In practice, it doesn't seem to make much difference:
> Propensity score matching and regression analyses of the National Inmate Survey are used to examine individuals’ experiences and perceptions of environmental quality in public versus private prisons across key domains of prison life, with an emphasis on needs, behaviors, victimization, and attitudes. No differences are identified for women. Males in private prisons are more likely than men in public prisons to perceive there to be inadequate staffing and are less likely to report maintaining ties with people outside of prison. Men in private prisons are also less likely to report crowding to be an issue.
For-profit is the delivery system, which should save taxpayer money. Systems where the institutions are directly administered by taxpayer funds and their attendant public employee unions also have political/financial incentives.
Either way - publicly-run or private contractor, if the government is a good steward of public funds, they'll monitor well to avoid waste and remove people who are trying to unjustly enrich themselves. And if the officials are incompetent or corrupt themselves, they'll fail to recognize when those things are happen, or participate themselves. I don't see a big difference in public vs. private unless I imagine a fantasy government run only by officials who are smart and highly ethical.
Because the state prisons are trying to cut costs and/or profit the same way the private ones are. They just tend to invest in waste and expansion rather than pay $$ to owners/investors.
The whole thing is rotten. Changing the ownership of the mess doesn't make it not rotten.
What we really need is a prison voucher program. The prisoners get to go to whatever prison they want to, and then the prison they go to gets paid. Incentives aligned!
I know this is a joke, but if we just run with it, the prisons would start running targeted ads to previously incarcerated and “at-risk” people so that they choose them when the time comes. And when the voucher revenue growth is below some target for two consecutive quarters, they could maybe pay for more crimes…?
I'm not really sold on the idea of private prisons in general, but if we're going to have them it should at least be the prisoner's choice. Unaccountable private prisons that are also a government enforced monopoly is just the worst of both worlds.
Does it? The alternative is non-profit incarceration/detention, in which the incentive is to not put people in prison, leading to more crime, lower trust and more victims.
Yes, but where’s the cruelty that this administration so strongly desires? These people need to be punished for what they’ve done regardless of if they’ve done it. Additionally, efficiency means lower revenue and that simply can’t happen.
It's intentionally misleading to use revenue in this headline.
People will read that headline and come away with the impression that private prisons are making billions. They're expenses are most likely scaling with their revenue.
If your concern is that private prisons exist or that detention is climbing, the dollar figure is secondary to other, better measures. Instead, revenue is (mis)used to give yhe impression that people are getting rich off of this and, while that may be true, the relevant number is the increase in income, not revenue.
In short, NPR isn't above clickbait that's biased towards their audiences.
No. Revenue is a generally accepted business metric. It is normal to discuss revenue without being also compelled to discuss profits at the same time. You don't have to like the common way of discussing business, but that doesn't change this.
> give yhe impression that people are getting rich off of this
CoreCivic is a public company, so we can see that the C-suite each earns over $1m annually in cash compensation. the Chief Development officer earns more cash compensation than the person holding the same title at Hilton, a company worth over 20x more.
Then, we can look at the insider roster to see that the CEO currently holds over $10 million in stock, the heads of HR and corrections each hold over $5 million, etc.
People should get the impression that people are getting rich off this because people are getting rich off this.
Independent reporting on the treatment of detained immigrants might reasonably lead one to believe that expenses are not scaling linearly with increased revenue.
It's a useful figure in that it shows how fast an industry, which shouldn't exist, grows:
"Swindle said that CoreCivic's total revenue went up by just over 27% this spring compared to the same quarter last year, for a total of $684.9 million."
This "well actually" feels like it's in the same vein as tobacco companies funding cancer research. 30 seconds with Google shows that CoreCivic's Q1 earnings for 2026 are ~%50 higher than earnings reported for Q1 from last year. So yeah, they're getting rich off this.
>> They're expenses are most likely scaling with their revenue
A unique phenomenon that only exists in this industry and is clearly the reason you feel opposed to people performing the same sort of analysis they would on other businesses...
Also, nobody would assume a company with 1.4B in rev is "making billions" as that would be impossible based on their revenue being less than 2 billion.
The entire concept of "for-profit incarceration/detention" should not exist. Such a system only incentivizes cruelty.
In practice, it doesn't seem to make much difference:
> Propensity score matching and regression analyses of the National Inmate Survey are used to examine individuals’ experiences and perceptions of environmental quality in public versus private prisons across key domains of prison life, with an emphasis on needs, behaviors, victimization, and attitudes. No differences are identified for women. Males in private prisons are more likely than men in public prisons to perceive there to be inadequate staffing and are less likely to report maintaining ties with people outside of prison. Men in private prisons are also less likely to report crowding to be an issue.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361439680_Private_V....
We should zoom out in perspective. The question is not “is the experience in for-profit prisons better for incarcerated people”.
It is “for-profit prisons create a system with a financial incentive to increase the number of incarcerated people”.
Tax funded prisons also have unions that vote for expanding prisons. The distinction doesn’t make much of a difference.
For-profit is the delivery system, which should save taxpayer money. Systems where the institutions are directly administered by taxpayer funds and their attendant public employee unions also have political/financial incentives.
I'm inclined to believe that.
Either way - publicly-run or private contractor, if the government is a good steward of public funds, they'll monitor well to avoid waste and remove people who are trying to unjustly enrich themselves. And if the officials are incompetent or corrupt themselves, they'll fail to recognize when those things are happen, or participate themselves. I don't see a big difference in public vs. private unless I imagine a fantasy government run only by officials who are smart and highly ethical.
Should private prisons have their own private prison guards that use paintball guns filled with pepper spray?
Should private prisons be FOIA'able just like public prisons?
They should not exist, as simple as that
Agreed. There's a lot of work to get us there.
Exactly why would one or more middle men trying to extract profit save taxpayer money? What's your evidence?
Because the state prisons are trying to cut costs and/or profit the same way the private ones are. They just tend to invest in waste and expansion rather than pay $$ to owners/investors.
The whole thing is rotten. Changing the ownership of the mess doesn't make it not rotten.
What we really need is a prison voucher program. The prisoners get to go to whatever prison they want to, and then the prison they go to gets paid. Incentives aligned!
I know this is a joke, but if we just run with it, the prisons would start running targeted ads to previously incarcerated and “at-risk” people so that they choose them when the time comes. And when the voucher revenue growth is below some target for two consecutive quarters, they could maybe pay for more crimes…?
I'm not really sold on the idea of private prisons in general, but if we're going to have them it should at least be the prisoner's choice. Unaccountable private prisons that are also a government enforced monopoly is just the worst of both worlds.
I would like to see a menu please.
Does it? The alternative is non-profit incarceration/detention, in which the incentive is to not put people in prison, leading to more crime, lower trust and more victims.
> non-profit incarceration/detention, in which the incentive is to not put people in prison
How do you figure? Is the "I'll save you money by being soft on crime" election platform popular in your country?
Yes. Prisons are overcrowded, criminals are released earlier or not put in prison at all, and judges punish lower because prisons are too full.
And private prisons don't get overcrowded?
Since private prisons make a profit instead of costing millions, you can actually build more of them.
With the added benefit of not costing the taxpayer as much.
Who do you think pays for private prisons? Where's the profit coming from?
Nice false dilemma you have here.
Deportations should be efficient and swiftly follow after apprehension. Delay only funnels public funds to companies such as these.
What false positive rate are you willing to accept?
A pretty high rate, because it's pretty easy for an actual US citizen who gets accidentally deported to simply re-enter the country.
What does that look like? Dropped in a foreign country without money or documents. Likely in the custody of a government who doesn't care.
How do you re-enter the country?
Whatever country will accept the lowest bribe. So likely somewhere in Africa. SA would be too close, almost walk back
Curious what that translates to numerically, if you're willing to share.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
No. What false positive rate for deportations are you willing to accept?
>What false positive rate for deportations are you willing to accept?
Your comment is a non sequitur. What false positive rate for the justice system are you willing to accept?
Yes, but where’s the cruelty that this administration so strongly desires? These people need to be punished for what they’ve done regardless of if they’ve done it. Additionally, efficiency means lower revenue and that simply can’t happen.
Something about “cruel and unusual punishment” has never sat well with me.
Always interesting to answer the question of who benefits from certain policies.
Apparently it is the luxuriating inmates: “an average rate of $307,000 per bed.”
And, as is tradition, are deprived of approximately all the value they produce!
It’s actually medieval!
Wowzer. Can somebody please start AirBnBars? I have an extra room, and some steel bars.
YoY Net Income from CoreCivic's own financials (2025-2022): 116.50, 68.87, 67.59, 122.32
I'm so brain rotted I read that as a new Prison-1.4B model release
It's intentionally misleading to use revenue in this headline.
People will read that headline and come away with the impression that private prisons are making billions. They're expenses are most likely scaling with their revenue.
If your concern is that private prisons exist or that detention is climbing, the dollar figure is secondary to other, better measures. Instead, revenue is (mis)used to give yhe impression that people are getting rich off of this and, while that may be true, the relevant number is the increase in income, not revenue.
In short, NPR isn't above clickbait that's biased towards their audiences.
No. Revenue is a generally accepted business metric. It is normal to discuss revenue without being also compelled to discuss profits at the same time. You don't have to like the common way of discussing business, but that doesn't change this.
> give yhe impression that people are getting rich off of this
CoreCivic is a public company, so we can see that the C-suite each earns over $1m annually in cash compensation. the Chief Development officer earns more cash compensation than the person holding the same title at Hilton, a company worth over 20x more.
Then, we can look at the insider roster to see that the CEO currently holds over $10 million in stock, the heads of HR and corrections each hold over $5 million, etc.
People should get the impression that people are getting rich off this because people are getting rich off this.
Independent reporting on the treatment of detained immigrants might reasonably lead one to believe that expenses are not scaling linearly with increased revenue.
It's a useful figure in that it shows how fast an industry, which shouldn't exist, grows:
"Swindle said that CoreCivic's total revenue went up by just over 27% this spring compared to the same quarter last year, for a total of $684.9 million."
This "well actually" feels like it's in the same vein as tobacco companies funding cancer research. 30 seconds with Google shows that CoreCivic's Q1 earnings for 2026 are ~%50 higher than earnings reported for Q1 from last year. So yeah, they're getting rich off this.
>> They're expenses are most likely scaling with their revenue
A unique phenomenon that only exists in this industry and is clearly the reason you feel opposed to people performing the same sort of analysis they would on other businesses...
Also, nobody would assume a company with 1.4B in rev is "making billions" as that would be impossible based on their revenue being less than 2 billion.
Oligarchy! Sad!
Ah yes, slavery
You mean to say that we AREN'T rehabilitating these people? /s
[dead]