AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Government Spending: You'd think a state that's $20 billion in the hole would keep all its options open for cutting costs, especially where the costs are most out of control. Think again.
In California, three of nine private prisons were scheduled to close at year-end, and the future of the remaining six is murky. All are minimum security. The for-profit institutions were added to the system at a time when overcrowding was a problem. Now, correctional officers say, there are fewer low-security inmates, so there's less need for the facilities that house them.
But this makes private prisons sound like some ad hoc solution to a temporary problem -- much like the portable classrooms thrown up to accommodate schoolchildren in districts where enrollments have exceeded estimates.
It doesn't take into account efficiencies achieved by contracting with the private sector for services even as untraditional as housing felons. The last figures we saw -- from the National Center for Policy Analysis -- indicated a 5% to 15% savings in private management of prison units. (The savings in construction costs was put at 20%.)
Many arguments can no doubt be made for and against private prisons. It isn't our purpose to get into them here. What we're concerned about is California's spending problem, which -- despite a popular new governor with many big ideas -- has not gone away.
The prisons are a big part of the problem. They spend $5 billion a year, and last we heard they were running $545 million over budget. For a little perspective, that's believed to be largest deficit ever incurred by a ...