to reform corrections and make a difference in the lives of offenders. He feels private facilities can operate at a lower cost than public facilities. He explained that his company addresses the needs of newly incarcerated inmates and those being released, and considers alternative programming for non-violent offenders. The private company's objective is to be a good partner with government. The company is accountable to its board of directors, those who issue bonds, investment bankers, state monitors, and government reports and reviews. Training levels meet both the state and American Correctional Association (ACA) standards. He expressed appreciation for the competitiveness of privatization, because it increases both the company's and the government's willingness to improve the system.
Mr. Bernie Diamond, Senior V.P., Management & Training Corporation (MTC), explained that MTC is the third largest operator of privatized correctional facilities in the United States and the number one contractor for Job Corps centers in the nation. He stated that the company looks for contracts where education and rehabilitation are involved. He emphasized that the company saves the state money as it operates in partnership with the state. He stated that inmates are treated well, and that they have the opportunity to learn life skills and anger prevention and management. MTC also has a large computer training center where inmates have access to private businesses for on-site training. He reviewed the salaries and benefits of his employees.
Mr. Kevin Ashburn, Director of Business Development, Corrections Corporation of America, informed the committee that they are the largest provider of correctional services in the nation, with contracts for approximately 62,000 inmates. He reviewed his company's history and track record. He emphasized that it strictly follows the guidelines established by the contracting entity, whether it be state or federal. He noted that CCA is monitored closely to make sure it is in compliance with the highest standards set nationally.
Mr. Murphy McLean, V.P. of Business Development, Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, noted that privatization is very much in demand to help communities solve problems. He distributed and referred to materials in a binder that included studies from several states regarding prison privatization. He explained that his company was the first to receive a federal government contract. Programs for rehabilitation are the main focus, and all regulations and restrictions are monitored by the state. Some of the inmates' earnings from programs are used to pay restitution to the victims and their families, and inmates often leave with earned funds to start a new life.
Mr. Tom Bielen, Associate Director, Utah Public Employees Association (UPEA), stated his office has a good working relationship with the Department of Corrections. One major concern he has is that the state will relinquish prison management to private prisons, but retain the financial liability. Because escapees will have to be brought back by other law enforcement agencies, the state assumes both the risk and the expense. He believes that privatization does not reduce Utah prison management pressures, and that there is a question of constitutional protection of prisoners' rights since private
facilities may not be subject to a state's constitution. He claimed savings are masked by a shift in
financing from one area to another. Because it is sometimes difficult for the Department of Corrections
to retain quality employees, he stated that the Legislature needs to address pay equity issues.
Mr. Joshua Miller, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), distributed his written testimony and stated that his company represents approximately
100,000 correctional officers. He explained that because Dr. Charles Thomas of the University of Florida
profits from the proliferation of prison privatization, any information in this subject area coming from
the university could be questionable. He feels there are mixed results regarding any cost savings because
of the inadequate means of measuring. He stated that companies have ways of shifting some costs back
to the state. Other problems he addressed included:
Inmates realize that correctional officers in private facilities do not have immunity, so there is
an increase in frivolous law suits;
There is the possibility of writing a bad contract;
Local economy can erode;
Private facilities operate on less because they pay lower salaries, and therefore the turnover rate
is higher; and
Because crime is decreasing, the state should not be in the business of guaranteeing that a given
number of beds will be filled.
Mr. Miller explained how the resale of private facilities to real estate investment companies
reduces the state's control and the accountability of the private owner. He reviewed some of the
problems the state faced in an Ohio private facility. Because it takes a large capital investment to build
and operate a prison facility, there is very little competition; it is a matter of turning the facility over
from the public sector to a private monopoly. He stated that taking someone's liberty is very invasive
and is an inherent governmental function. Private companies are more interested in doing well than
doing good. Private companies' responsibility is to their profit margin, not to local citizens. He
distributed a five-minute video tape containing a message from the Mayor of Youngstown, Ohio, as well
as a brief report.
Mr. Bruce Blackham, former mayor of Gunnison City, stated that building the prison in Gunnison was a difficult thing, because there were a lot of unanswered questions. He reviewed some
of the experiences encountered and lessons learned from having a prison in a small town:
Prison employees have been assets to the community; they are well-trained and professional.
Entry level wages were low so correctional officers had a hard time finding affordable housing.
It was beneficial to have a zoning document in place.
Information about water and other infrastructure needs was not available at first.
The county found it was responsible for defending and prosecuting offenses relating to the
prison, which dramatically increased court costs.
Employees' families can make an impact on the schools and their enrollment.
The community wanted to have input into work release programs.
The prison does not pay property taxes, but a community can find a way to get around that.
The community needs to be involved with creating a private contract.
Communication and collaboration between the prison and the community is essential.
He stated that there is a great opportunity for volunteers, and the prison has been beneficial to
the community overall.
Mr. Allen Boyack, St. George Attorney, noted that the MTC has proposed to build a new facility in Fillmore. He expressed concern that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. The city council of
Fillmore wrote a non-binding referendum for the people to decide. A door-to-door survey indicated the
citizens do not want a privately run prison in Fillmore. He expressed concern that Fillmore would be
adversely impacted, especially if bonding is involved.
Ms. Stephanie Barton, citizen of Fillmore, spoke in opposition to a prison being located in Fillmore. She said the MTC has proposed creating a Building Authority so they can obtain tax exempt
financing to build the facility. MTC also would not be contributing to the school taxes for the
community, even though the schools would be impacted. The citizens of Fillmore believe in economic
development, but that it must come gradually as the city is ready for it. She distributed and reviewed
information indicating the important issues that need to be considered.
Mr. Dirk Beckstrand, citizen of Fillmore, addressed the issue of prisoner shortage. There is nothing requiring the prison to be at full capacity. He expressed concern that lower occupancy rates
might result in keeping a prisoner longer than necessary. The MTC has stated it is a legitimate business
and the city cannot prevent its building a facility in Fillmore. He encouraged the Legislature to allow
the citizens to be the determining factor in whether or not a prison is established in their community.
3. Other Items / Adjourn
MOTION: At 12:01 p.m., Sen. Suazo moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously with Reps. Hendrickson and Koehn absent for the vote.
[Back to the Interim Directory][Back to the Monthly Schedule][Back to the Committee Listing] Utah State Legislature