Both private prisons were evaluated in terms of their costs and benefits, the goal being to determine whether the contracts should be continued. The evaluation showed the private prisons differed from most public prisons in Florida, in part because the Florida Legislature intended private prisons to provide more programs than are typically offered in public prisons. In addition, the private prisons were smaller than most public prisons and housed inmates who were less likely to escape and less likely to have medical and psychological restrictions than inmates in public prisons. Although vendor performance during the 1996-1997 fiscal year was satisfactory, the private prisons did not provide the level of overall cost savings initially projected by the CPC. The Bay Correctional Facility was more costly to construct than the most comparable public prison and did not provide operating cost savings. Costs of constructing Moore Haven Correctional Facility were within the range of public prison construction costs and provided a savings of about $480,000. Private prison site acquisition and preparation costs were lower than public prison costs of site preparation on donated land, Public prison building costs, however, were lower than those of private vendors, partially due to government use of inmate labor. Three major factors reduced the level of operating cost savings achieved by the private prisons: (1) the addition of indirect State costs to contracted costs; (2) the Florida Legislature's use of canteen profits and telephone commissions to pay for some of the costs of operating public prisons; and (3) an unfavorably structured contract between one of the vendors and the CPC. The evaluation recommended the private contracts be renewed but with certain cost saving modifications. Supplemental cost comparison data on private and public prisons are appended. Tables