Be wary of private prison scheme

Editorial

Privatization of government services, properly managed, can cut costs and improve efficiency, and a legislative plan to privatize 26 Florida prisons initially seemed promising. But the bullying, rule-breaking attempt by the state Senate leadership to ramrod it through without regard for opponents' reasonable questions smells to high heaven.

If the plan is as good as its proponents claim, such heavy-handed tactics wouldn't be necessary. But supporters won't permit a study that would determine the plan's likely savings.

Gov. Rick Scott, who supports the legislation, fired his first Department of Corrections secretary after he questioned prison privatization.

Taxpayers should be suspicious. It may be no coincidence that the private prison industry made nearly $1 million in political contributions last year.

Senate President Mike Haridopolos on Wednesday removed Pasco Sen. Mike Fasano as chairman of the criminal justice budget committee because Fasano questioned the privatization deal. Fasano had offered an amendment that would have required a thorough study, a prudent move.

"I am just not willing to turn over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer-paid facilities to private interests without knowing what we are getting into," Fasano told us.

Haridopolos and privatization supporters emphasize transferring the prisons to private operators will save at least 7 percent — $22 million. But it turns out those numbers are illusory.

There has been no true cost comparison between private and public prisons in Florida because the costs of running prisons differ wildly, depending on the type of prisoners being held and the condition of the prison.

New prisons are cheaper to maintain than older ones. Elderly or sick prisoners cost much more than healthy ones. Low-risk inmates don't cost nearly as much to supervise as dangerous ones.

Moreover, the state has not conducted a review of public and private prison expenses since 2008.

But that hasn't stopped Scott, Haridopolos, Polk Sen. JD Alexander and others from insisting lawmakers commit to a plan without knowing whether it will undermine prison security, threaten the jobs of nearly 3,000 corrections officers or jeopardize the economies of the rural communities where most of the prisons are located.

Sen. Paula Dockery recently detailed in a Florida Voices column Jan. 27 how Senate leadership stacked appropriations committees with supporters of the plan and removed the skeptics. The Senate brass also ignored bill-filing deadlines and other legislative protocols.

Even with this manipulation, it looked as if the measure was heading for defeat Wednesday, but Haridopolos refused to bring the bill up for debate and sacked Fasano.

No doubt an effort will be made to slip it through later. Pinellas Sen. Jack Latvala, to his credit, insisted notice be given on any future vote.

If opponents' only objection were the loss of government jobs, we would not be sympathetic. But they are right to demand more evidence that the change will achieve savings and will not compromise public safety.

Dockery and Fasano ask responsible questions:

If the goal is to achieve 7 percent savings, why not give the Department of Corrections a chance to propose its own cost-savings plan? After all, the purpose of privatization is to bring free-market competition to government. Why not let the department compete?

Will the private prison cherry-pick inmates, leaving the costly elderly, sick and dangerous criminals for a state prison to handle? That would hopelessly skew any public-private comparisons.

Will the public be left only with older facilities that are expensive to maintain?

Will the private vendors cut staffing ratios? Lower qualifications?

We support prison privatization where it makes sense. But it's obvious the champions of this scheme don't want anyone to take a close look. That should be enough for conscientious lawmakers to reject it.