skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 221507 Find in a Library
Title: Cost, Performance Studies Look at Prison Privatization
Journal: NIJ Journal  Issue:259  Dated:March 2008  Pages:32-36
Series: NIJ Journal
Author(s): Gerry Gaes Ph.D.
Date Published: March 2008
Page Count: 5
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 1999-IJ-CX-K018
Document: HTML|PDF
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article summarizes the findings and implications of the "Taft studies," which consisted of two cost and performance analyses of the same four prisons, one privately operated and three publicly operated.
Abstract: According to one analysis (the Abt analysis), the average cost of the three public facilities was 14.8 percent higher than the private correctional facility (Taft facility). The second study (Bureau of Prisons study), however, determined that the average cost of the public facilities in 2002 was only 2.2 percent higher than Taft. There were two primary reasons the two cost analyses were so different: the way inmate population sizes were handled and what was included in overhead costs. This article explains the procedural differences in the costing analyses of the two studies. Instead of favoring one procedure, this article uses the different study outcomes to remind policymakers and others interested in the prison privatization issue that making cost comparisons between privately run and publicly run correctional facilities is not a simple matter of arithmetic. Regarding performance measurements of the two studies, the article notes that because no method exists for measuring publicly and privately operated prisons on many performance dimensions, both of the performance studies had limitations. Until a uniform performance measurement is developed, any analysis will leave many questions unanswered regarding whether publicly or privately operated correctional facilities perform better. Based on lessons learned from these two studies, this article recommends that a uniform method comparing publicly and privately operated prisons on the basis of audits be developed. It also suggests that future analytical methods allow simultaneous cost and quality comparisons. Also, given the fact that the two studies reviewed are currently two of the best prison privatization analyses thus far, the full reports warrant detailed study by administrators, policy analysts, and researchers. 7 notes
Main Term(s): Correctional facilities
Index Term(s): Comparative analysis; Corrections costs; NIJ grant-related documents; Performance Measures; Privatization in corrections
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.