The MDOC scandal made it to the national media. The New York Times reported:
In 1982, Christopher B. Epps, a young schoolteacher, took a second job as a guard at the facility known as Parchman Farm, the only prison operated at the time by the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
Eventually he had to choose a path. “It worked out that I was making more as a correctional officer than as a teacher,” Mr. Epps would later recall in an interview for a corrections newsletter.By the time he spoke those words in 2009, Mr. Epps was being feted as Mississippi’s longest-serving corrections commissioner. The state inmate population had quadrupled, five private prisons had been built to help house them, and, according to a federal grand jury indictment, Mr. Epps had found a new, secretive way to bolster his income.....Mr. Epps had inherited the private prisons when he became commissioner in August 2002, the legacy of 1990s-era lawmakers who saw them as a cost-effective solution to an overcrowding crisis. Mr. McCrory, a former sheriff’s deputy, had sponsored a 1993 privatization bill. It died in the state legislature, but the idea gathered steam, and Mississippi opened a private prison in 1996.By 2013, the system had four private prisons and the nation’s second-highest incarceration rate. Projected inmate population growth was expected to cost the state $266 million over the next 10 years. As in other states, the conservative Republicans who dominate state government here began to explore the cost-saving potential of sentencing reform.Mr. Epps was chosen to lead a task force on the topic. The group eventually devised a sweeping plan that, among other things, gave some nonviolent offenders new alternatives to prison. It became law in 2014. Mr. Epps called it “landmark” legislation that would “control corrections costs without jeopardizing public safety one bit.”........ Rest of article.
7 comments:
Privatizing hasn't worked well. It's been more costly and less efficient.
Just look at the increased costs of privatizing military base services.
It sounded good at the time, we just didn't think it through and realize that the business model demands increasing profits and it's not the consumer than always benefits from reduced costs.
In government services, there is no " supply" and " demand" or other widgets to buy.
Here's the real kicker: "It worked out that I was making more as a correctional officer than as a teacher."
If it worked the other way around, fewer students would grow up to be under the care of correctional officers.
You get what you pay for.
6:48 - great statement. Back it up or shut it up. Easy to make a comprehensive statement without facts. Realize your 'opinion' is probably enough for you and a few others that don't bother to think for themselves.
Privatization costs/benefits include much more than this year's outlay under one system or the other (particularly when considering the military). Long term costs, pensions, health care, lack of flexibility to adjust all add to the benefits of privatization.
Just as we have found out from having state employees run prisons - corruption occurs. It also has occurred in some of the privatized operations.
In state run facilities we don't pay enough to have quality correction officers. Low pay tends to increase option of graft on their part (not all, of course.) Same thing in the private run facilities if the contract doesn't provide for adequate pay. Far be it for me to call for higher pay for poor work (more money for the same result) but I don't buy your argument that government run facilities are any better.
Columbus Air Force Base bid out plane maintenance and certain training aspects [simulators] to private companies back in the 1980's. Wing Commander spoke to our civic club about it just before it was implemented and lamented that if we went to war, civilians wouldn't go to war with them. Hasn't worked out that way, and I've never heard much valid complaints with aircraft readiness and training.
Now the other side of that coin is companies like Haliburton that have allegedly fleeced us for billions with war zone contracts. I know an individual that worked for a contracts as a friggin lifeguard [swimming pool version] in Iraq, made over $80k. Pretty easy job because that base had no swimming pool!
4:07; What is meant by a 'lack of flexibility to adjust'? You lost me.
4:53 - good question. "Lack of flexibility to adjust" - when missions change, program needs no longer exist, technology changes staffing requirements, etc - governments lack flexibility, both because of the 'politics' and because of the government policies to change accordingly. At every level of both civilian and military buraucracies, employees have 'rift' rights to positions if they can claim any degree of knowledge of the position (if they can spell it they can get it).
Private companies have much more flexibility to adjust. If they gain a new contract, they hire more employees. If they lose a contract employees are either laid off or transferred to other areas. They are not limited in their market to "government contracts" - most provide the same or similar functions to private companies and can move employees to those operations.
Personnel policies and government bureaucracy can get much more detailed, but that was the intent of the comment.
4:48 - pretty weak attempt, but thanks for trying.
So - the military decided to contract out some functions and because the Wing Commander bitched about it at a civic club, that's evidence. Surely you can do better than thatto defend such a blanket statement that privatizing has "...been more costly and less efficient."
The Wing Commander's statement (erroneous, as we have learned through experience) about private companies not going to war doesn't have anything to do with your statement "....Just look at the increased costs of privatizing military base services. It sounded good at the time, we just didn't think it through and realize that the business model demands increasing profits and it's not the consumer than always benefits from reduced costs." Him claiming the private companies wouldn't go to war just doesn't quite back up these claims.
And - what else would you expect from a Wing Commander (or any other official in other branches)? Not using airmen for these (and other) functions reduces their importance and power. Remember the first rule of government management - Pyrimids get taller the bigger the base is. The more people you have working under you the higher you are in the mountains of the bureaucracy.
And I love your backing up your statement with "allegations" (Haliburton has 'allegededly fleeced us") First off, evidently this is one of those private companies that wouldn't go off to war. But skipping that one little detail, the military itself has also 'allegedly' fleeced us of billions on their own.
As to your 'friend' - if this was actually true, you should report it. The whistleblower premium could be sent to you promptly. But the real problem is, that same situation exists in the military and civilian government bureaucracies throughout government; local, state, federal and tribal.
Post a Comment