February 2008

Grits for Breakfast has been doing some excellent reporting on a proposed private county jail and detention center in Grayson County, in the far northeast part of Texas. County Judge Drue Bynum has been promoting the prison scheme as a way tax-payers can avoid having to foot the bill for a new jail.

Although the articles don't specifically mention it, I'm assuming that the facility would be financed using a Public Facilities Corporation, an increasingly common way of financing private prison proposals. PFCs are quasi-governmental agencies that can float bonds for "revenue-generating" projects without public approval. How does a jail generate revenue? By importing prisoners from other jurisdictions, most federal detainees from Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the U.S. Marshals or another state, possibly Idaho?

Of course, the down-side of these financing schemes is that if the prisoners fail to materialize, or the private prison operator poorly performs (remember Dickens County?) and the contracting agency pulls its prisoners, the county is left with millions of dollars in prison debt. In Willacy County, every resident caries a staggering $8,700 in debt for the county's multiple private detention centers financed this way.

A close look at Considering a Private Jail, Prison or Detention Center? might be a good idea for public officials and residents in Grayson County.

Grits has some good analysis: 

This is an unbelievably bad idea based on an economically flawed premise, that taxpayers won't "foot the bill for the jail."

Of course they will! For starters, he's asking the college to give some private company the land for free. But even more than that, for the company to pay its construction debt, the county must pay for its prisoners, which means it must pay the cost of housing the inmates (which it would have to pay anyway) PLUS the company's profits.

Whether the county or a private contractor operates the facility, it still must meet minimum standards set by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, so it won't be any cheaper to operate (except to the extent that a private company pays its employees less than deputies make - a marginal benefit at best in the scheme of things that's wiped out if the company takes a profit).

And of course, if the company can't find other entities willing to lease the beds at an inflated price, the county will be stuck with the full tab for space it doesn't need, since it will still need to operate a jail.

In addition to Grits coverage of the issue, local opposition to the jail scheme has popped up, including this No Jail blog. Folks in Grayson County opposing the prison should be heartened by recent defeats to private jail plans in neighboring Fannin County where local residents successfully defeated a private "faith-based" detention center and in Caldwell County where opposition to an Emerald Corrections detention center derailed the plan.

See Grits coverage on the topic:

Wall Street Links Economic Downturn to Private Prison Fortunes

Grayson County Judge Pushing Irresponsible Jail Building Scheme

An opportunity has arisen to bring the issue of the families detained at the T. Don Hutto to the caucuses coming up on March 4th. Here's how it works. On March 4th, after the polls close, people will gather at their respective precincts for caucuses. Anyone who attends the caucus can introduce resolutions and platform issues. Once a resolution is submitted, those who attend will debate the proposed resolution as well as vote. If the item is approved, it will be passed on to the County platform committee, which will discuss incorporating the proposal at the County level. At the County level, if approved, it will be forwarded on up to the State level.

More on the process is available at the blogs Grits for Breakfast (check out Grits for other prison-related resolutions) and Burnt Orange Report. Anyone can introduce a resolution at the caucuses, but it helps tremendously for the resolutions to be submitted in many precincts around the state. Below is a draft resolution for the Democratic caucuses that can be easily adjusted for the Republican caucuses by changing the party name.

Resolution re: Alternatives to Detention of Immigrant and Asylum-seeking Children

WHEREAS, The Texas portion of the border between the United States and Mexico comprises more than half of the nearly 2,000-mile boundary between the two countries; as a result of this proximity, the State of Texas is uniquely aware of the importance of border protection to the security of the nation as a whole and sensitive to the impact of immigration on the economic and social well-being of both countries; and

WHEREAS, The Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security estimates the costs of detaining illegal immigrants to be $1.2 billion annually, and current research indicates that detaining immigrant and asylum-seeking families does not deter illegal immigration;

WHEREAS, Homeland Security recently re-opened the T. Don Hutto Residential Facility in Taylor, Texas, operated by private prison firm Corrections Corporation of America, for the purpose of detaining immigrant and asylum-seeking families who are awaiting immigration proceedings; Of the families detained, approximately half are children; and

WHEREAS, the United States house and senate committees on appropriations have each expressed concern about children of families detained at the center, particularly about reports that some children have been removed from their families and placed in separate facilities; and

WHEREAS, Children who have had no decisive role in their migration or flight should not be exposed to avoidable trauma; it is clearly within our means to provide these children and infants a safe environment without disruption to their families, nutrition, education, and exercise while their parents await immigration proceedings; and

WHEREAS, A valid alternative to detaining immigrant families would be to release and reunite these children and their parents but closely monitor them under the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, thereby reducing the emotional consequences to young children and the financial burden to taxpayers; Considering the apparent consequences of family detention, every possible alternative to family detention should be examined, considered, and exhausted before such action is taken; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, This Democratic Party caucus respectfully requests the Democratic Party of Texas to adopt and add to its platform that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security consider all alternatives to the detention of immigrant and asylum-seeking families with children; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Democratic Party of Texas forward official copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate of the United States Congress, all members of the Texas delegation to the congress, and the secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, with the request that this resolution be officially entered and adopted by the Democratic Party of the State of Texas.

Word has it that the resolution should be included at all Williamson County and Travis County Democratic caucus packets. We'll keep you updated on developments.

Due to the election cycle, we stand to learn a great deal about public officials and their relationships to private prison companies. A prime example are the recent reports found in the Waco Tribune that disclose private prison corporation CiviGenics paid $12,000 a year to McLennan County Sheriff Larry Lynch.

... Lynch’s salary being boosted by an extra $12,000 a year and paid by CiviGenics, a private detention company that has been leasing the downtown county jail since before Lynch became sheriff.

In the article, Lynch states that the CiviGenics payments go back ten years before he became Sheriff, netting Lynch and his predecessor a total of $120,000. According to the Sheriff, the stipend is a feature of the contract authorized by the McClennan County Commissioners Court.

This story is the latest example of how private prison contractors acquire influence with public officials at all levels of government using money and other strategies. According to the article, the county has sent 100 prisoners to CiviGenics for the past six months despite 250 beds being available downtown in recent weeks.

We will continue to post information regarding the relationship of public officials to private prison companies. It is more than likely that these details will continue to surface over the next few months.

A new report by Texans for Public Justice and Grassroots Leadership on private prison oversight, effectiveness, and influence in Texas shows a some interesting trends. The full report is available online.

Amongst the findings:

Private Prison Lobbying Expenditures Increase in Wake of Scandal. The report shows that private prison corporations with state prison or youth detention contracts spent up to $1.1 million on lobbying in Texas in 2007, three times the amount from the previous legislative session. The GEO Group, in particular, increased its lobbying expenditures after the Coke County scandal forced the state to close the company's youth lock-up. We reported on this back in October when Senator John Whitmire, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee complained that GEO had sent in its lobbyists after the scandal focused scrutiny on the company.

Oversight Appears Lax at Texas Private Prisons. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice seems to keep more records on publicly run prisons than those operated by private prison corporations. TDCJ couldn't produce data on the number of correctional officers each private facility employs, how many employees have been disciplined, how many prisoners are passing rehab programs, etc. Because the state spends over $200 million a year on its 28 private correctional facilities, it seems like this data would be important to collect, especially because innovation and efficiency is a key argument made by privatization advocates.

Revolving Door Produces Poor Oversight. The report argues that close ties between public officials and the private prison companies creates an environment ripe for abuse. Gary Johnson, a former TDCJ director, was recently hired to oversee GEO's facilities in Texas, after mounting criticism of that company's facilities. In addition, state officials are still investigating whether former GEO employees hired by the state to oversee the Coke County facility were receiving any kickbacks from the company in exchange for glowing reports on conditions at the facility.

Hopefully, these will be some of the issued addressed by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, recently charged with studying private prisons during the interim session. We'll keep you updated on the committee's findings and response from this report.