Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Prison Journal
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by SHICHOR, D.
Right arrow Articles by SECHREST, D. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Quick Fixes in Corrections: Reconsidering Private and Public For-Profit Facilities

DAVID SHICHOR

California State University, San Bernardino

DALE K. SECHREST

California State University, San Bernardino

This article focuses on some of the theoretical and practical issues involved with public proprietary correctional facilities as compared to private proprietary facilities as they are operated in California. Questions are raised about whose interests are served by public proprietary facilities and what some of the problems are. The California experience with contracting for public proprietary facilities is analyzed based on an audit done by the State Controller's Office that showed expenditures viewed as outside contract agreements. Six public proprietary facilities are in court with the California Department of Corrections to retain these funds. It appears that the process for contracting with public proprietary facilities in California was flawed. The fact that the experiment with public proprietary facilities in California had some problems may contain some lessons for the future operation of both public and private proprietary operations.

The Prison Journal, Vol. 75, No. 4, 457-478 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0032855595075004004
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Prison JournalHome page
D. Shichor and D. K. Sechrest
Privatization and Flexibility: Legal and Practical Aspects of Interjurisdictional Transfer of Prisoners
The Prison Journal, September 1, 2002; 82(3): 386 - 407.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The Prison JournalHome page
D. SHICHOR
Privatizing Correctional Institutions: An Organizational Perspective
The Prison Journal, June 1, 1999; 79(2): 226 - 249.
[Abstract] [PDF]