In a study carried out by Bales et al in their study see no major differences in recidivism among offenders after their release from privately and publicly managed prisons in the state of Florida. Further the study concluded that the opponents claim son privatization saying that the prisons and jail privatization at a full scale lacks support and basis. The other conclusion that was reached in this study is that from the privatization proponents that jails and prisons privatization would lead to substantial improvements and cost saving and that the service quality will be unsubstantiated (Thomas, 2005, p 89).
Professor Charles Thomas in his analysis provides information concerning the facilities operated privately in Florida together with his associates (laws of University of Florida and the Center for Studies in Criminology), published the yearly census of private jails and prisons in the United States and other countries abroad. He commends on the study by Bales et al, but warns against the kind of generalization in the study concerning the differences in publicly funded and prisons based on imprecise and inexact methods.
Thomas specifically argues that comparing both the private and public prisons is not sufficient since they are not two opposing entities. Thomas clearly indicates that when government calls for private agencies to examine the carry out correctional services and facilities management it will also be a contractual undertaking to firms that are privately managed to carry out their responsibilities in just the same way as those of government agencies working in the traditional correctional facilities
While recidivism rate is an important issue, Thomas does not agree that any kind of general hypothesis on recidivism is an important way for evaluating the quality of correctional services… this is because the conclusion would be neither logical nor empirical in the mind sense. Both the private and publicly funded facilities have to be held accountable on the same consequences that have meaningful control of degree. Thomas criticism on relying on the rate of recidivisms as a way of evaluating correctional services mainly originate in the way we intend to designs the research on recidivism and not how it should be designed.
Validity on data
Thomas refers to the available research evidence, that suggest that the cost related o operation, construction and design of a private facility are basically much more lower compared to the traditional public facilities. Further more the quality of service offered within the private sector is equivalent to what we find in public facilities.
Thomas also refers to the privatization literature that has in the past decades become too blinded by the political and ideological dimensions. He urges that the focus should not be one what is done in the bright light but rather to consider how well is done and not in terms of private and public identity among those we rely to enhance public in tests (Thomas , 2003, p 298).
To make is analysis valid. He used studies done by Bales et al and studies aspects that are indirectly directly resized vital policy and intellectual issues that require answers that cannot be provided at the very moment.
Strengths and weaknesses
Thomas has extensively studied the rate of recidivism in private facilities in Florida. His work can be in the form of a case study that passes his conflict of interest against the studies carried out by scholars such as Bales et al. His work can be criticized for failing to provide a full disclosure concertinaing private prisons. Some have criticized his relation with the private prisons as being the director of this research known as the Private Corrections project.
The main advantage on Thomas study is that it is unique conceptualized and uses a simple methodology that can well income the policy makers at any correctional and experience setting that allows the correctional system to achieve its desired outcomes. Therefore Thomas calls for a much more precise manner in the development of theories and methodologies in answering the important questions that are visible in Bales et al. work. he clearly see that the comparison of private and public facilities is not the way forward because they are not like other naturally occurring kind of dichotomies.
However, he goes ahead to provide a solution to this problem which is to consider a much more broader outcome supported by full privatization and on the other by govermenatallization. . to him recidivism different does not mea that it is possible to interpret the data due to the fact that policy makers cannot simply make decisions from experiences even when adequate data is available. Thomas acknowledges that Bales et al study does present the policy issues and intellectual issues that need answers. This means that research has to be carried out by policy makers with the aim of informing but not with the effort of shaping public policy.
Reference
Thomas C (2005) Recidivism of public and private state prison inmates in Florida: issues and unanswered questions ProQuest. P 89
