Opinion: The waste of prison privatization

Political rhetoric can be truly fascinating. For instance, politicians can stand behind a pretty little podium, give a vague speech outlining what their plan to “move forward” is, and, so long as they includes a few key words or phrases like “reducing the deficit,” “bipartisanship,” “create new jobs,” and “taxpayers,” they can finish their presentation with thunderous applause and hope for all. These words and phrases are tossed around like a dirty rag that everyone has used to clean up their messes. It comes to the point that the words have no meaning. Take taxpayers for instance. That word is uttered and it is like politicians are talking about an entirely separate group. Oh yeah, those people. But it is not those people, it is us. It is nearly every person who lives and functions within the country. When we hear the word taxpayer, what we should hear is “you.” And that makes taxpayer take on a much more powerful meaning.The word taxpayer has come up several times recently when discussing a plan to privatize food service in prisons in Ohio. If enacted, this means that the task of feeding inmates, officers and guests will become the responsibility of a private company that the state will pay. This plan will “reduce the deficit” (ironically, by taking away jobs), and save millions of dollars every year. However, behind the scenes there is much more to the story.The Ohio Civil Services Employee Association (OCSEA) is the union for state employees. As could be imagined, the OCSEA stands in strong opposition of this proposed plan. On top of a potential loss of 450 state jobs, this privatization plan could end up being more costly than the plan already in place. More than that, there is a strong possibility that it would be wasting taxpayer money spent on an inefficient program.For just a moment, let’s take out the human component and look at the money, at our money. Currently, about $1.5 billion is spent on the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (DRC). With the proposed privatization plan, about $16 million of that per year is expected to be saved. However, those are just the surface numbers. Those numbers have been manipulated in a way that makes it seem as if privatization will save lots of money and be the solution to a deficit problem is this department. But there are a few other factors that need to be accounted for.First of all, those numbers are not an accurate representation of the budget with the privatization plan. This is because of “hidden costs”—costs that are currently counted within the budget for the DRC but that a private company would not pick up. For instance, security would become an issue with a private company. The new company is required to have the security training that state employees currently have. As a result, the state would have to provide extra protection, by means of increasing the number of security guards. This of course will cause an extra cost to the state because the state will be paying the wages of the extra security, and not the private company. Another example would be maintenance. Currently within the budget of the DRC is included the costs of maintenance of the kitchens, the equipment, etc. But with the privatization plan, these costs would still be covered by the state and not by the private company. These hidden costs create a stacked statistic, making it appear as if the privatization plan will save more than it really will.Furthermore, there have been examples in the past of a private company actually costing the state more than it was paying previously. Arguably the most prominent of these examples is with the company Aramark. Aramark signed a two-year contract with the state in 1998 to take over food service in the Noble and Belmont correctional institutions. An audit from that time found that, aside from the poor food portions and quality and the near riots because of which, Aramark over charged the DRC by over $2 million.  Over $2 million that could’ve been saved had the state decided to keep the state workers rather than sell out to a private company. In the end, Aramark was essentially fired and state employees were again hired to work in the food service.Lastly, the money that is being spent on a private company is not staying within Ohio. Many of the private companies that have worked in privatization of prisons in the past have been out of state. For example, Aramark is based out of Pennsylvania. Another company which was hired to privatize an entire prison (rather than just the food service) was Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The company bought the Lake Erie Correctional Institution in Conneaut. State audits have found the standards of living in the institution, including medical treatment and inadequate staffing, to be completely unacceptable. Even more, Correction Corporations of America is based out of Tennessee. Many companies who would bid to privatize the food in prisons are not even located in Ohio. As a result, the money, the taxpayer money, being spent on the institutions is not staying in Ohio’s economy.Privatizing prisons has a long track record of simply not working. The issue is rooted in the fact that private companies, by their for-profit nature, are trying to make more money. How do they make more money? By having more prisoners and cutting corners wherever possible. It is a system which has not worked, and is not going to start magically working. What is even more frustrating is the fact that an alternative plan from OCSEA was presented to the state before they released any indication of privatizing food service. This alternative plan would keep state workers, maintain the same quality of food and save nearly as much, with the estimated total savings coming in at a minimum of $9.7 million a year. That number is with staffing being at full capacity, which it is not. In short, there is a viable alternative plan, which was skipped over in order to try an already tried and failed plan that will ultimately just end in millions of taxpayer dollars being wasted.Politicians can use all of the political rhetoric they want, but the fact of the matter comes down to this: taxpayer dollars will be wasted with privatization. It is unsuccessful, it can result in over payment and it takes the money out of our home economy. Not to mention that the numbers presented are not an accurate representation of the money that would be saved. “Reducing the deficit” is important. However, privatization is not a means to do that. There is a sound alternative plan that will not only prevent wasting “taxpayers’” money, but also protect the workers involved.