PCUSA's indictment
of private prisons
rebutted by elder who oversees them
By John H.
Adams
The Layman
Online
Thursday, April 1,
2004
 |
| John D. Ferguson |
Following the recommendations of a "study" by the
Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), the 215th General
Assembly issued a stinging indictment of prisons that are built and
operated by private companies.
That study described private prisons as "a glaring and significant
flaw in our justice system" and declared that they should be
abolished. The report was laden with pejoratives, including charges that
contractors promote recidivism as "business as usual" and that
they are part of a "right-wing" lobby for contracts. The study
makes the disputable claim that private prisons cost more than public
prisons.
A few commissioners tried to tell the other side of the story, but they
were overwhelmed by the majority. The PCUSA's national governing body
pronounced its anathema on "for-profit" prisons, the phrase of
choice in the study because it conveys the impression that someone's
making money off "the least of these."
Now, however, John D. Ferguson, a Presbyterian elder who was a
commissioner to the 1996 General Assembly, has come forth to tell the
rest of the story. Ferguson is president and chief executive officer the
Corrections Corporation of America, the largest prison contractor in the
nation with more than 16,000 employees who supervise more than 62,000
prisoners.
Some
of the 62 prisons
being operated by
Corrections Corporation
of America |
 |
| California
City Correctional Facility |
 |
David
L. Moss Criminal Justice Center
Tulsa, Okla. |
 |
Tall
Trees Correctional Center
Memphis, Tenn. |
 |
West
Tennessee Detention Center
Mason, Tenn. |
Ferguson is also a man of deep faith and, contrary to the ASCWP
report, is committed to rehabilitation. The Corrections Corporation of
America recently joined with the Chicago-based Institute on Basic Life
Principles to offer what it hopes will be a prototype for a faith-based
prison rehabilitation program nationwide. Similar programs have resulted
in substantially reduced recidivism and smoother transition from prison
life to communities. That development got a front-page story in the
March 22-28 National Weekly Edition of The Washington Times.
A member of Germantown Presbyterian Church in Germantown, Tenn.,
Ferguson was named the corporation's top executive after Corrections
Corporation of America ran into financial troubles. Under his
leadership, per-share stock value has increased from $1.80 to $35.
But, more important, he believes Corrections Corporation of America has
been able to provide a safe and secure prison environment that
contradicts the ACSWP description of private prisons – both in
perception and in documented evidence. After thoroughly studying the
ACSWP report and its sources, Ferguson is convinced that the
social-policy agency of the denomination relied heavily on prison unions
– rather than significant studies – to generate its
anti-private prison report.
For instance, he says, the ACSWP report, which focuses on Corrections
Corporation of America, says private prisons have an alarmingly high
escape rate. In fact, Ferguson said, Corrections Corporation has had one
escape from secure facilities in the last three years – an average
of .5 percent per 10,000 inmates. The public prison average is more than
10 times as high.
The ACSWP report accused private prisons of lobbying for tougher
sentencing laws so that they'll get more prisoners. To the contrary,
Ferguson says, Mike Quinlin, a senior vice president for Corrections
Corporation of America, testified before Congress against mandatory
minimum sentences - "because he believes that such sentences
diminish an inmate's incentive toward good behavior by eliminating the
possibility of early release and, in turn, diminish a prison system's
ability to manage difficult inmates."
Ferguson released to The Layman a copy of a
11-page letter he wrote to General
Assembly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick. The letter criticized the
one-sided ASCWP study and asked how the Presbyterian Church, with its
great tradition of openness and full debate, failed to invite the people
who are affected by the PCUSA lobby against private prisons to present
their case.
In his response,
Kirkpatrick offered little consolation. "I know that they widely
advertised their work in the hopes of getting input from Presbyterians
with special knowledge in the field of corrections," Kirkpatrick
said in reference to the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy.
His reply offered no response to Ferguson's invitation "to visit
any of our correctional institutions."
Without apology, Ferguson presented his own views on the financial
benefits of private prisons for taxpayers and government, but the bulk
of his rebuttal was through his reference to studies that the Advisory
Committee on Social Witness Policy ignored, including an article in the
May 2002 Harvard Law Review.
Ferguson sent The Layman a copy of the Harvard Law Review's
assessment. Citing numerous studies and court decisions and using far
more documentation than ACSWP did, the Havard Law Review reached
conclusions that contrast dramatically with those in the ASCWP report.
That assessment is the testimony that the ACSWP never heard – or
wanted to hear, even though it came from a source that is hardly
considered a bastion of conservativism. (ACSWP did mention in its report
that Quinlin served as director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons under
former President George Bush, which was part of its argument that the
private-prison industry is a right-wing group because of its Republican
Party connections. More than half the members of the PCUSA are also
Republicans.)
Here are a few some excerpts from the ASCWP report and the Harvard
Law Review:
ASCWP: "Since the goal of for-profit private prisons is earning
a profit for their shareholders, there is a basic and fundamental
conflict with the concept of rehabilitation as the ultimate goal of the
prison system."
- HLV: "Public prisons are not the most accountable of
government systems; in fact, under certain circumstances, private
prisons may be more accountable … Private prisons have
substantially greater market accountability because they are
concerned with winning new contracts and renewing old ones, and with
avoiding adverse publicity and drops in stock price."
ACSWP: "As it happens, for-profit private prisons do not
save the taxpayers money. Studies have shown that, at best, they cost
approximately the same as public prisons."
- HLV: "The most rigorous studies find clearly positive cost
savings. … They can typically design and build prisons in half
the time for government to do so, because they can avoid the layers
of red tape that play a role in safe-guarding against government
corruption, but are arguably unnecessary when the government
purchases a service from the private sector … Private firms are
also usually free of purchasing restrictions and subcontracting
quotas. Contracting out prison design and construction reduces costs
by 15 to 25 percent."
- "… Second, private companies save money at the
operation stage. The main savings come from reducing labor costs,
both through lower wages and through more efficient use of labor. A
private firm that had a role in designing a facility would be likely
to use innovative design techniques that would minimize the number
of guards required to monitor inmates. Moreover, because they are
not bound by civil service rules in managing their personnel,
private prisons use roughly one-third the administrative personnel
of government prisons and use incentives to reduce sick time and
consequent overtime expenditures."
ACSWP: "Studies of for-profit private prisons have
documented reductions in food, medical and rehabilitation services, job
training, and other resources available to prisoners." (ACSWP uses
anecdotal reports of problems at prisons – both private and public –
to reach that conclusion.)
- HLV: "On the quality side, comparisons are trickier, as
there is no single metric representing quality. But none of the more
rigorous studies finds quality at private prisons lower than quality
at public prisons on average, and most find private prisons
outscoring public prisons on most quality indicators … This
result belies statements .. that assume that cost reductions must
come at the expense of quality."
ACSWP: "A 2002 study by the National Institute on Money
and State Politics found that, in the 2000 election cycle, the
for-profit private prison industry made more than a million dollars in
campaign contributions in fourteen southern states alone. Often the
candidates they are backing financially are supporters not only of
for-profit private prisons, but also of other regressive criminal
justice policies, including harsher sentencing laws."
- HLV: "Though private prison companies do lobby state and
federal governments, so do prison guard units, which also benefit
from increased incarceration rates and prison construction. Prison
guard unions generally contribute vastly more money to politicians
than do private prison companies. The California prison guard union,
for example, endorses and contributes millions of dollars to state
candidates and "is among the largest campaign donors in the
state." [In its reference to the California prison guard union,
the Harvard Law Review included a footnote citing a report
by the Reason Public Institute, which said the California prison
union made $1.5 million in donations to Pete Wilson alone during his
1990 and 1994 gubernatorial bids – compared to total political
contributions nationwide of $150,000 by private prison companies in
1995-1996.]
ACSWP's report cited a number of incidents of violence, medical
neglect and other wrongs against inmates in private prisons. It made no
reference to similar problems at public prisons.
- HLV: "Abuses happen in any system. But how do different
systems react to abuse when it occurs? While there is no systematic
information about the reaction to prisoner abuse in public and
private prisons, case studies may provide a flavor of the
accountability mechanisms at work."
- "Empirical studies have found that juries are more likely to
award larger verdicts against corporations than against governments."
The study cited a case in which Corrections Corporation of America
was sued for allegedly providing inadequate security and medical
attention. In the settlement, "CCA paid $1,650,000 to the 2,000
members of the inmate class - an extraordinarily high settlement for
class-action involving prisoners."
- HLV contrasted the accountability required of private prisons
with a glaring example of little accountability in the aftermath of
major incidents in Corcoran State Prison, a public prison in
California. "Guards killed seven inmates and wounded 43 others
between 1989 and 1995. Rival gang members fought in human cockfights
overseen by prison guards; officers abused and beat inmates; problem
inmates were disciplined by being locked in a cell and then beaten
or raped by an inmate enforcer dubbed the 'Booty Bandit.'"
- Terming the Corcoran incidents "a reminder of the weakness
of public prisons' accountability," the review noted that there
were investigations by the FBI, the California Department of
Corrections and the California attorney general's office. "These
investigations were stymied by political pressure from the
governor's office and the prison guard union, and the state probes
yielded not a single criminal charge. Instead, state investigators
'spent consider manpower trying to dig up dirt' on the
whistleblowers who had reported these abuses to the FBI. One
whistleblower, Richard Caruso, was the only officer disciplined as a
result of the state investigations (although he sued and received a
large settlement from the state, the largest amount ever given to a
whistle-blowing officer in California.)"
ACSWP: "Entrusting fellow human beings to the hands of the
for-profit private prison industry means abandoning our responsibility
to them and trusting the private prison companies to care for them. This
is necessitated by the fact that, as the system is currently configured,
for-profit private prisons are less accountable to community pressure
and not required to be as forthcoming with information as governmental
entities. Putting the already vulnerable prisoner population in a
situation that leaves them further at risk is unacceptable to
Christians, who are called to minister to and advocate for these same
children of God."
- HLV (conclusion): "Turning to the cost and quality
comparisons, what imperfect empirical evidence there is suggests
that private prisons cost less than public prisons and that their
quality is no worse; it is perhaps unsurprising that prison
privatization behaves in this respect much like privatization of
other state and local services. Moreover, there are many reasons to
believe that private prisons are more accountable than public
prisons - both because of heightened legal and market accountability
for private firms and because accountability in the public sector is
so limited … In short, despite all of their possible faults,
private prisons are a promising avenue for the future development of
the prison system."
Ferguson said he said Corrections Corporation America would have
made its case against the ASCWP report if it had learned about the
proposal in advance. He said the corporation decided not to respond
later because of the general reputation of ACSWP for adopting radically
liberal policy proposals and the ineffectiveness of the denomination's
Washington Office, its national lobbying body.
However, he recently received a copy of a news story written by the
Presbyterian News Service that described ASCWP's celebration of
receiving the printed copies of its report.
Ferguson said he noticed that Kirkpatrick had written a preface to the
booklet – commending the ACSWP report to governing bodies for "prayerful
study, dialogue and action" – and that's why he chose to write
to Kirkpatrick.
He said he has released his letter and Kirkpatrick's response with the
hope that Presbyterians will take a closer look at what he believes is a
slanted picture drawn mostly from the political efforts of public prison
unions.
In his letter to Kirkpatrick, dated Feb. 13, 2004, he made another
request: "We hope that PCUSA News, which saw fit to celebrate the
proposed resolution and assail CCA by name, will give these views the
same publicity."
Kirkpatrick's noted in his letter that he was copying his response to a
number of Presbyterian officials – including the chairman and the
moderator of ASCWP – and enclosing copies of Ferguson's letter.
There was no reference in the letter sending a copy to the Presbyterian
News Service. |