MEMORANDUM
TO: Congressman Cedric L. Richmond
FROM: Ryne Kessler, Quinnetta Younge, Amanda Samuel, and Allisha DeFreitas
RE: Prison Privatization
DATE: May 15, 2014
Executive Summary
Companies that seek profit through the ownership and operation of private prisons, often lobby
for longer confinement and push to increase prison occupancy. Mistreatment and abuse within
private prisons around the United States, has led to countless reports of riots, lawsuits and even
deaths. This memo will address the concerns surrounding the use of for-profit prisons and
outline options that can be implemented to solve these issues. Possible options include the
improvement of staffing policies, elimination of occupancy guarantee provisions in private
prison contracts, the development of an oversight board and Rights of Private Prisoners Act and
the implementation of services that will reduce the need for private prisons. While all of these
options should be explored, elimination of occupancy guarantee provisions in private prison
contracts and the implementation of services to reduce the need for private prisons are the most
feasible, cost efficient, and effective in solving these issues.
Background
Privately owned prisons such as New York’s Auburn and Sing Sing Prisons have had a long
history of mistreatment and abuse of prisoners dating back to the 1800’s. Consequently, many
prisons were closed due to overcrowding, malnourishment and frequent whippings.
Unfortunately today these problems still exist. “While there may not be frequent “whippings,”
private prisons continue to provide limited services and lack proper security and inmate
monitoring.”1
There have been patterns of abuse especially against juveniles and the mentally ill in prisons
operated by for-profit prisons such as the GEO group and Corrections Corporations of America.2
The GEO Group, one of the biggest for-profit prison operators in the world, has been accused of
providing abysmal care to prisoners with serious medical and mental health needs.3 Corporate
officials with conflicting motives run these prisons and sacrifice quality of care in their
organizations in order to make a profit. Other issues with private prisons include “under-trained
guards, poor oversight, deficient rehabilitation programs, lack of educational options, and an
increased rate of assaults, disturbances, and riots.”4
Problems arising in private prisons are due in part to lack of government oversight and limited
accountability. In Mississippi a federal judge excoriated the Department of Corrections
(MDOC) for failing to monitor and halt GEO’s abuses. “MDOC has long been on notice with
the deficiencies of private prisons, some of which resulted in deaths. MDOC has failed to
address these incidents or prevent them from reoccurring.”5 “The Huffington Post reports that
"private [prisons] don't have to follow the same public records and access requirements” as state
prisons.6
1
In addition to limited accountability, for-profit prisons hope to “generate the greatest possible
profit, and do this by any means necessary.”7 Lack of transparency and governmental regulation
encourages corruption in organizations and allows companies to freely cut corners in order to
boosts revenue. This may mean cutting services, ignoring prisoners that seek medical attention,
hiring fewer employees, and offering low wages. “Providing safe and humane conditions of
confinement to the human beings in their custody is –at best- a distant secondary goal.”8
For the past twenty years this industry has driven the mass incarceration in the U.S.9 Perverse
incentives and conflicting motives lead corporate officials to force inmate occupancy in order to
make a profit. The private industries themselves are the ones pushing for privatization. The
“private prison industry and its stockholders are the clear winners, as they make billions in
revenue.”10
There have been a number of harmful acts resulting from unfair treatment and abuse in private
prisons. “A federal judge found that GEO’s operation of the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional
Facility, which incarcerates teenagers as young as 13, has created a picture of such horror as
should be unrealized anywhere in the civilized world, including a pattern of sexual abuse and
severe beatings.”11
Further, massive evidence collected from the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, has
shown companies such as the GEO Group have been starving mentally ill prisoners. In several
cases, ACLU medical experts have documented inmates had been losing up to 30 pounds, after a
few months in GEO custody.12 GEO has allegedly punished prisoners with solitary confinement
and exposed them to such systemic abuse and neglect that the rate of suicides and suicide
attempts has increased.13 Families of inmates have begun to file lawsuits against companies for
negligence.
Reduced security and inmate monitoring has led to increased violence in private prisons. In one
example in Mississippi a group of inmates rioted while taking hostages and killing a correctional
officer.14 It is important to recognize that private prisons are not the only solution to the
government’s inefficiency and inability to operate state prisons. In fact, evidence has shown that
private prisons are not even producing cost-savings. "Cost savings from privatizing prisons are
not guaranteed and appear minimal.”15 So why then should we leave inmates at the mercy of
corporate officials that seek huge profits?
The rate of incarceration in the U.S. is rapidly increasing. Appendix A shows the rapid increase
in private prisons over the course of 14 years. “In total 6 million Americans are incarcerated
today as opposed to as little as 400,000 during the Reagan era. Yet according to The Christian
Science Monitor and Common Dreams, crime has dramatically decreased in the past 20 years.”16
The reason for this discrepancy is due in part to private prisons, which now “house half of all
inmates in the civil detention center.”17 Three of the major private prisons corporations-The GEO
Group, CCA, and Training Corp. earned an estimated $2 billion in 2012, thanks largely to the
increased number of incarcerated undocumented immigrants.18
2
Policy Options
The issues stemming from the use of private prisons need to be addressed and regarded as high
priority. We have proposed four solutions to help improve standards currently in place and to
implement preventative measures to decrease the rate of mass incarceration in the U.S. Our four
options are:
 Staffing Policy to improve safety of inmates and staff
 Elimination of Occupancy Guarantee Provisions in Private Prison Contracts and Full
Utilization of Public Prisons
 Oversight Board and Rights of Private Prisoners Act
 Reduce the Need for Private Prisons
Option 1: Improved Staffing Policy by Ryan Kessler
One of the major concerns in private prisons is the safety of the inmates as well as the staff. In
2008, the Justice Department reported that there were 49% more staff assaults and 65% more
prisoner assaults in private prisons compared to state prisons.19 Typical problems include serious
security lapses, calling for back-up and nobody came, security violations, not enough staff, and
inexperienced staff. Furthermore, there are inadequate patrols and prison movement, excessive
false alarms, a lax culture, and inconsistencies with visitor screenings.20 In order to deal with
these issues, proper safety measures need to be put in place.
Currently there is only one state, New Mexico, which requires the same standards in private
prisons as the public prisons have, while there are private prisons in 35 states and counting.
When Governor Susana Martinez took over in 2011, she changed the way private prisons were
operating by demanding contractual compliance that contrasted with former Governor Bill
Richardson’s lax business ways. GEO and CCA did not have to worry about fulfilling
contractual obligations until Susana Martinez took office.21 New Mexico has since hit GEO and
CCA with $1.4 million dollars in fines for inadequate staffing in 2011 and 2012 alone.22
The CCA is the fifth largest penal system and seeing that they were heavily fined in New
Mexico, it can be argued that they may be inadequately staffing in other states. To better protect
the staff and inmates in other states, similar laws to New Mexico’s policies need to be put into
place to force contractual obligations. The high-profit private prison corporations can afford to
pay the fines in one state, but if more states can pass legislation for this proposal, then
appropriate staffing will be established and increase the overall safety of the private prison
facilities.
Option 2: Elimination of Occupancy Guarantee Provisions in Private Prison Contracts and Full
Utilization of Public Prisons by Amanda Samuel
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, private prison companies have admitted that
their business model is dependent on an increase in the number of incarcerations. 23 In their 2010
Annual Report filed with the SEC, CCA stated that a decrease in occupancy levels could cause a
decrease in revenues and profitability. “When combined with relatively fixed costs for operating
3
each facility, regardless of the occupancy level, a decrease in occupancy levels could have a
material adverse effect on our profitability.”24
To ensure the continued increase in occupancy, private prison companies have been known to
lobby federal and state lawmakers for harsher and longer prison sentences. According to CCA’s
annual report, “the demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the
relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing
practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by
our criminal laws.”25
In 2012, CCA wrote to 48 state governors offering to buy and operate public state prisons in
exchange for a 20-year contract guaranteeing a 90 percent occupancy rate throughout the term.26
To combat this inherent greed and rise in incarceration rate, occupancy guarantee provisions
should be eliminated from federal, state and local contracts. Although governors did not take
CCA up on their offer, occupancy guarantee provisions are common in contracts. In a study
conducted by ITPI, it was found that 65% of state and local private prison contracts analyzed
included occupancy guarantee provisions.27 Of those contracts with occupancy guarantee
provisions, 5% guarantee below 90% occupancy and 38% guarantee between 90% to 94%
occupancy. 16% of private prisons located in Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Virginia
guarantee between 95% and 100% occupancy (Appendix B).28
States that adhere to occupancy guarantee provisions end up losing money in the long run.
Before inmates are sent to private prisons, public prisons should be fully utilized. In the past
decade Colorado was forced to close five of its prisons after a decrease in its prison population.
With a projected impending closure of two to ten more of its prisons, CCA was impelled to
renegotiate three of its contracts with the state to include occupancy guarantee provisions
although the original contract specifically stated that the state of Colorado did not guarantee a
minimum number of inmates. CCA was able to keep its three prisons open, and Colorado was
compelled to keep at least 3,300 prisoners in the three facilities, at an annual cost of $20,000 per
inmate for the 2013 fiscal year.29 This meant that even though private prisons were not filled to
capacity, states still incurred the operational costs (Appendix B).
Option 3: Oversight Board and Rights of Private Prisoners Act by Quinnetta Younge
The development of privatized prisons in various states has led to an in depth discussion on the
rights of inmates. While some may believe privatized prisons are more cost efficient, it is
important to review the correlation between the monetary interest of prison owners and the
protection of the inmates’ human rights. Unlike state prisons, where provisions are shared
amongst all facilities and strictly enforced, the use of private prisons give for profit investors
creative ability to create their own provisions. Privatized prisons raise concerns about contractors
being allowed “to subordinate fairness and decency to financial consideration.”30
Douglass W. Dunham argues that there must be safeguards in place which ensures that inmates
are not being denied their constitutional rights, specifically the rights granted in the eighth and
fourteenth amendments due process clause. Under the fourteenth amendment “procedural due
4
process guarantees that only by following fair procedures can the government or its agencies
deprive a person of life, liberty or property.”31 Within the realm of a prison, all procedures
involving inmates “require the existence of a decision making system” which is sought out to
provide fair treatment.32 The liberties of inmates in private prisons are even more at stake due to
the interest in capital gain per inmate.
In procedures such as disciplinary hearings, there is great concern involving the financial biases
of board officials when determining the length of an inmate’s stay. During disciplinary hearings
in private prisons, inmates are usually threatened to forfeit the time deducted from their sentence
for good behavior as a notion of discipline. Dunham explains that “private operators are
compensated based on the number of inmates they house and have a pecuniary interest in
ensuring that inmates remain in custody.”33 This interest of keeping inmates in custody has the
ability to cause many discrepancies including unfair decision making procedures which puts the
inmate’s right to procedural due process of the law at risk.
The eighth amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishment while incarcerated.
“The treatment of inmates must not be inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency.
When the government imprisons individuals, it must also assume responsibility for their wellbeing.”34 Prisons must be able to provide adequate housing, food, medical and psychiatric care.
Private prison investors have adopted the strategy of “cherry picking” their inmates, carefully
choosing inmates that don’t require costly services. Five out of eight private prisons serving
Arizona refused inmates who displayed limited physical capacity, and stamina or severe physical
illness or chronic conditions. “None took inmates with “high need” mental health conditions and
some inmates were returned to state prisons due to an increase of their medical scores that
exceeds contractual exclusions.”35
According to the Daily Newspaper article, contracts give private prisons the authority to
carefully pick which inmates are being held in their prisons which in the end alters the amount
spent per inmate. Research by the Arizona Department of Corrections states, “They often house
only relatively healthy inmates” making them seem less expensive even though they are not.”36
The method of strategically picking prisoners based on medical obligations is an obvious
example of private contractors cutting corners for profit.
Critics and human right activist fear that the privatization of prisons will lead to other cuts in the
standards of living for inmates. Regulations on acceptable living conditions are usually set forth
by the state in order to protect inmates but in private prisons, contractors have the authority to
make all fund allocation decisions. As a result cases of abuse, malnutrition and medical
emergencies due to neglect are prevalent within private prisons. Dunham argues that the
privatization of prisons is permitting “the cost conscious operators to economize at inmate’s
expense.”37
There are many human rights concerns and risks associated with the privatization of prisons.
The discussion involving the human rights of inmates has led to very little recognition on the
federal level. In order to truly protect the rights of the inmates, we propose the formation of a
federal law that goes beyond state jurisdiction entitled the Rights of Private Prisoners Act (RPP
5
Act) and an Oversight Board that forces private prisons to uphold the same standards as public
prisons. The Rights of Private Prisoners Act (RPP Act) will include guidelines for staff training,
standards for both decent living conditions and medical resources within a facility, guiding
principles for disciplinary hearings including records of each hearing and mandatory oversight
visits from a non-affiliated federal agent. The establishment of such law will decrease the risks
of human rights violations and hold private prison proprietors more accountable for protecting
the rights of their inmates.
An Oversight Board in privatized prisons is needed to make sure that private prisons are
adhering to the regulations set forth in the proposed RPP Act. This non-affiliated independent
body chosen by the federal government will be responsible for overseeing administration,
reviewing conduct and, management, and evaluating the contractor’s performance. The
Oversight Board will not only help ensure protocols put in place by the RPP Act are being met;
the group will make policy-level recommendations
The common use of outside services in privatized prisons will allow the oversight board to put
forth immediate consequences such as the loss of payment to private firms. The proposed
oversight board should fashion that of what is currently present in the United Kingdom whereby
private contractors face losing a portion of their contract if they fail to abide by certain standards.
Government currently maintains certain responsibilities such as selecting inmates to be placed in
private prisons, choosing the type of facility to be contracted out, overseeing the contractor’s
disciplinary practices, evaluating the contractor’s performance.38 Unfortunately, this is not
enough. Experience has shown that even with this Public-Private Partnership (PPP), lack of
government oversight and conflicting motives from private prison profiteers have led to
corruption, lawsuits and even death in privately operated prisons. The use of an Oversight Board
will help to measure safety, quality of care and accountability for both the private firms and the
government.
Option 4: Reduce the Need for Private Prisons by Allisha DeFreitas
Building more prisons whether it is public or private is a short-term solution to a long-term
problem. The Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime program at the University of Alabama
(TASC) proposes long-term solutions such as, prevention programming for at risk youth,
intervention, alternative sentencing, treatment instead of incarceration, secondary and higher
education and job training behind bars, effective re-entry programming, and other justice
reinvestment programs that are geared towards restoration of our communities.39
The Alabama Department of Corrections (DOC) recently requested $27 million to lease private
prison beds outside of the state of Alabama. However if the state used the $27 million to begin
“reforming the long list of people who were sent to prison for simple drug possession and
addiction”40 in the first place, the need for private prisons might not be as great. “There are
prisoners in need of drug treatment services that currently are not being provided.”41
The $27 million could potentially be used to: “Contract out drug treatment services to existing
treatment providers in the mental health system and expand substance abuse treatment capacity
6
in the community so that people busted for drug use are sent to a treatment facility instead of a
prison cell.”42 It is also important to “expand the use of and increase the effectiveness of
community based corrections programs and electronic monitoring for low risk offenders.”43
In addition, addressing the “war on drugs” is critical in helping to reduce the need for private
prisons. “On Dec. 31, 2012, there were 196,574 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction.
Of these, 99,426 were serving time for drug offenses and 11,688 for violent offenses.”44 The
imprisonment approach to drug policy is counterproductive, costly and ineffective.
There is a need to eliminate or change policies that cause mass incarnation such as the
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws and the Three Strikes Law-which significantly increases
the prison sentencing of a person convicted of a felony who was previously convicted of two or
more violent crimes or serious felonies.
Further, many states have successfully reduced prison populations by participating in the Justice
Reinvestment Initiative (JRI). Launched in 2001 by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and Pew
Charitable Trusts, “JRI is a program model adopted by states designed to identify and implement
data-driven criminal justice reforms that will reduce state prison populations and save money.”45
Recommendation
Prisoners deserve to be treated fairly and not left at the mercy of prison profiteers. To protect the
rights of prisoners, there needs to be an overhaul of the private prison industry. As we are aware
that all four options we have proposed may have both benefits and drawbacks, it is important to
determine a solution that will be most feasible, cost efficient, and effective in solving the
problems in private prisons.
After thoroughly analyzing the four policy options, eliminating occupancy guarantee provisions
in private prison contracts and fully utilizing public prisons is the best and most cost efficient
option. To ensure justice, avoid corruption, and combat the inherent greed and increase in
incarceration rates, we need a plan that will address the profit maximization motives of private
prison corporations.
An obvious objection to eliminating occupancy guarantee provisions is that corporations that run
private prisons will be forced to exit the market if there is no guaranteed occupancy and profit in
it for them. Some states that rely on private prison services as a result will have increased prison
expenses and overcrowdings. Money that can be used for inmate rehabilitation will then have to
be used to build more public prisons. However, since studies have shown that states are in fact
losing money on private prisons, a reduction in the supply of private prisons will in fact save
some states money. By eliminating occupancy quotas, public prisons will be fully utilized before
utilizing private prisons, thus saving taxpayers millions. This does not address the issue of poor
conditions in private prisons, but filling up the public prisons may urge private prisons to be
more competitive and offer better conditions and more affordable prices.
Eliminating occupancy quotas is not the only option that needs to be taken into consideration.
Preventative measures to address the issue of mass incarceration and reduce the need for private
prisons should also be considered. Preventative measures such as the Justice Reinvestment
7
Initiative has helped to reduce the prison population and also help to rehabilitate inmates. Some
may argue that this option doesn’t immediately address the issue at hand. It will take time to
implement these services and then measure the success of these programs. By reducing the
incarceration rates, the need for private prisons will be reduced, ultimately saving taxpayers
millions as well.
Congressman Richmond, in your recent letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder you mentioned
your eagerness to work to ensure a more reasonable, efficient and impactful prison policy. We
hope that you would see privatization of prisons as an injustice and seek to propose legislation to
bring an end to this issue. We hope that you would take our recommendation to eliminate
occupancy guarantee provisions in private prison contracts and preventative measures into
consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter and we anticipate working with you in
the future to help with the issue of private prisons.
Appendix A
8
Appendix B
9
Notes
1
Nagin, Matt. "Private Prisons: A Criminal Injustice." Mic Network Inc. N.p., 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.policymic.com/articles/15942/private-prisons-a-criminal-injustice>.
2
"2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K." Corrections Corporation of America. N.p., 2010. Web. 4 Mar 2014.
<https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf>.
3
Winter, Margaret, and Gabriel Ebner. "Private Prisons Are the Problem Not the Solution." ACLU:
American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <https://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rightscriminal-law-reform/private-prisons-are-problem-not-solution>.
4
See Nagin, Matt.
5
See Nagin, Matt.
6
See Nagin, Matt.
7
See Winter, Margaret.
8
See Winter, Margaret.
9
See Winter, Margaret.
10
See Winter, Margaret.
11
See Winter, Margaret.
12
See Winter, Margaret.
13
See Winter, Margaret.
14
See Nagin, Matt.
15
See Nagin, Matt.
16
See Nagin, Matt.
17
See Nagin, Matt.
18
See Nagin, Matt.
19
Now: Prisons for Profit. PBS, 2008.
20
Now: Prisons for Profit. PBS, 2008.
21
"Private Prisons: Payoffs, Profits & Failures." MisBehaved Woman. N.p., 10 Apr. 2013. Web. Mar. 2014.
<http://misbehavedwoman.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/private-prisons-payoffs-profits-failures/>.
22
"New Mexico Slaps Private Prison Companies with $1.4 Million in Fines." Albuquerque Journal (2012):
38-42. Print.
10
23
"Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p.,
2011. Web. 4 Mar 2014. <https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf>.
24
"2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. " Corrections Corporation of America. N.p., 2010. Web. 4 Mar
2014. <https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf>.
25
See Corrections Corporation of America.
26
"Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and “Low-Crime Taxes” Guarantee Profits for Private Prison
Corporations." In the Public Interest 3. , Sept. 2013. Web.30 Mar 2014.
<http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Criminal-Lockup%20Quota-Report.pdf>
27
See In the Public Interest 6.
28
See In the Public Interest 6.
29
See In the Public Interest 7-8.
30
Dunham, Douglas W. "Inmates’ Rights and the Privatization of Prisons." Columbia Law Review 86.7
(1986): 1475-504. Print.
31
See Dunham, Douglas W.
32
See Dunham, Douglas W.
33
See Dunham, Douglas W.
34
See Dunham, Douglas W.
35
Oppel, Richard. "Private Prisons Found to Offer Little in Savings." The New York Times 18 Mar. 2011:
A1. Print.
36
See Oppel, Richard.
37
See Dunham, Douglas W.
38
Joel, Dana. "A Guide to Prison Privatization." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1988. Web. 1 Mar. 2014.
< http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1988/05/bg650-a-guide-to-prison-Privatization>.
39
"Alabama Voices: Private Prisons Not Proper Solution for Corrections | Ordinary People
News." Ordinary People News RSS. N.p., 10 Mar. 2006. Web. 14 May 2014.
<http://www.wearetops.org/opn/alabama-voices-private-prisons-not-proper-solution-for-corrections/>.
40
See Ordinary People News RSS.
41
See Ordinary People News RSS.
42
See Ordinary People News RSS.
43
See Ordinary People News RSS.
11
44
"Common Sense for Drug Policy." Drug Offenders in the Correctional System. N.p., 2014. Web. 1 May
2014. <http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.hehfzDFz.VwTzCn6Y.dpbs>.
45
Kirby, Holly. "Locked up and Shipped Away: Interstate Prisoner Transfers & the Private Prison
Industry."Grassroots Leadership. N.p., 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://grassrootsleadership.org/locked-upand-shipped-away#8>.
12
Works Cited
"2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K." Corrections Corporation of America. N.p., 2010. Web. 2014.
<https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf>.
"Alabama Voices: Private Prisons Not Proper Solution for Corrections | Ordinary People News." Ordinary
People News RSS. N.p., 10 Mar. 2006. Web. 14 May 2014. <http://www.wearetops.org/opn/alabamavoices-private-prisons-not-proper-solution-for-corrections/>.
"Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 2011. Web.
2014. <https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf>.
"Common Sense for Drug Policy." Drug Offenders in the Correctional System. N.p., 2014. Web. 1 May 2014.
<http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.hehfzDFz.VwTzCn6Y.dpbs>.
"Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and “Low-Crime Taxes” Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations." In
the Public Interest. 1-15, Sept. 2013. Web. 2014.
<http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/Criminal-Lockup%20Quota-Report.pdf>
Dunham, Douglas W. "Inmates’ Rights and the Privatization of Prisons." Columbia Law Review 86.7 (1986):
1475-504. Print.
Joel, Dana. "A Guide to Prison Privatization." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 1988. Web. 1 Mar. 2014. <
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1988/05/bg650-a-guide-to-prison-Privatization>.
Kirby, Holly. "Locked up and Shipped Away: Interstate Prisoner Transfers & the Private Prison
Industry."Grassroots Leadership. N.p., 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
<http://grassrootsleadership.org/locked-up-and-shipped-away#8>.
Nagin, Matt. "Private Prisons: A Criminal Injustice." Mic Network Inc. N.p., 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.policymic.com/articles/15942/private-prisons-a-criminal-injustice>.
"New Mexico Slaps Private Prison Companies with $1.4 Million in Fines." Albuquerque Journal (2012): 38-42.
Print.
Now: Prisons for Profit. PBS, 2008.
Oppel, Richard. "Private Prisons Found to Offer Little in Savings." The New York Times 18 Mar. 2011: A1. Print.
"Private Prisons: Payoffs, Profits & Failures." MisBehaved Woman. N.p., 10 Apr. 2013. Web. Mar. 2014.
<http://misbehavedwoman.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/private-prisons-payoffs-profits-failures/>.
Winter, Margaret, and Gabriel Ebner. "Private Prisons Are the Problem Not the Solution." ACLU: American Civil
Liberties Union. N.p., 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <https://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights-criminallaw-reform/private-prisons-are-problem-not-solution>.
13