Skip navigation
CLN bookstore

The Prison Industry, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2010

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Research Brief

The Prison Industry


Randall G. Shelden, M.A, Ph.D
Senior Research Fellow, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Funding was provided by a grant from the Fund for Nonviolence. Conclusions and opinions do not
necessarily reflect the views of the report’s sponsors.

The Prison Industry
“Pennsylvania rocked by “jailing kids for cash” scandal.”
Two judges in Pennsylvania pled guilty of taken about $2.6 million in payments from the operators of a
private juvenile detention center in return for sending offenders to the facility, mostly on minor charges
(Chen, 2009).

“We remain bullish” on private prisons
Jeffrey T. Kessler, a Lehman Bros. equity researcher (Lifsher, 2007).

“In my mind there's no more recession-proof form of economic development. Nothing’s
going to stop crime.”
City manager of Sayre, Oklahoma, which had just opened a prized new maximum- security prison
(Kilborn, 2001).

“There are no seasonal fluctuations, it is a non-polluting industry, and in many
circumstances it is virtually invisible.”
A California Department of Corrections official explaining some of the benefits of putting a prison in a
rural area (Huling, 2002, p. 200).

“If crime doesn’t pay, punishment certainly does…” (Duke, 2000, p. A01).
Incarceration: The United States versus the World
At the close of 2009, the U.S. prison population was 1,610,446—a rate of 504 inmates in custody
per 100,000 U.S. residents. If we include jails, the number of people incarcerated totals more
than 2.3 million, and the incarceration rate climbs to 754 (Sabol et al., 2010). As noted in the
New York Times:
The United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a
relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and
punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes—from writing bad checks to
using drugs—that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And
in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations
(Liptak, 2008).
The United States incarcerates almost 25% of the world’s prisoners yet has only 5% of the
world’s population. The overall world prison population rate is 145 per 100,000; 59% of the
countries in the world have rates below 150 prisoners per 100,000 population (King’s College
London, 2009). The next highest rates are the Russian Federation (626) and Rwanda (593).
Canada’s incarceration rate is less than one-sixth the U.S. rate despite relatively similar
economic and political systems. As Nils Christie (2000) points out, there is one important
difference: Canada has more of a “social safety-net” (p. 31) (various welfare benefits) than does
the United States. The crime rate in Canada has risen and fallen in the last forty years similar to
the crime rate in the United States, but its imprisonment rate has remained stable (Liptak, 2008).
Historically the imprisonment rate changed very little between the early 20th century and the late
1970s. As noted in the overview, from the 1920s to the mid-1970s the number of prisoners


fluctuated between around 100,000 and 300,000 while the rate remained rather steady at around
100. Since then the numbers and the rate boomed upward, driven largely by the “war on drugs”
and extremely harsh sentencing laws (e.g., Three Strikes, Mandatory Sentencing). As the first
decade of the 21st century comes to a close, the United States faces a growing crisis in
imprisonment that threatens to cause unprecedented fiscal problems for virtually every state and
large city in the country. The increases have also created what many have called a “prison
industrial complex” that is as problematic as the “military industrial complex” (Shelden, 2010,
chapter 2).
The Prison Industrial Complex
The data provided above, along with the quotes at the start of this paper, indicate that
incarceration is a huge industry in the United States. About $69 billion is being spent each year
on the correctional system (more about this below). What many have called the prison industrial
complex represents an interconnection among the prison system, the political system and the
economic system - just like the military represents a connection with the political and economic
system, what has been called the “iron triangle,” originally mentioned by President Eisenhower
when he brought attention to the Military Industrial Complex in 1960.
This is similar to what Lilly and Knepper (1993) called the “correctional-commercial complex,”
which they describe as a sort of “sub-governmental policy-making” (p. 152) system consisting of
an alliance between government and private enterprise. Lilly and Knepper noted that this system
is quite similar to the “military industrial complex,” since it consists of patterns of
interrelationships known variously as “policy networks,” “subgovernment” or the “iron triangle.”
They argued that such a system may not be legally a form of government, but nevertheless may
exert greater influence than more formal structures of the government. In comparing this system
to the military equivalent they note that within the military subgovernment there is an “iron
triangle” of the Pentagon, private defense contractors, and various members of Congressional
committees (e.g., armed services committees, defense appropriations committees). They noted
further that the decision-making within any given policy arena “rests within a closed circle or
elite of government bureaucrats, agency heads, interest groups, and private interests that gain
from the allocation of public resources” (Lilly and Knepper, 1993, p. 152). Politics and
economics go hand in hand, which is how politicians get elected. Think also of the large number
of lobbyists in the nation’s capital (Parenti, 2007; Frank, 2008). Also, consider for a moment
about the costs involved in the construction of prisons, jails, courthouses, police departments and
furnishing them with everything they need to keep going (construction costs, electrical, furniture,
toilet paper, etc.), all of which involve many different private enterprises (Christie, 2000;
Shelden and Brown, 2000; Herivel and Wright, 2007).


A perfect example was the influence of Tom Beasley (head of the Republican Party of
Tennessee) in 1983, Doctor Crants (with ties to Sodexho-Marriott) and Don Hutto, who was at
the time the president of the American Correctional Association (ACA). In 1983 all of the
individuals unified to help Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) enter the market by
attempting to take over the entire prison system of Tennessee (Selman and Leighton, 2010, p. 5556). More about CCA in a later section of this paper.
A deeper understanding of this requires some discussion of the “free market” and the drive for
profits within a capitalist economic system. It is to this subject that we now turn.
Prisons as a “Market” for Profits
As Robert Heilbroner (1985) notes, within a capitalist society there tends to be an insatiable
desire to continue “converting money into commodities and commodities into money” (p. 60).
Everything, it seems, is turned into a “commodity” - from the simplest products (e.g., paper and
pencil) to human beings (e.g., women's bodies, slaves). Indeed, within a capitalist society “daily
life is scanned for possibilities that can be brought within the circuit of accumulation,” since any
aspect of society that can produce a profit will be exploited. Life itself has been “commodified”
(Heilbroner, 1985, p. 60).
Part of this drive for profits stems from the ideology of the “free market,” a system of beliefs that
under girds the entire capitalist economic system. According to this ideology every individual
pursues his or her own personal interests and the result is a collective good for the entire society.
It is Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” at work. Corporations are “free” to do whatever they want.
The failure of this philosophy became evident in late 2008 and continues to the present date. The
current recession illustrates this perfectly. These “free markets” faltered miserably and taxpayers
were called upon to “rescue” them. This is nothing less than socialism for the rich and free
enterprise for everyone else. A good assessment of the present economic crisis is found in Paul
Krugman’s book The Return of Depression Economics (2009) and several of his columns in the
New York Times (such as Krugman, 2010).
A key part of the development of private prisons is the - the belief that the free market can do it
better than the government. Although distrust of government dates back to the early years of the
country, it became more common during the Reagan Administration. As the authors noted in
chapter 2, Ronald Reagan summed it up nicely when he said in 1981 that “Government is not the
solution to our problems. Government is the problem.” What he and others with similar views
keep forgetting to mention is that government is a problem “unless it can benefit big business,”
which in fact it has done with much regularity for more than 100 years. Anti-government
feelings have reached a boiling point during the past year or so, as exemplified with the so-called
“Tea Party” movement. Incidentally, some fact checking on the size of the government under
different administrations and lo and behold it has consistently increased more under Republican
administrations than under Democratic administrations. Specifically, during a 40 year period
(1962-2001) the total of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000 during Republican
administrations, while during Democratic administrations there was an increase of just 59,000.
In other words, of the 369,000 employees added, 84% were added under Republican
administrations. The size of the government got even bigger under Bush, going from 18.4


percent of GDP in 2000 to 20.3 percent of GDP in 2006 (Ward, 2008). While Clinton increased
the federal budget by 11%, under Bush it went up by 104 percent (De Rugy, 2009). Also, the
national debt went up by 72% under Bush (Knoller, 2010). This is the irony of free market
worshipers: they actually want the government to help them out whenever possible. Without a
doubt CCA and other private prison operators like the government.
Reagan was so enamored with the idea of the privatization of prisons that he established a special
commission – the President’s Commission on Privatization. Its report of 1968 was for all
practical purposes a foregone conclusion, as most of the members were already leaning toward
support of privatization. The only opposition came from the American Bar Association. Many
groups that were against the idea, such as the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), were never invited to testify. The commission concluded by
supporting privatization.
This “free market” includes the prison system. The amount of money that flows into the
financial resources of the prison system from tax dollars alone is quite substantial. As shown in
Figure 1, expenditures for prisons came to about $69 billion in fiscal 2006, an increase of more
than 650 percent over 1982 when the figure was about $9 billion. In California, between 1998
and 2009, the prison budget grew from $3.5 billion to $10.3 billion (California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2009).
Similarly, the budgets for probation and parole have also been increasing. The most recent data
available for probation and parole are from the year 2000. While in fiscal year 1992 the average
budgets for both probation and parole came to $23 million, in the year 2000 the average was $71
million, an increase of 209 percent. What is most interesting about the budgets for probation and
parole is that the largest increases went to the parole system, with their average budgets going
from $25.5 million in 1992 to $43.1 million in 2000, compared to a very modest increase for
probation budgets from $55.7 million to $56.3 million. The total budgets for both probation and
parole came to just over $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2000 (Camp and Camp, 2000).
A Prison-Building Frenzy
Prison construction quickly became a booming business. In 1980 there were only 44 prisons; in
2002 there were 102, with 11 more under construction (Johnson, 2003). During the 1990s a total
of 371 new prisons opened. (Approximately 92,000 new beds were added each year.) In 1999
alone, 24 new prisons were opened, at a total cost of just over $1 billion. The average cost of
building a new prison came to $105 million (about $57,000 per bed). Also, in 1999 a total of
146 prisons were adding or renovating beds at a cost of $470 million (about $30,000 per bed).
The total estimated costs of these new building projects come to more than $2.2 billion (Camp
and Camp, 2000). These figures may be a bit misleading. A review of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons web site finds that as of October, 2008, there were a total of 180 “facilities” plus 14
private “facilities.” These “facilities” include not only prisons but also “camps” and
“correctional complexes” (which include more than one “facility”). Regardless of which source
is most accurate, the federal prison system is huge and covers both rural and urban areas all over
the country.


Figure 1 Criminal Justice Expenditures

Source: (Criminal Justice Statistics Center, 2010)

The construction of new prisons has become such a big business that there are several web sites
devoted to the topic. For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (Government
Accountability Office, 2008) issues reports on various prison construction projects. Also, many
states publish reports on recent or upcoming construction projects (Oregon, State of, 2010;
Firestone and Hansen, 2001). One interesting report comes from web site called Reed
Construction Data (2008) which shows ten planned prison construction projects around the
country. A Google search also turns up dozens of companies advertising for prison construction.
One example, among many, is Kitchell. According to their web site they have built “more than
110,000 detention and corrections beds in place,” and they boast that “Kitchell stands among the
most experienced program, project and construction management firms for criminal justice
facilities in the country. Those years of experience include more than 130 projects in 17 states,
among them are 42 state prisons, 30 adult jails, 30 juvenile facilities, four return-to-custody
centers, two California Youth Authority institutions, as well as police stations, courts facilities,
camps and other justice-related projects” (Kitchell, 2010).
Interested readers may want to pick out a few states at random and see how many prisons
presently exist and how many have been built in recent years or will be built in the coming years
Take the state of North Carolina for example. On the web site for the North Carolina
Department of Corrections (2010) there is a chart showing the prisons recently opened or about
to open in that state. Between 1989 and May, 2008 a total of 26 correctional facilities (including
two for young offenders, two work farms and a women’s prison) were opened. Currently eight
correctional facilities are under construction. As of October 5, 2010 North Carolina had a total
of 70 prisons and 40,371 prisoners and an incarceration rate of 368 as of June, 2008 (up from
28,772 and a rate of 345 in 2002), a rate considerably below the national rate of 504. Has there
been a significant increase in crime lately? Not at all. According to the FBI Uniform Crime
Reports (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010) in 2009 the rate of violent crime was 404 and


for property crime it was 3,668; in 2005 the rate for violent crime was 468 and for property
crime it was 4075.
Cashing in on Crime: American Correctional Association
A good illustration of how companies are “cashing in” on the boom in corrections is found in the
amount of advertising done in journals related to this industry, especially those published by the
American Correctional Association (ACA). One example comes from two major journals
associated with the ACA, such as Corrections Today plus several directories they publish. Also,
their web site has a special section about advertising opportunities. Twice each year (January
and August) they hold conferences during which entire floors of convention centers are reserved
for dozens of vendors. A portion of their web site is devoted to attracting vendors. One time on
the ACA web site it mentioned all the money spent each year on prisons and jails and said to
companies, “Don’t miss out on this prime revenue-generating opportunity.” Currently it is
advertising the winter meetings and says to prospective vendors: “We wish you a profitable 2011
and hope you have a great show. To maximize exposure, promote your company before, during
and after the show” (American Correctional Association, 2010).
One part of their web site is called the “Buyers' Guide of Correctional Products and Services.”
Here interested people can browse through literally dozens of ads listed according to either
specific companies, products, or even by state. For instance, by clicking on “plumbing” you get
two companies: Acorn Engineering in California and Security Plumbing Suppliers in Virginia
(along with their web sites and other contact information). If you go by companies, you will find
(among others) Bob Barker Company in North Carolina. Their ad reads as follows:
Bob Barker Company is the worldwide leader in delivering innovative products
and services to correctional and rehabilitation customers. Our product categories
include, but are not limited to, inmate clothing, footwear, personal care, bedding
& mattresses, institutional furnishings, health care, laundry, food service, and our
inmate transportation system – VanCell®. Bob Barker Company is family owned
and operated, and has satisfied customers for over thirty years. Most orders are
shipped same day (American Correctional Association, 2010).
This is merely a small sampling, for there are several other web sites that list company ads aimed
at the prison market. Another one is the American Jail Association (AJA). On this site there is a
special section called Advertising and Promotional Opportunities. Like the ACA they have an
annual conference, this one called the Annual Training Conference & Jail Expo, which will be
held in May, 2011 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Within this page the web site says the following: “Speak
with representatives from more than 250 companies about their products and services that will
help you and your staff do your jobs more effectively and efficiently” (American Correctional
Association, 2010, emphasis in original).
Yet another one is, which organizes its web page by categories of vendors. For
example, under the heading “cleaning/sanitation” there are seven pages illustrating several dozen
companies, including Americhem Enterprises (they supply products like industrial degreasers,
floor finishers, disinfectants, bowl cleaners, etc.), Champion Industries (specializing in


“dishwashing machines for prison applications”), and Somat Corporation (“waste reduction
systems for the correctional foodservice industry”). According to their home page,
“ is the single most recognizable brand online for the global community of
corrections. Award-winning daily news is at the core of our business, with the most
comprehensive database of vendor intelligence in corrections” (American Correctional
Association, 2010).
Reach Out and Touch Someone
The old telephone company ad that advised customers to “reach out and touch someone” has
new meaning, since long-distance phone companies entered into the prison system in the 1970s.
Such industry giants as AT&T, Bell South, Sprint, GTE (formerly General Telephone &
Electronics Corporation and MCI have found prisons to be an excellent market for long distance
business. Indeed, this makes sense because inmates all over the country spend countless hours
on the telephone talking with relatives. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 resulted in greater
competition among telephone companies and prices began to decline – except for the prison
system, which began to see a big rise in revenue. Prisons all over the country began to get a
percentage of the revenues ranging from 10 to 55 percent. A survey by the American
Correctional Association in 1995 showed, for instance, that New York was making $15 million
per year and California brought in $9 million, with a total of $100 million nationwide. By the
year 2000 commission revenues went as high as 60 percent in New York. “At least ten states
were taking in $10 million or more from prisoner calling, with California, New York, and the
Federal Bureau of Prisons leading the pack with more than $20 million in phone revenues each”
(Jackson, 2007, p. 236-240). All of these profits have come as a result of the fact that for a
prisoner to call home requires a collect call.
Part of the revenue comes from the charging of various connection fees, surcharges and perminute charges ranging from as high as 90 cents for local calls and $2.25 for long-distance calls,
with in some cases a 15-minute phone call costing $20 or more (Jackson, 2007). At one point
MCI installed, for free, pay phones throughout the California prison system. They levied a $3
surcharge for each phone call made, the cost of which is paid for by the prisoner’s relatives. MCI
offered the California Department of Corrections 32 percent of the profits. AT&T had a cleaver
ad that read (in upper case letters): “HOW HE GOT IN IS YOUR BUSINESS. HOW HE GETS
OUT IS OURS” (Schlosser, 1998, p. 63). The bulk of the costs to “reach out and touch” a loved
one in prison has been borne mostly by low-income and minority people. One writer succinctly
summarized the effect of this business:
(T)he ultimate effect of profit-sharing and what amount to price-gouging
arrangements in the prison phone sector has been a long-term trend toward
excommunication, making contact between prisoners and family members on the
outside more costly and therefore more difficult to maintain. But this goes
directly against the findings of several decades of recidivism and community
impact studies, some of which were used to justify the introduction of prison
calling in the first place. Such studies have found a powerful predictor for
reoffense is the failure to maintain family and community contact while under
incarceration (Jackson, 2007, p. 241).


It is almost as if those in charge of this system actually want high recidivism rates, as this writer
further suggests that “a reliable way of increasing the likelihood that prisoners will reoffend is to
break all ties with the outside world and then place them back on the street years later, with little
reentry support, in a community to which they have become a stranger” (Jackson, 2007, p. 241).
This led to a great deal of controversy in California and elsewhere. An investigation by the Los
Angeles Times found that phone charges benefited the state of California by about $35 million a
year as a result of an agreement with long-distance phone companies. Phone charges to relatives
of those locked up in the California Youth Authority resulted in about $85 million in revenue for
the state in 2001. After several years of pressure, an agreement reached in January, 2001 that
lowered the charges by 25 percent. A three-year contract was signed with WorldCom and
Verizon that cut rates for adult prisoners by 25% and for juveniles by 78%. As a result of this
agreement, the average 11 minute phone call to a family member outside the immediate area was
to be just over $5 dollars.
Despite a nation-wide movement by such groups as Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of
Errants (CURE), the Center for Constitutional Rights and others who have filed law suits against
this practice, fierce opposition from prison officials and telephone companies, it remains to be
seen whether and to what extent these practices will continue. The “prison telephone
monopolies remain firmly in place and ineffectively regulated throughout large parts of the
country” (Jackson, 2007, p. 248).
Corporate Interests: The Role of ALEC
A little know fact about the prison industrial complex is an organization known as the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The mere existence of this organization demonstrates
the classic connections between politics, economics and the criminal justice system. The
membership consists of state legislators, private corporation executives and criminal justice
officials. More than one-third of state lawmakers in the country (2,400) belong and they are
mostly Republicans and conservative Democrats. They also get involved in school vouchers
(Boston, 2007). It was started in 1973 by Paul Weyrich (who also co-founded the conservative
Heritage Foundation and recently was the head of a group called the Free Congress Foundation,
a far right conservative group). Their mission is to promote “free markets,” along with small
governments, “states’ rights” and, of course, privatization. Corporate membership dues range
from $5,000 to $50,000 annually. Corrections Corporation of America is a member of this
group, which is not surprising. However, members also include a veritable “who’s who” of the
Fortune 500, such as Ameritech, AT&T, Bayer, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, DuPont,
GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Sprint, Pfizer, to name just a few. Among the companies that
have supported ALEC through various grants include Ameritech, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and
several corporate foundations, including the Proctor and Gamble Fund, Exxon Educational
Foundation, Bell Atlantic Foundation, Ford Motor Company Fund, among many others (Capital
Research, 2010).
The web site of ALEC is an educational experience in itself. It proudly lists some of the bills it
has been involved in getting passed, plus indicates some very important keynote speakers during
the past three annual meetings. Among the notables giving speeches include Attorney General


John Ashcroft, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (see below),
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez, President and CEO of American
Home Products Robert Essner, Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, Hank McKinnell, Florida Governor
Jeb Bush, Secretary of Labor Elane Chao and ultra conservative syndicated columnist Cal
Thomas (ALEC, 2010).
In addition to a Board of Directors (consisting of several members of various state legislatures,
mostly Republicans), they have a Private Enterprise Board. The latter group includes
representatives of some of the largest corporations in America, such as Coors, AT&T, UPS, WalMart, ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer and State Farm, among others. It is
interesting to note that the current chairman is Jerry Watson of the American Bail Coalition
which, according to their web site, is: “Dedicated to the long term growth and continuation of the
surety bail bond industry” (ALEC, 2010). The web site also states the following:
America's premier underwriters of criminal court appearance bonds; Allegheny
Casualty Company, American Surety Company, Associated Bond and Insurance
Agency, International Fidelity Insurance Company and Underwriters Surety, Inc.
(the "Founders") have formed a new national organization, primarily to perform a
two-pronged task to educate local government on the benefits of commercial bail
bonding and to advance the interests of the Founders’ many retail agents (ALEC,
This organization also puts together papers and policy statements on a wide variety of issues
reflecting conservative ideas, including one about the “myth of global warming.” Bill
Berkowitz, who carefully follows conservative trends, has noted that ALEC sponsored more than
3,100 pieces of legislation between 1999 and 2000, with more than 400 of these bills passing
(Berkowitz, 2002). Within ALEC there is a “Criminal Justice Task Force.” Among the duties of
this group is to write “model bills” on crime and punishment. Among such “model bills” they
helped draft include “mandatory minimum sentences,” “Three Strikes” laws, “truth in
sentencing” and the like. One member boasted that in 1995 alone they introduced 199 bills,
including “truth in sentencing” bills, which passed in 25 states. Tommy Thompson, former
Wisconsin Governor and previous head of Health and Human Services in the Bush
Administration, was once a member of ALEC. He was recently quoted as saying that “I always
loved going to these meetings because I always found new ideas. Then I’d take them back to
Wisconsin, disguise them a little bit, and declare that ‘It’s mine’” (Berkowtiz, 2002). Edwin
Bender of the National Institute on Money in State Politics, says that: “Bayer Corporation or Bell
South or GTE or Merck pharmaceutical company sitting at a table with elected representatives,
actually hammering out a piece of legislation – behind closed doors, I mean, this isn’t open to the
public. And that then becomes the basis on which representatives are going to their state
legislatures and debating issues” (Biewen, 2002). As everyone knows by now, these kinds of
laws were a big reason for the swelling of the prison population, which in turn added new
“markets” for capitalist profits. As of the fall of 2008 they are sponsoring several dozen pieces
of legislation (ALEC, 2010a).


The California Correctional Peace Officer’s Association
California is a good example of union influence. During the 1990s and early 200s, the California
Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) became a political force in that state. The
union was begun in the 1950s when a prison guard was upset about working conditions, wages
and benefits. In 1957 the California Correctional Officers Association (CCOA) was formed. It
continued to grow over the years and by the 1980s became involved in supporting legislation that
improved working conditions and benefits for correctional staff. . They also began to affiliate
with Republican and conservative politics under the leadership of Don Novey as they became
strong supporters of harsh sentencing, such as the campaign to pass “Three Strikes and You’re
Out” in the early 1990s (CCPOA, 2010).
In 1992 alone this group was the second largest contributor to Political Action Committees, as
they contributed just more than $1 million to various candidates. In 1990 they gave almost $1
million to Pete Wilson's successful campaign for governor. The total contributions given in 1990
were 10 times that given by the California Teachers' Association (Schiraldi, 1994). They
contributed $101,000 toward Proposition 184, which created the "Three Strikes and You're Out"
law (Burton-Rose et al., 1998).
Under Novey’s direction the union saw a vested interest in growing prison populations as
reflected in the following figures. In 1980 California had 22,500 prisoners, while the average
salary of a prison guard was $14,400, and the budget for the California Department of
Corrections was $300 million. By 1996 there were more than 140,000 prisoners, the average
salary of the guards stood at $44,000, 58 percent above the national average (more than $10,000
above teachers - a very telling statistic), while the budget was $3 billion. Prison jobs constituted
almost half of the growth in state jobs during this time. The union had only 5,600 members in
1980; currently they have around 28,000 members, collecting about $8 million in dues annually
and have a budget of around $17 million (Burton-Rose et al, 1998; see also Cockburn, 1999).
Another example of the politics of this union at the time was their stance toward a program that
allowed prisoners to earn college credits at Ironwood State Prison in Blythe (Warren, 2003).
This program is one among many examples demonstrating that the more education a prisoner
receives while in prison, the lower the recidivism rate. But apparently lowering recidivism rates
was not on the agenda. In typical exaggerated conservative language, the union complained that
it is not right for taxpayers to fund college courses for rapists, murderers and the like. A union
memorandum complained about a similar program at another prison, saying that it is wrong to
provide education to prisoners rather than offering tuition assistance “to people in the community
who pay taxes and may benefit from these services” (Warren, 2003). A flyer sent to union
members working at the Ironwood prison urged them to boycott “all management functions” and
urged them to “Just Say No” to tax payer-funded college education for inmates, suggesting that
“lifers, some of who [sic] are rapist [sic], molesters and murders [sic] receiving a free college
education.” College officials countered this charge, saying that with this program they were able
to expand some of the programs, hire new faculty and increase opportunities for disadvantaged
students not in prison. National figures cited by the Los Angeles Times show that such programs
are successful and a program in Arizona resulted in a recidivism rate of only 10 percent,
compared to about 60 percent nationally (Warren, 2003).


California prison guards have not been without their own share of controversies, including
criminal conduct ranging from having sex with prisoners, running drugs into prison and even
manslaughter. One story, which appeared the day before the article about complaints against
prisoner education programs, cited numerous criminal incidents against some guards, noting that
several who are under investigation are collecting their full salary plus benefits while on paid
leave. An estimated 109 prison guards were on paid leave for at least 30 days during the past
year, mostly while under investigation. The costs to taxpayers are estimated to be “in the
millions” (Morain, 2003).
It should be noted that recently CCPOA has become less partisan and more responsible under the
leadership and Mike Jimenez. For example, they are supporting the creation of a “sentencing
commission” along with various goals to reduce overcrowding and improve rehabilitation
services within the prison system. On their web site it is noted that “CCPOA recognizes the
important role that rehabilitation can and should have in the corrections mission — but that this
is impossible without the necessary resources and a strong commitment to evidence-based
programs to assist inmates in succeeding upon their release” (CCPOA, 2010).
Examples of profits being made from designing, building and supplying prisons with various
products have now been discussed. However, a key component of the prison industrial complex
is the trend of states turning to private companies that specialize in the entire operation of
prisons, from the design to the daily operation. The next section explores this topic in more
The Privatization of Prisons: More Profits for Private Industry
A recent development in the criminal justice field, related specifically to the prison system, is the
trend toward what is known as privatization. This is where a private corporation either takes
over the operation of a jail or prison or builds one itself and operates it (usually contracting
directly with the state). Several years ago researchers warned about the tremendous growth in
privatization in general, especially within the private police industry. They quoted one source
that called this phenomenon "creeping capitalism" or the transfer of "services and responsibilities
that were once monopolized by the state" to "profit-making agencies and organizations" (Spitzer
and Scull, 1977). It should be noted that "privatization" is a trend that includes more than the
criminal justice system. This “contracting out,” as it is often termed, involves a number of
services formerly provided by state and local governments, such as public education, health care,
waste collection and many more. There are "at least 18 categories of government services" that
saw an increase in private-sector involvement between 1987 and 1995 (Laursen, 1996).
Privatization has become, wrote Edward Herman (1997), “one of the mantras of the New World
Order. Economic, political and media elites assume that privatization provides undeniable
benefits and moves us toward a good society”. The movement toward privatization stems from
the recent trends toward greater and greater corporate power. This increased power is linked to
the emergence of neoliberalism. Some of the key tenants of this ideology include: (1) The rule
of the market (including the “trickle down” theory and the break-up of unions); (2) Reducing
public expenditure for social services, such as health and education (many still want to privatize


social security); (3) Deregulation; (4)Privatization of public enterprises; (5) Shifting the idea of
seeking what’s good for the public to “individualism and individual responsibility” (Shah, 2010).
“Part of the design of neoliberal politicians and intellectuals,” says Herman “has been to weaken
the state as a power center that might serve ordinary citizens and challenge the rule of the
market” (Herman, 1997). Contributing to this trend is the increase in capital flow away from
urban centers, leaving them in dire financial straits, as governments “have had to limit business
taxes and spending on social benefits in order to provide a 'favorable investment climate,' leaving
them under financial stress” (Herman, 1997). Through privatization, states can get around voter
resistance to prison construction bonds by having private corporations build the prison, who then
turn around and send a huge bill to the state and thus taxpayers. This represents a classic case of
“socializing the costs and privatizing the benefits” (Dyer, 2000, p. 245).
Through privatization, states can get around voter resistance to prison construction bonds by
having private corporations build the prison, who then turn around and send a huge bill to the
state and thus taxpayers. This represents a classic case of “socializing the costs and privatizing
the benefits” (Dyer, 2000, p. 245).
Private profit is the driving force in the privatization of the correctional system. A report by
Equitable Securities in March, 1996 called "Crime Can Pay" included a "strong buy" advice to
investors. The report concluded: "We consider the industry very attractive. There is substantial
room for continued private-prison growth." The potential for profits did not escaped Wall Street.
Back in the early 1990s Ted Goins, of Branch, Cabell and Co., Richmond, Virginia, compiled a
list of "theme stocks" for the 1990s. His highest recommendation was for Corrections
Corporation of America (Brayson, 1996). A Prudential Securities vice president, who is part of a
"prison-financing team," was quoted as saying that "We try to keep a close eye on all the crime
bills." Wall Street was indeed eager to back the growth in "crime control stocks" with such
companies as Merrill Lynch, Prudential Securities, Smith Barney Shearson and Goldman Sachs
among the leaders in support of privatization (Brayson, 1996). One writer noted: "Between 1982
and 1990 California voters approved bonds for prison construction totaling $2.4 billion. After
interest is paid to lenders, the total cost will be $4.1 billion. Now the big investors are bullish on
private prisons." The firm of Raucher, Pierce and Refsnes of Dallas, Texas were the
underwriters and investment bankers for Wackenhut Corrections. In the early 1990s, this
company was reportedly doing about $5-7 million worth of business each year, mostly "buying
bonds and securities from the private prison companies or the state entities which issue them and
reselling them to investors. That securities market is now a 2-3-billion dollar industry, up from
nothing eight years ago..." So enthralled about the profits, these securities firms were ready to
launch the "next phase" of such development, which was to finance their own construction, with
help from securities firms (Thomas, 1994, p. A6).
As of mid-2007 (latest figures available) there were 111,975 state and federal prisoners in private
prisons (7.2% of the total, up from 90,000 or 6.5% in 2000) (Couture and Sabol, 2008). As of
December, 2000 there were 153 privately operated correctional facilities in the United States
(Sentencing Project, 2001). As of June, 2007 the bulk of the prisons were being operated by
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the GEO Group and Cornell Corporation (Lifsher,
2007). It should be noted that in April, 2010 GEO bought Cornell for $374 million in cash and
stock, which expands its territory considerably (Texas Prison Bid’ness, 2010). Investment


counselor Rich Duprey writes a regular column about investment advice and in this article he
wrote that GEO is his favorite private prison operator and that this deal “looks like a smart one.”
He noted that this purchase “will give Geo Group 97 correctional and detention facilities that it
will either own or manage, along with 32 behavioral health centers, generating some $1.5 billion
in annual revenues. It's expected to save Geo as much as $15 million annually and promises to
add to the prison operator's pro forma 2011 earnings per share” (Duprey, 2010).
Private prison companies have even expanded to foreign countries. As Leighton and Selman
note: “As private prison companies expanded, they found partners in the United Kingdom (UK),
France, Australia, New Zealand, Puerto Rico and South Africa. At times, like in the UK,
companies would spend two to three years lobbying and plying politicians with donations to
convince government to privatize” (Leighton and Selman, 2011). Newsweek recently reported
that “GEO increased its revenue by $20.2 million in the last year by opening up prisons in
Australia and the United Kingdom, while also eyeing contracts in South Africa and New
Zealand” (Cook, 2010).
The largest, and perhaps the most controversial private prison corporation, is Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA). Founded in 1983, the company is headquartered in Nashville,
Tennessee and employs more than 15,000 professionals nationwide. I once obtained a copy of
their 1995 annual report, at which time they claimed to be the “leading private sector provider of
detention and corrections services to federal, state and local governments." There was also a
subsidiary, CCA International, which provided similar "services" in foreign countries. Still
another subsidiary was TransCor America, which was touted to be "the nation's largest and most
experienced prisoner extradition company." At that time, CCA’s stock traded on the New York
Stock Exchange. It operated 46 correctional facilities, including one in England, two in
Australia and two in Puerto Rico. This report bragged about its revenues, going from $13
million in 1986 to $207 million in 1995 (an increase of 1492%), while assets increased from $8
million to almost $47 million (an increase of 488%) and stockholders equity had gone from $24
million to $96 million (up 300%).
Since that time, CCA has entered into some serious problems. Its stock went as high as $45 in
1998, but bottomed out at merely $0.18 per share, which prompted a Wall Street analyst to
comment that the company “has taken a dive that would make a dot-com blush” (Leighton,
2010). They eventually merged into Prison Realty Trust – a Real Estate Investment Trust
(REIT) that is exempt from corporate taxes providing it meets certain conditions, including
distributing 95 percent of its income to shareholders. However, Prison Realty Trust failed to
meet that condition because of “cash flow problems” and reported a $62 million loss for 1999.
In April, 2000 an audit cast doubt about its solvency. All together, CCA and Prison Trust Realty
Trust lost $265 million in 1999 (Leighton, 2010).
One of CCA’s shareholders, Pacific Life Insurance Company, offered a $200 million
restructuring plan, while Lehman Brothers refinanced Prison Realty’s $1 billion credit line. At
the close of business on April 26, 2000 prices closed below $3 per share and on June 7 the stock
went back down to $2 per share. However, the very next week the stock rose by $1 per share
after news that they had been awarded a $780 million federal contract thanks to the assistance of
the former head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Michael Quinlan, who became a board


member of Prison Realty Trust (typical of private prison companies, which often lure former
prison officials to be on their board of directors). A report on the web site of The Tennessean
noted that two former executives for Prison Realty Trust were to receive severance payments
totaling $1.3 million. According to this story, Prison Realty announced plans in December, 1999
to “give up its structure as a real estate investment trust and receive an infusion of up to $350
million from an investor group.” This “investor group” includes The Blackstone Group, Bank of
America and a group with an appropriate name, Fortress Investments (Ward, 2000).
To this date Corrections Corporation of America is the number one private prison corporation in
the world, as seen in the following extract from its web site (CCA, 2010):
As a full-service corrections management provider, CCA specializes in the
design, construction, expansion and management of prisons, jails and detention
facilities, as well as inmate transportation services through its subsidiary company
TransCor America. The company is the fourth-largest corrections system in the
nation, behind only the federal government and two states.
CCA houses approximately 80,000 offenders and detainees in more than 60
facilities, 42 of which are company-owned, with a total bed capacity of more than
80,000. CCA currently partners with all three federal corrections agencies (The
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement), nearly half of all states and more than a dozen local
Since its inception, CCA has maintained its market leadership position in private
corrections, managing more than 50 percent of all beds under contract with such
providers in the United States. The company joined the New York Stock
Exchange in 1994 and now trades under the ticker symbol CXW. Headquartered
in Nashville, Tennessee, CCA employs nearly 17,000 professionals nationwide in
security, academic and vocational education, health services, inmate programs,
facility maintenance, human resources, management and administration. The
company has been named among “America’s Best Big Companies” by Forbes
magazine and ranked number one in the publication’s “Business Services and
Supplies” category. G.I. Jobs magazine also named CCA as a “Top 50 MilitaryFriendly Employer.”
CCA offers offenders a variety of dynamic rehabilitation and education programs,
including addictions treatment, GED preparation and testing, post-secondary
studies, life skills, employment training, recreational options and work
The company also provides valuable economic benefits to its local community
partners by paying property, sales and other taxes, and providing a stable
employment base that focuses on building careers with unlimited growth and
development opportunities. As a strong corporate citizen, recognized by


Corporate Responsibility Officer magazine, CCA contributes generously to host
communities through volunteerism and charitable giving.
Apparently the “restructuring” has not paid off as well as they had hoped, as the latest
price of its stock was $24.93 as of November 26, 2010, down from $38.93 on July 2,
2004 (CCA, 2010a).
One of the most recent examples concerns the connection between Arizona Governor Jan
Brewer, the notorious Sheriff of Maricopa County Joe Arpaio and CCA. Over the summer
reports started to emerge that revealed that two key advisors for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer
had close ties to Corrections Corporation of America. Local CBS affiliate KPOH reported that
"two of Brewer’s top advisers have connections" to private prison giant Corrections Corporation
of America (CCA). Lawrence Lewis, writing for the Daily Kos, reported that “Paul Senseman,
Brewer’s deputy chief of staff, is a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife continues to lobby for the
company. Meanwhile Chuck Coughlin, who leads her re-election campaign, chaired her
transition into the governorship, and is one of the governor’s policy advisors, is president of
HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, which lobbies for CCA” (Lewis, 2010). Lewis also
noted that it just so happens that CCA has a contract with Immigration and Customs
Enforcement “to lock up illegal immigrants picked up in Arizona” and obviously sending
millions of dollars into the coffers of this company (Lewis, 2010).
Some Serious Problems with Privatization
One of the problems of privatization, especially when it comes to health care, is that profits are
placed well above the needs of the people. Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman
once stated that: “Few trends could so thoroughly undermine the very foundation of our free
society as the acceptance by corporate officials of a social responsibility other than to make as
much money as possible” (Wolfe, 1999, p. 12). The article where this comment appears also
quotes St. Matthew, who said that “No man can serve two cannot serve God and
mammon.” In this article it was noted that one of the recent trends in managed care is the
phenomenon of “unprofitable patients” who have been “dumped by HMO's because, as a result
of their age and attendant medical problems, they were not profitable enough.” The article then
noted the irony that “what is bad news for the dumped patients is obviously good news for Wall
Street and the insurance company owners” (Wolfe, 1999, p. 12). The article concludes with a
quote from an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine which stated:
The most serious objection to such [investor-owned] care is that it embodies a
new value system that severs the communal roots and Samaritan traditions of
hospitals, makes doctors and nurses the instruments of investors, and views
patients as commodities...In our society, some aspects of life are off-limits to
commerce. We prohibit the selling of children and the buying of wives, juries and care is too precious, intimate, and corruptible to entrust to the
market (Wolfe, 1999, p. 12).
A similar conclusion can be drawn about the privatization of prisons.


We have seen numerous instances of serious problems with the privatization of prisons and other
components of the criminal justice system. Not that the prison system has been all that
successful in reducing crime, but prison administrators, and in fact the entire criminal justice
system, are at least theoretically accountable to the public, since tax dollars support it. With
privatization, there is no accountability. Several scandals demonstrate this, such as escapes and
cost over-runs. Russell Clemens, an economist with the Department of Research for the
American Federation of State, County, and Federal Employees, put the problem in perspective
when he noted that the various "problems regarding security, staffing, and quality of services
have plagued prison privatization from its inception." He pointed out that in addition to
numerous escapes there have been problems pertaining to both health care and food service
which characterize "the low quality of service in privately operated prisons" (Dyer, 2000, p.
203). The riots at a private prison in New Jersey operated by Esmor Corrections Corporation are
illustrative. After this riot there was a lot of media coverage, with the result that Esmor’s stock
went from $20 per share to $7. Since this riot, numerous private-prison corporations have been
caught failing to report problems within their prisons. The reason is simple: such secrecy
protects shareholders “from adverse market reactions that would likely occur if a problem were
to be reported” (Dyer, 2000, p. 204).
Donna Selman and Paul Leighton, in their insightful analysis of private prisons, document
numerous issues surrounding private prisons (Selman and Leighton, 2010). One of their insights
is the amount of money extracted from the states that pay these companies to build and/or
operate these prisons. Among other things, they compare the top salary and wage earners in
public departments of corrections with those of three major private corporations (CCA, GEO and
Cornell). Each of the CEO’s earned in excess of $1 million, while the salaries of the directors of
state prisons earned from about $128,000 to $225,000. In most of the prisons run by private
corporations there were fewer prisoners and a lower budget than for state prisons. This was for
the year 2007 (Selman and Leighton, 2010, p. 136).
According to Paul Leighton (2010), the Security and Exchange Commission filings that
provides, among other things, the annual compensation for key executives with GEO and CCA
for 2009. To give just one example, a total of $8.3 million was given to six executives of the
GEO group, plus five additional people who received $200,000 or more. The compensation
included stock options and other benefits. In short, it has become a rather cozy relationship
during which these executives smile all the way to the bank. The average compensation per
inmate for the 2007 data they supplied. The Chairman of the Board and CEO of GEO, for
instance, earned about $55 per inmate, while his counterpart at CCA earned about $26. The
Cornell CEO did even better, earning about $58 per inmate. It should be noted that these were
just their salaries and did not include stock options and other benefits. In contrast, the Secretary
for the California Department of Corrections earned a mere $1.30 per inmate while the Executive
Director for the Texas Department of Corrections earned a mere $1.07 per inmate (California,
State of, 2010).
As already suggested, the profits from the existence of prisons are dependent upon the continued
increase in prison admissions. What if prison admissions begin to decline? We are already
seeing some evidence of this. For instance, in New York State there has been a recent downward
trend in the number of prisoners, resulting in the reduction of prison staff at many prisons.


Specifically, in 2001 the New York Department of Corrections began a hiring freeze at 36 of the
state’s prisons, with the expectation that they will eliminate just over 600 jobs. One facility in
upstate New York is illustrative. A $90 million jail was built in tiny Cape Vincent (near the St.
Lawrence River with a population of 2,400) in 1988. Now with recent downward trends in
prison populations they are worried that what they thought was a recession-proof industry may
come to an end. One prison worker said, “Who ever thought crime would go down? Who ever
thought we would run out of inmates?” (Rhode, 2001).
Prison workers worry, as about $2.4 billion per year goes into the state prison system, with
millions of dollars going into the upstate economy each year. Salaries for correctional officers
start at around $33,000, with raises to $44,000 after 20 years. Not bad in rural areas where the
cost of living is so much lower than in the cities (Rhode, 2001).
Still another example comes from the state of Mississippi. According to a report in the Wall
Street Journal, a prison operated by Wackenhut in Holly Springs ran into trouble finding
prisoners to fill about 130 beds. In fact, recently the state found itself with 2,000 more beds than
prisoners! The same is happening in South Carolina, with more than 1,000 empty beds. These
developments are bad news for corporations like Wackenhut, who depend upon a steady supply
of prisoners. In Mississippi, a state representative who was touring one of their prisons, pointed
to a prison guard and said “If we don’t get [more inmates], she might get laid off” (Gruley,
2001). Many who previously support building prisons in Mississippi are now changing their
minds. A former police chief who is in charge of the state corrections department, who never
had any qualms sending people to jail, now complains that for too many people the only reason
to build prisons is to “make money off inmates” and he said that this has “gotten a little too
skewed for my liking” (Gruley, 2001).
One of the most detailed analyses of the impact of the privatization of prisons comes from a
report by a group known as “Good Jobs First.” In a detailed study of 60 private prisons
(constituting half the total privatized prisons in the country), they found that the promised
benefits to state and local governments have failed to materialize. More importantly, however,
they found that at least 73% of the prison had received a development subsidy from local, state
or federal government sources, while over one-third (37%) received low-cost construction via
tax-free bonds or other government-issued debt securities, 38% received property tax abatements
and another 23% received subsidies for things like water, sewer or utility hook-ups, access roads,
etc. The two largest private companies involved in prison building, Corrections Corporation of
America and Wackenhut (now GEO Group), were heavily subsidized (78% of CCA prisons and
69% of Wackenhut’s prisons were subsidized). The study could find no evidence of whether or
not the privatization of prisons had the desired effects on local communities (Mattera and Khan,
2001). Selman and Leighton provide further documentation of the excessive subsidizing of
private prisons. They note that it is important to take into consideration the “overhead costs of
participating in the corporate world and relying on Wall Street,” which include the “many fees
that go to those who already well-off. Taxpayer money goes to government, which then pays a
private prison firm, which then pays fees to an array of large banks, law firms, consultants,
lobbyists, and marketing firms” (Selman and Leighton, 2010, p. 158).


Whether or not privatization of prisons continues (and there are some serious doubts that this
trend will continue), prisons and jails will continue to operate, which will still guarantee steady
employment for a large workforce, plus continuous profits for those businesses that provide
various goods and services (security devices, food, linen, etc.).


American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) (2010). Retrieved on November 24, 2010
ALEC (2010a). Retrieved on November 24, 2010
American Correctional Association (2010). Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Berkowitz, B. (2002). “Smart ALEC’s.” Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Biewen, J. (2002). “Corporate-Sponsored Crime Laws.” Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Boston, R. (2007). “The Theocratic Agenda Is Heading for a Statehouse Near You.” March 12.
Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Brayson, C. (1996). “Crime Pays for Those in the Prison Business.” The National Times,
September: 28-35.
Burton-Rose, D. Pens and P. Wright (eds.). (1998). The Celling of America: An Inside Look at
the U.S. Prison Industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2009). Moving Forward. Retrieved on
November 24, 2010 from
California Correctional Peace Officers (CCPOA) (2010). Retrieved on November 26,
2010 from:
California, State of (2010). Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from and
Camp, C. G. and G. M. Camp (2000). The Corrections Yearbook 2000: Adult Corrections.
Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute.
Capital Research (2010). Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from

Chen, S. (2009). “Pennsylvania rocked by 'jailing kids for cash' scandal.” February 14.
Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Christie, N. (2000). Crime Control as Industry. (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Cockburn, A. (1999). “With ‘gladiator days,’ prisons adopt the Gulag Paradigm.” Las Vegas
Review-Journal, November 12, p. 11B.
Cook, N. (2010). “How The Recession Hurts Private Prisons.” Newsweek, June 30. Retrieved on
November 26, 2010 from
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) (2010). Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) (2010a). Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Couture, H. and W. J. Sabol (2008). “Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007.” Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Criminal Justice Statistics Center (2010). California criminal justice profile, statewide (annual,
1979-2009). Sacramento: California Department of Justice, Table 10.
De Rugy, V. (2009). “Spending Under President George W. Bush.” Mercatus Center, George
Mason University, March. Retrieved on September 1, 2010 from
Doherty, B. (2003). “All the President’s Employees: Data - federal employment growth or
shrinkage by president - Brief Article.” Reason, February. Retrieved on November 24,
2010 from
Duke, L. (2000). “Building a boom behind bars; Prisons revive small towns, but costs are
emerging,” The Washington Post, September 8, p. A01.
Duprey, R. (2010). “Geo Group Locks Up Growth.” April 20. Retrieved on November 26, 2010
Dyer, J. (2000). The perpetual prisoner machine: How America profits from crime. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010). Crime in the United States, 2009. Retrieved on
November 29, 2010 from

Firestone, K. and Hansen, M. (2001). “An Update on Prison Construction.” State of Michigan:
Senate Fiscal Agency. Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Frank, T. (2008). The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule. New York: Metropolitan
Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2008). Prison Construction: Clear Communication
on the Accuracy of Cost Estimates and Project Changes is Needed. May 29, 2008.
Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Gruley, B. (2001). “Wanted: Criminals: Why Did Mississippi Agree to Pay for Cells for ‘Ghost
Inmates’.” Wall Street Journal, September 6.
Heilbroner, R. L. (1985). The Nature and Logical of Capitalism. New York: W. W. Norton.
Herivel, T. and P. Wright (eds.) (2007). Prison Profiteers: Who Makes Money from Mass
Incarceration. New York: New Press.
Herman, E. (1997). "Privatization: Downsizing Government For Principle and Profit." Dollars
and Sense (March/April). Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Huling, T. (2002). “Building a Prison Economy in Rural America.” In Mauer, M. and M.
Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible Punishment: the Collateral Consequences of Mass
Imprisonment. New York: New Press.
Jackson, S. (2007). “Mapping the Telephone Industry.” In Herivel and Wright, Prison
Profiteers, pp.236-240.
Johnson, K. (2003). “Federal prisons packed with almost 165,000.” USA TODAY, January 22.
Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Kilborn, P. T. (2001). “Rural Towns Turn to Prisons to Reignite Their Economies.” New York
Times, August 1. Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
King’s College London (2009). “News Highlights: 10 Million Prisoners in the World.” Retrieved
on November 24, 2010 from
Kitchell, Inc. (2010). Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from

Knoller, M. (2010). “Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt.” CBS News,
September 29. Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Krugman, P. (2009). The Return of Depression Economics. New York: WW Norton.
Krugman, P. (2010). “The Third Depression,” New York Times. June 27. Retrieved
on November 24, 2010 from
Laursen, E. (1996). "A Tale of Two Communities," Z Magazine (October), 45-50.
Leighton, P. (2010). Personal communication on April 9, 2010.
Leighton, P. (2010). Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Leighton, P. and D. Selman (2011). “Private Prisons, the Criminal Justice-Industrial
Complex and Bodies Destined for Profitable Punishment.” In W. De Keseredy and M
Dragiewicz (eds.), Handbook of Critical Criminology. London: Routledge.
Lewis, L. (2010). “Two top Brewer advisers lobbied for prison giant CCA.” Daily Kos, July 28.
Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Lifsher, M. (2007). “Can't get enough California inmates.” Los Angeles Times, August 23.
Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from't_get_enough_inmates.htm
Lilly, J. R. and P. Knepper (1993). "The Correctional-Commercial Complex." Crime and
Delinquency 39: 150-166.
Liptak, A. (2008).“Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’.” The New York Times, April 23.
Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Mattera, P. and M. Khan (2001). Jail Breaks: Economic Development Subsidies Given to
Private Prisons. Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Morain, D. (2003). “Leaves for Prison Guards Criticized.” Los Angeles Times, May 9.
Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from

North Carolina Department of Corrections (2010). Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Oregon, State of (2010). “New Prison Construction.” Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Parenti, M. (2007). Democracy for the Few (8th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Reed Construction Data (2008). “Twenty Large Upcoming Jail, Prison and Courthouse
Construction Projects - May 2008.” Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from, D. (2001). “A Growth Industry Cools as New York Prisons Thin.” New York Times,
August 21.
Sabol, W. J., H. C. West, and M. Cooper (2010). “Prisoners in 2009.’ Washington, DC: Bureau
of Justice Statistics. Retrieved on November 24, 2010 from
Schiraldi, V. (1994). The Undue Influence of California's Prison Guards' Union: California's
Correctional-Industrial Complex. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Schlosser, E. (1998). “The Prison-Industrial Complex.” The Atlantic Monthly (December).
Selman, D. and P. Leighton (2010). Punishment for Sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the
Incarceration Binge. Lanham, MD. Roman and Littlefield.
Sentencing Project (2001). “Prison Privatization and the Use of Incarceration.” Retrieved on
November 26, 2010 from
Shah, A. (2010). “A Primer on Neoliberalism.” Retrieved on September 11, 2010 from
Shelden, R. G. (2010). Our Punitive Society. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Shelden, R. G. and W. B. Brown (2000). “The Crime Control Industry and the Management of
the Surplus Population” Critical Criminology 8 (Autumn): 39-62.
Spitzer, S. and A. T. Scull (1977). "Privatization and Capitalist Development: The Case of
Private Police." Social Problems 25, 18-29.

Texas Prison Bid’ness (2010). “Breaking News: GEO Group buys private prison company
Thomas, P. (1994). “Making Crime Pay: Triangle of Interests Creates Infrastructure to Fight
Lawlessness,” Wall Street Journal, May 12: A1, A6.
Ward, G. (2000). “Two executives to share $1.3 million upon leaving Prison Realty Trust,”
February 17. Retrieved on November 26, 2010 from
Ward, J. (2008). “Big government gets bigger.” Washington Post, October 19. Retrieved on
November 24, 2010 from
Warren, J. (2003). “Prison Guards Union Targets College Program for Inmates.” Los Angeles
Wolfe, S. M. (1999). “Milton, Matthew and Managed Care.” Health Letter 15, 12. Washington,
DC: Public Citizen Health Research Group, p. 12.

About the Author
Randall G. Shelden, M.A, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Randall G. Shelden most notable achievements at the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice is his
evaluation of the Detention Diversion Advocacy Project, published by OJJDP in 1999. He is Professor of
Criminal Justice, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, where he has been a faculty member since 1977. He
received his Masters Degree in Sociology at Memphis State University and Ph.D. in Sociology at
Southern Illinois University.
Dr. Shelden is the author or co-author of 14 books, including: Girls, Delinquency and Juvenile Justice
(3rd edition), with Meda Chesney-Lind (which received the Hindelang Award for outstanding
contribution to Criminology in 1992); Youth Gangs in American Society (3rd ed.), with Sharon Tracy and
William B. Brown (Cengage Publishers); Crime and Criminal Justice in American Society (with William
Brown, Karen Miller and Randall Fritzler, Waveland Press); Controlling the Dangerous Classes: The
History of Criminal Justice (2nd edition, Allyn and Bacon); Delinquency and Juvenile Justice in
American Society (Waveland Press); Juvenile Justice in America: Problems and Prospects (Waveland
Press, co-edited with Daniel Macallair). His most recent book is Our Punitive Society (Waveland Press).
Dr. Shelden is also the author of more than 50 journal articles and book chapters on the subject of crime
and justice. He has also written more than 100 commentaries appearing in local and regional newspapers.
He is the co-editor of the Justice Policy Journal. His web site is:

For more information please visit or contact:
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
440 9th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 621-5661

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that offers policy
analysis, program development, and technical assistance in the criminal justice field.



BCI - 90 Day Campaign - 1 for 1 Match
Advertise here
Disciplinary Self-Help Litigation Manual - Side