The 1856 California legislation did not require consultation on the bidding process or proposed contracts regarding prison privatization, but the Tennessee act establishes a consultation process for the evaluation and selection of private prison contract bids. Whereas the California legislation did not provide adequate funding for State oversight of inmates, the Tennessee law includes the cost of State supervision in the budget of any private prison. California's 19th-century experience indicates that contracts which do not allow for annual cost adjustments to accommodate the legitimate needs of both parties do not foster cooperative behavior. Current Tennessee law encourages annual cost adjustments in the contract itself. Much of the 19th-century prison privatization legislation did not provide for the State's power to nullify the contract. Current Tennessee legislation has an escape clause in the legislation. Under California's 19th-century private prison contract, the lessee's control over the location of inmate labor often compromised security. The Tennessee act prohibits the employment of convict labor outside the prison. 85 footnotes.