Those who have adopted extreme positions, whether pro or con, in the privatization debate cannot find hard evidence for their positions. What the evidence does show is that correctional privatization has achieved a degree of maturity and recognition that is beyond what even its most ardent advocates would have imagined only a decade ago. Albeit not without some blemishes, failures, and problems, private management firms have shown that there are a broad array of settings within which they can deliver professional correctional services at a competitive price. One of the lessons learned thus far is that the most successful privatization experiments are those that involved agencies that responded to policy choices made by elected officials in a positive and professional manner. Public agencies that have adopted an adversarial position toward corrections privatization cannot claim that they have served the public interest. Another lesson is that privatization initiatives structured in a suitably sophisticated way can create a viable means by which the cost effectiveness of a correctional system can be enhanced. Both sound theory and practice suggest that privatization be put forward as nothing more than a potentially useful alternative. Prudent decisions to privatize or to refrain from selecting the private alternative are to be made only on the basis of fair competition between alternative providers. 1 table and 1 figure