Otherwise, any comparative analysis of operational costs or quality of service could be skewed. Comparisons of Operational Costs Indicated Little Difference And/or Mixed Results

Four of the five studies (Texas, California, Tennessee, and Washington) assessed operational costs of private and public correctional facilities. The New Mexico study reported equivocal findings, and the Tennessee study reported no difference in quality between the compared private and public institutions. The Texas study did not empirically assess the quality of service at the private correctional facilities. Generalizability of the Studies’ Results

The few studies that have compared the operational costs and/or the quality of service of private and public prisons provide little information that is widely applicable to various correctional settings. Thus, it is important that any study focus on both operational costs and quality of service. The best approach for evaluating operational costs is to study existing comparable facilities, not hypothetical facilities. In this regard, it is important to use multiple indicators or data sources to provide cross-checks. Description of Studies Comparing Private and Public Prisons

We identified five studies completed since 1991 that compare private and public correctional facilities in relation to operational costs and/or quality of service.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed several studies that compared privatized and public correctional facilities in terms of operational costs and quality of service.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) five studies comparing operational costs or quality of service at private and public correctional facilities in California, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, and New Mexico had been completed since 1991; (2) it could not draw any conclusions about cost savings or quality of service, since the four studies that assessed operational costs indicated little difference or mixed results, and the two studies that addressed quality of life reported either equivocal findings or no differences between private and public facilities; and (3) the studies provide little information that is applicable to various correctional settings, since states may differ widely in terms of correctional philosophy, economic factors, and inmate population characteristics. GAO believes that future comparative studies of public and private correctional facilities should: (1) focus on both operational costs and quality of service; (2) evaluate operational costs at existing comparable, not hypothetical, facilities; (3) employ multiple indicators or data sources to objectively measure quality of service issues; and (4) be based upon data collected over several years.