Private Prisons and the Public Interest
Improving Quality and Reducing Costs through Competition
Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research

The cost of maintaining Washington’s state-run prison system is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The state Department of Corrections budget has more than doubled over the last ten years, rising from $502 million in the 1997-1999 biennium to $1,072 million in the current biennium. Corrections costs rose more than 12.3% over the last two years, a rate more than four times faster than inflation. The increasing cost of operating the state prison system has outpaced the rise in total General Fund spending in every biennium in the 1990s, and is now one of the fastest growing areas of state spending.
Mounting prison expenditures are a major cost driver for state government, and are one reason overall state spending is increasing considerably faster than the rising level of tax revenues. State legislators now face a $2.4 billion deficit compared to what they had planned to spend in the 2007-2009 biennium.
Every state prison facility but one is overcrowded, some by as much as 50%. Many of Washington’s 39 county jails are also filled beyond capacity. Together county jails are designed to hold 8,770 prisoners, but instead house an average daily population of around 10,000, resulting in an average over-capacity of just over 113%.
The state’s tight financial situation lends fresh urgency to privatization and competitive bidding as a long-term way to bring rising spending under control. Introducing competition from the private sector would allow state leaders to provide critical prison services at lower cost.
Recent research compares two groups of states over four years, 2005 through 2009. The first group consists of nine states that took strong advantage of competitive forces by devoting at least 20% of their corrections system to privately run prisons. The second group consists of 24 states with few or no private prisons.
Washington is one of these. In every rated category, the states in the first group operated a more cost-effective prison system than those in the second group. The results are summarized in the graph.