Pubdate: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 Source: Florida Times-Union (FL) Copyright: 2011 The Florida Times-Union Contact: http://www.jacksonville.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/155 Section: Guest Column Author: Michael Hallett WHERE ARE BIDS FOR PRIVATE PRISONS? If you're drinking the Kool-Aid in Tallahassee, the current effort to privatize Florida prisons involves an amazing moment of convergence: a tea party governor working with a conservative Legislature to lower incarceration while reducing costs and helping former prisoners. Corrections Secretary Ed Buss, speaking at a Florida TaxWatch event, spoke convincingly about "redefining corrections" and reducing the "corrections industrial complex." Meanwhile, the actual bid document, created amid secrecy and almost zero public or legislative input, sets performance standards at a disappointing level "comparable to existing Department of Corrections facilities" and fudges issues of recidivism and hidden costs. It turns out firing 4,000 corrections officers will cost the state $25 million in "unanticipated" annual leave costs. But the proposal is even sneakier than that. Instead of demanding performance criteria, Buss has announced that it would be "preferable" to award the whole contract to a single bidder. Questionable Process In what will be the largest correctional privatization contract in U.S. history, a more deliberative process would be prudent. Assuming you accept the logic of market forces controlling costs, then why would you bias the process in favor of a monopolized industry? Why not get the bids first and then decide? Using only one provider gives only one corporation much control over a significant portion of the state budget (several hundred million dollars). Moreover, many of the details of this proposal could well remain unavailable for public view as part of a "proprietary" bidding process. Are Floridians really going to fall for that? By using a "blended per diem" rate in the contract, some facilities by definition will be loss leaders for the provider, particularly because this project involves satellite facilities, too. This gives monopoly corporations a competitive advantage over the state. For such a large contract, separating the awards could offer lower costs to the state across-the-board per facility. You cannot conduct a true cost-benefit analysis without entertaining multiple providers. The state is also using a watered-down measure of recidivism in this contract, counting only new instances of incarceration 24 months after release as a new crime. Given that it can easily take 18 months to fully adjudicate and incarcerate a newly released offender who commits a new crime right away, this recidivism measure is a sham. Re-arrest rates, rather than re-incarceration rates, are the usual definition of recidivism and should have been used. But the Florida Department of Corrections has been using a watered-down recidivism measure for its own facilities for years, so nothing has changed. Poor Record But what bothers me most about the current proposal is not Florida's dismal track record in prison privatization. What works best for prisoners is helping them in the community after release. But this request for proposal takes a hands-off attitude about prisoner re-entry services. It off-loads responsibility for transitional services for inmates to subcontractors, while defining most "re-entry" services as 'behind the walls" activities that detract from profits. This compromises the significant progress Florida had been making on programs that work with offenders in their communities. Even though these programs are more cost-effective and have better results for prisoners, prior to this request for proposals, these funds were sent to local communities rather than given over to private corporations. Michael Hallett is professor and chairman of the Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice at the University of North Florida. He is author of the book "Private Prisons in America." - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart