Reforming Our Incarceration System To Eliminate the Use of Privately Operated Criminal Detention Facilities

Background

Before its revocation, President Biden's 2021 order effectively halted the renewal of Department of Justice contracts with privately operated criminal detention facilities. This move aimed to reduce the government's reliance on profit-motivated institutions within the incarceration system. The primary operational adjustment came from the directive to the Attorney General not to renew contracts with private prisons, impacting roughly 14,000 federal inmates housed in such facilities at the time. This decision was underscored by findings from the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General, which reported safety and security concerns in privately run prisons compared to their public counterparts.

The executive order also shifted the focus toward rehabilitation and reintegration programs, aligning with broader criminal justice reform goals prevalent at the time. This was reflected in policy directives prioritizing rehabilitative services, which aimed to prepare incarcerated individuals for successful reentry into society. Federal agencies were directed to emphasize programming and resources that facilitated inmates' rehabilitation, thereby fostering a reduced recidivism rate and promoting public safety over punitive measures.

On a social policy level, the order was a reflection of a broader commitment to address systemic inequities within the criminal justice system, particularly those affecting communities of color. Statistical analysis by advocacy groups suggested that private prisons disproportionately incarcerated minority populations. The move to phase them out was part of a larger strategy to reduce what many viewed as racial discrepancies inherent in the justice system. By imposing these requirements on federal contracts, the administration sought to set a precedent that could influence state-level incarceration practices as well.

Reason for Revocation

President Trump's revocation of Biden's executive order on private prisons was emblematic of broader ideological shifts marking his administration's approach to criminal justice. Unlike the previous administration's preference for rehabilitative and equitable justice reforms, Trump's policies leaned towards more stringent law-and-order techniques. This revocation was likely motivated by a belief in the efficacy of private enterprise over public institutions in managing detention facilities and a broader ideological commitment to deregulation and privatization.

While the Biden administration emphasized reducing the incarceration rate and addressing systemic issues within the justice system, Trump's administration often highlighted perceived failures in public institution efficiency and advocated for private sector solutions. This ideological divide was not limited to incarceration policies but extended across various sectors, reflecting a fundamental philosophical difference regarding government intervention.

The revocation also fits into a pattern of reversing policies perceived as soft on crime. Under Trump's leadership, there was a consistent rhetoric that painted private prisons as critical to managing crime rate increases effectively. He suggested that these institutions were capable of offering more flexible and resource-efficient solutions to the challenges faced by the federal correctional system, thus opposing the phase-out initiated by Biden.

Furthermore, the revocation could be seen as responsive to stakeholders in the private prison industry, who lobbied for policies favoring their business models. Trump's broader economic policy often aligned with interests advocating less government oversight and more opportunities for private profit, particularly in sectors traditionally run by public organizations.

Winners

The direct beneficiaries of the revocation of the ban on privately operated detention facilities are the corporations that manage these prisons. Companies like CoreCivic and The GEO Group, which are among the largest operators of private prisons in the United States, stand to gain significantly. With a reauthorization of contracts, these companies not only secure ongoing business but can also expand their operations, enhancing revenue streams that had been under threat.

Investors in the private prison industry also emerged as winners following the policy reversal, particularly if market conditions and regulatory environments turned favorable. Shares in these publicly traded companies were likely to see positive adjustments following the announcement, reflecting renewed investor confidence driven by expected increases in federal contracts and possibly state-level implications.

Local economies that rely on private detention facilities for employment and economic activity also benefit from this policy change. In many rural and economically depressed areas, private prisons are among the largest local employers. Maintaining these facilities preserves jobs and supports ancillary local businesses, from suppliers to service providers, who would have faced economic distress had these facilities closed following contract expirations.

Losers

The revocation of the 2021 executive order likely had detrimental effects on various groups, particularly those advocating for criminal justice reform. Civil rights organizations, which supported the phase-out of private detention facilities as a step towards a more equitable and humane justice system, saw this revocation as a setback in efforts to reduce mass incarceration and its disproportionate impact on minority communities.

Individuals within these privately run detention facilities may also face adverse outcomes. Reports and studies have consistently criticized private prisons for inadequate conditions, lower staffing levels, and insufficient rehabilitative programs compared to public facilities. Consequently, inmates in these facilities might continue to experience conditions that hinder their rehabilitation and reintegration prospects, perpetuating cycles of recidivism.

Finally, policymakers and state-level administrations attempting to curtail the influence of private prisons encountered increased challenges. The federal government's reversal could embolden private operators to push for expanded use of such facilities in states resistant to privatization, complicating efforts to transition towards more rehabilitative justice policies focused on public safety and community well-being over profit.