Program Profile: Private Prison Confinement (Minnesota)

In Minnesota, bed shortages created an increase in the prison population in the first few years following 2000, resulting in eligible male inmates being transferred to a private prison facility to serve their time. The program was rated Ineffective. Confinement in the private prison resulted in statistically significant increases in the risk of rearrest and reconviction. There was no statistically significant impact on reincarceration for a new offense or revocation for a technical violation.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

Because of bed shortages created by an increase in the prison population in the first few years following 2000, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MnDOC) transferred eligible male inmates to the Prairie Correctional Facility (PCF), a private prison facility in Appleton, Minn. The facility was operated by the Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison company. The private prison opened in 1996 and held as many as 1,200 prisoners; however, it closed in 2010, owing in part to a decline in the state’s inmate population.

Program Theory

Until the 1980s the role of private corporations in the correctional system was to provide limited services, such as food, clothing, and health care. However, starting in the 1980s, as a result of the dramatic increase in the incarceration rate across the United States, many state departments of corrections began to turn to private prison facilities to house the influx of inmates. During times of sudden growth in the inmate population, private prisons provided correctional agencies with a much-needed resource: bed space. By 2005 there were 415 prison facilities operated by private corporations, which account for 23 percent of all correctional institutions nationwide (Stephan 2008). Proponents of private prisons have argued that private corporations have incentives to run facilities more efficiently, which can result in cost savings for states. Opponents to private prisons argue there is no strong research to support the idea that private prisons save money, and point to evidence indicating that they are poorly run compared with public prisons (Duwe and Clark 2013).

Target Population/Eligibility

To be transferred to PCF, male inmates had to meet certain eligibility requirements. PCF did not accept inmates who were older than 60, or had a serious medical condition, or had a mental health disorder. In addition, inmates with custody-level classifications that were either secure or maximum could not be transferred to PCF. Only inmates with medium or minimum custody-level classifications were accepted.

Services Provided

PCF offered inmates a variety of programming options, including chemical dependency treatment, adult basic education, and some types of vocational programming. In comparison, MnDOC also provided these types of programming, in addition to other services, such as employment reentry programs and treatment for people convicted of sex offenses. PCF also offered visitation privileges to inmates. However, the facility was a 3-hour drive away from the Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area, where the majority of inmates were from, which may have affected the frequency of visits (though, because of the lack of visitation data, this is not known for sure) [Duwe and Clark 2013].

Additional Information: Negative Program Effects

The results from an evaluation conducted by Duwe and Clark (2013) found that confinement in PCF resulted in statically significant increases in the risk of rearrest and reconviction of inmates, and made no statistically significant impact on reincarceration for a new offense or revocation for a technical violation.

Study

Duwe and Clark (2013) used a quasi-experimental design to examine whether private prison confinement in the Prairie Correctional Facility (PCF) made an impact on recidivism. The study sample consisted of 9,532 Minnesota male prisoners released between 2007 and 2009. Only male inmates were included in the study, since female inmates were not confined at PCF. Propensity score matching techniques were used to match 1,766 persons who served time in PCF with 1,766 individuals who had been confined only in state-run facilities. The propensity score matching resulted in no significant differences between the groups on demographic measures and other factors such as prior convictions, mental health, and current offense. The two groups had an average age of 35 years, and 46 percent were minority (though it was not specified which racial groups were included in the minority category).

The primary outcome of interest was recidivism. This was defined as a rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration for a new sentence, or revocation for a technical violation. Data on rearrests and reconvictions was obtained from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, while data on reincarceration and revocation was obtained from the Correctional Operations Management System database. Recidivism data was collected on convicted persons through Dec. 31, 2010, which means the follow-up time ranged from 1 year to 4 years (the average was 2½ years [30 months]).

Cox regression was used to determine whether confinement at PCF made an impact on recidivism. Both “time” and “status” variables were used to estimate the impact on recidivism. The time variable measured the amount of time from the date of release until the date of first rearrest, reconvictions, reincarceration, or technical violation revocation, or Dec. 31, 2010 (for those who did not recidivate). The status variable measured whether an individuals recidivated during the period in which he was at risk to recidivate. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Stephan, James J. 2008. Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.