The privatization of public services 

In recent decades many governments around the world - especially liberal matrix governments - have been transferring public services to the private sphere. Being the state owned corporate sector or services directly provided by government to citizens, there has been a trend to outsource or privatize - now accelerated by urgency to act on public spending and improving the efficiency of state. Sectors such as energy, water and sanitation, transport, telecommunications, but also health services, education and justice (notary services and execution of sentences) have been fully or partially outsourced or privatized. (Nasser, 2003; Andrew, 2007; Hall, 2010)

At policy, but also operational level, new challenges are created to the state in this new context. Managing the transfer of services to the private sector - or the co-existence of public and private operators in the same sector - ensuring regulation, reducing public expenditure, maintaining acceptable prices for citizens and ensuring quality standards is a growing function difficult to ensure. (Limi, 2003; Hart, 2007)

The privatization of the execution of sentences

In the Western world, the United States of America and the United Kingdom are leaders in the privatization of prison systems. In late 2001 the prisons run by private companies had 6.5% of the prison population in the country under their custody, representing more than 90 000 inmates. In the UK, in June the same year, the prison population in private facilities accounted for 9.4% of the universe, representing more than 6,000 inmates. Scotland, Holland, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, and Spain experienced - albeit with different levels of implementation the privatization of some sentence execution services, while Ireland, Latvia, Serbia, Malaysia, Philippines, Korea South, Taiwan, Thailand, Tanzania, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Panama and other South American countries have different privatization models under discussion. (Pratt, 1999;Moore, 2001; Moore, 2002; Pozen, 2003; Roth, 2004, Andrew, 2007)  In less than two decades the privatization of prisons has become a significant component of the theory of penal administration all over the world.

The privatization of justice services can take different forms, from simple outsourcing of services - not including the management of equipment and resources - to the total management of equipment and resources made ​​by the private contractor, through mixed systems in which public and private organisations operate. In all models of privatization, the state retains full responsibility for awarding the penalty, but may delegate the responsibility of ensuring its implementation to a nongovernmental entity.

In theory, private prisons can be run by non-governmental organizations, non-profit or private companies. However, either in the U.S. or the UK, NGOs are present only in prisons in low-security regime. 

The big debate about the privatization of these services focuses on cases in which a private entity takes over the full management of a prison replacing the state in the administration of justice. (Austin, 2001; Hefetz, 2004)

In Portugal as in other European countries, the wide discussion on the privatization of public services has revolved mostly around arguments based on the ideological background of political decision makers rather than the studies that may support them. In fact, in most European countries there is not a comprehensive study to assess the best options for the modernization of justice and correctional services comparing different models (including partial or full-privatization) tested (with successes and failures) in various countries around the world.

An assessment - as a basis for policymaking – comprising the various options for correctional services privatization, as well as models of management and monitoring of the prison systems in the face of these options, is therefore and important study to conduct

In Portugal, exists - since 2004 - a single case of a public-private partnership in the management of a prison. Santa Casa da Misericórdia do Porto is in charge of managing the woman Prison of Santa Cruz do Bispo (EPESCB), being responsible for developing activities in support of penitentiary treatment, including the management of programs in the areas of vocational and professional training, occupational labour, school, cultural and recreational education, child care, health, liaison with families of origin and with civil society. Santa Casa da Misericórdia of Porto also ensures that activities are complementary to the previous areas of restoration and maintenance of prison facilities, equipment and green spaces, waste management and energy resources.

The law no. 145/2004, which established the EPESCB, introduced an innovative shift in the management, operation and organization of the prison system, by opening up to collaboration with private entities, while safeguarding the specific and exclusive functions of the state: security, monitoring, liaison with the courts and coordination of the penitentiary treatment.

Good quality levels that are obtained through a model of shared management at EPESCB. The added value of the positive experience of joint prison management, developed since 2005 between the two entities allowed by Resolution of the Council of Ministers of 10 March 2011, the continuity of this partnership.

Public-private competitive systems

In the UK, the idea of ​​pollination - in which the existence of private operators in the system would force the public sector to improve its performance - was institutionalized in 90’s by stimulating a "market demand". After the privatization of some prisons and evaluated their performance, the Home Office (now NOMS) fostered competition between HMPS and private operators for the concession of new or already existing prison establishments.

The model currently in place is based on a ranking of performance monitoring that consider expenditure but also the quality of service (Sturgess, 2009). Prisons positioned below reasonable values ​​are placed in competition for the award of a new management contract in which both HMPS and any private operator respond competitively the specifications presented. (Pozen, 2003; Hart, 2007)

Research proposal

The literature on policy options in the field of justice and Prison Management is vast when it refers to areas such as security, rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners (education, training, psychosocial support, prison labour), but limited in terms comparative studies that support public policies and the adoption of more complex business models arising from the privatization of such public services.

The policy options and the concept of privatization of prisons pose many challenges to a system whose management is extremely complex. Some of the issues that I intend to work in the doctoral program:

• main challenges posed to public policies around the options privatize-not to privatize justice services and the execution of sentences;
• different forms of structuring the prison systems in Europe and USA (Boin, 2005);
• necessary economic, social and political conditions necessary for its implementation;
• advantages and disadvantages of privatization (quality vs. cost vs. expected benefit) (Mitchell, 2003);
• existing models of privatization – more suitable to each context; (Jensen, 1976;Jensen, 1994; Schmitz, 2000; Cabral, 2006, 2010, Gallo, 2009; Akaishi, Cabral 2010, 2011,Gilroy , 2011);
• the adoption of competitive models (Pozen, 2003);
• different systems of performance monitoring of public and private prisons (standards and indicators, frequency of measurement) (Liebling, 2001; Salinas, 2009; Camp, 2000);
• different models of Prison Management (Logan, 1992; Cabral, 2006; UN, 2008; Bouché,2010) and the new informational needs for new systems of prison management.

Taking into account the study of prison management experiences in the United States of America and the UK - but also in other European countries - the research project also aims to understand the reasons for different performances in prison management. Thus, based on various analysis tools (theories of agency (Jensen,1976), incentives (Jensen, 1994; Akaishi, 2010), of incomplete contracts (Schmitz, 2000), and new public management (Boin, 2005) will be established to verify hypotheses – through quantitative and qualitative methods - based on available data and collect in several European countries.