TY - JOUR
T1 - Helpful or Harmful? Theorizing Privatized Corrections
T2 - Findings from a Qualitative Study
AU - Montes, Andrea N.
AU - Morgan, Skyler J.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank the individuals who participated in interviews for this study. We also thank Drs. Daniel P. Mears, William D. Bales, Sonja E. Siennick, Eric A. Stewart, and Melissa Radey for their comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Not least, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments in revising this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Midwestern Criminal Justice Association.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - The theoretical logic underlying correctional privatization is that private organizations provide comparable or better services more cost-efficiently than governments. This logic and its mechanisms have come primarily from scholarly accounts. This study advances scholarship and policy on privatized corrections by analyzing interviews of people who have observed privatization in practice. The findings suggest that mechanisms that enhance privatization’s effectiveness and efficiency include: bureaucracy that promotes flexibility, budget flexibility that promotes efficiencies, competition that promotes improved corrections, missions that prioritize effectiveness, and high-quality monitoring. Mechanisms contributing to privatization’s ineffectiveness and inefficiencies are bureaucracy that inhibits flexibility, budget flexibility that promotes inefficiencies, lack of competition, goals that do not prioritize effectiveness, and insufficient monitoring. These findings reveal the importance of accounting for the conditions under which corrections, public and private, are implemented.
AB - The theoretical logic underlying correctional privatization is that private organizations provide comparable or better services more cost-efficiently than governments. This logic and its mechanisms have come primarily from scholarly accounts. This study advances scholarship and policy on privatized corrections by analyzing interviews of people who have observed privatization in practice. The findings suggest that mechanisms that enhance privatization’s effectiveness and efficiency include: bureaucracy that promotes flexibility, budget flexibility that promotes efficiencies, competition that promotes improved corrections, missions that prioritize effectiveness, and high-quality monitoring. Mechanisms contributing to privatization’s ineffectiveness and inefficiencies are bureaucracy that inhibits flexibility, budget flexibility that promotes inefficiencies, lack of competition, goals that do not prioritize effectiveness, and insufficient monitoring. These findings reveal the importance of accounting for the conditions under which corrections, public and private, are implemented.
KW - Privatization
KW - corrections
KW - privatized corrections
KW - public policy
KW - qualitative
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85096391368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85096391368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/0735648X.2020.1820368
DO - 10.1080/0735648X.2020.1820368
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85096391368
SN - 0735-648X
VL - 44
SP - 458
EP - 479
JO - Journal of Crime and Justice
JF - Journal of Crime and Justice
IS - 4
ER -