Justice Unshackled

The Economics of Incarceration

1. Introduction: The Market in Human Confinement

The American penal system, often conceptualized in civic discourse as a mechanism for public safety, accountability, and legal retribution, operates simultaneously—and perhaps more fundamentally—as a vast, intricate economic engine. This engine, frequently termed the Prison-Industrial Complex (PIC), functions on a disturbing premise: the commodification of human confinement. While the ostensible objectives of the justice system are retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, a structural analysis of the modern carceral state reveals a fifth, often unspoken objective: profit generation.

The United States incarcerates more individuals than any other nation globally, both in absolute numbers and per capita. This mass incarceration is not merely a social phenomenon or a policy failure; it is a multi-billion-dollar industry that sustains a sprawling ecosystem of private corporations, government agencies, rural municipalities, and service vendors.1 The financial footprint of this apparatus is staggering. Total U.S. government expenditures on public prisons and jails exceed $80.7 billion annually, with billions more funneled into private facilities.1 Yet, these direct fiscal costs represent only the visible tip of the iceberg. When factoring in collateral economic damages—lost wages, reduced lifetime earnings, the financial destabilization of families, and broader social costs—the true economic burden of incarceration is estimated to exceed $1 trillion per year.2

This essay, the eighth installment in the “Justice Unshackled” series, provides a comprehensive economic dissection of the American carceral system. It seeks to deconstruct the financial incentives that drive mass incarceration, moving beyond simple metrics of government spending to examine the complex web of private interests that benefit from the deprivation of liberty. The analysis suggests that the system is not merely “broken” or inefficient, but rather functions as a highly efficient market for social control and wealth extraction.2 By monetizing the bodies of the incarcerated—through captive labor, the privatization of essential services, and the levying of predatory fees—the system effects a massive transfer of wealth from the most marginalized communities to corporate shareholders and state coffers.

We must examine the mechanisms of this transfer in granular detail: from the “bed quotas” that contractually obligate states to keep private prisons full 3, to the “pay-to-stay” statutes that charge individuals for their own imprisonment, effectively resurrecting debtors’ prisons.4 We must scrutinize the duopolies dominating prison telecommunications, which transform the fundamental human need for connection into a revenue stream through legalized kickbacks.6 Furthermore, we must analyze the historical continuity of these practices, tracing the lineage of modern prison labor back to the convict leasing systems of the post-Civil War era, legitimized by the loophole in the 13th Amendment.2

Ultimately, this analysis posits that as long as powerful economic incentives remain aligned with the expansion of the carceral state, genuine reform will remain elusive. The profit motive creates a powerful constituency for incarceration—one that lobbies for longer sentences, stricter bail laws, and the continued criminalization of poverty.9 To understand the resilience of mass incarceration in the face of falling crime rates and bipartisan calls for reform, one must follow the money.

2. The Macroeconomics of the Carceral State

To fully grasp the economic reality of incarceration, one must first look at the macroeconomic footprint of the corrections sector. The allocation of public resources toward punishment has grown exponentially over the last four decades, often displacing investments in education, infrastructure, and social services. This section analyzes the direct expenditures, the hidden costs, and the massive opportunity costs incurred by a society that chooses to invest so heavily in cages.

2.1. Direct Government Expenditures

The direct fiscal cost of operating the U.S. penal system is immense, consuming a significant portion of state and local budgets. In 2021, state and local governments spent approximately $87 billion on corrections, with an additional $135 billion spent on policing and $52 billion on courts.11 The federal government allocates billions more; for Fiscal Year 2025 alone, the Federal Bureau of Prisons was granted authority to spend nearly $12 billion.12

However, these figures often understate the true cost to taxpayers. State corrections budgets frequently exclude significant expenses such as employee benefits, pension contributions, capital costs for prison construction, legal settlements, and inmate healthcare costs covered by other agencies or departments. A study by the Vera Institute found that the actual cost to taxpayers was nearly 14% higher than the reported corrections budgets, with some states underreporting costs by as much as 34%.13 This “fiscal illusion” masks the true burden of the carceral state from the public, making the system appear less expensive than it actually is.

The per-inmate cost varies wildly by jurisdiction but has trended sharply upward, driven by healthcare costs, security staffing, and administrative bloat. In California, the average annual cost to incarcerate a single person reached approximately $127,788 in the 2023-24 enacted budget.14 This figure includes over $52,000 for security and nearly $42,000 for healthcare per person annually.14 To put this in perspective, the average annual cost of public education per student in the U.S. is a fraction of this amount. This disparity highlights a profound prioritization of containment over development in public spending, a choice that has long-term economic consequences for the nation.

2.2. The Trillion-Dollar Burden: Social and Opportunity Costs

While the direct fiscal outlays are substantial, they pale in comparison to the aggregate economic loss inflicted on society. The “aggregate burden” of incarceration includes the lost economic productivity of the incarcerated population, the reduction in their future earnings due to the stigma of a criminal record, and the financial devastation wrought on their families.1

Lost Wages and Productivity: The U.S. economy loses the equivalent of 1.5 to 1.7 million workers due to incarceration.1 Formerly incarcerated people face an unemployment rate of approximately 27%, a figure that rivals depression-era levels and is five times higher than the general population unemployment rate.1 Even when they do find work, their lifetime earnings are reduced by an average of $500,000.1 This systemic suppression of earning potential deprives the economy of billions in consumer spending and tax revenue, creating a drag on overall economic growth.

Intergenerational Wealth Destruction: The economic shock of incarceration reverberates through families, destabilizing households and perpetuating poverty across generations. Families with an incarcerated loved one spend an average of nearly $4,200 per year on commissary and phone accounts alone, a significant burden for low-income households.15 The loss of a primary income earner can plunge a household into poverty, increasing the likelihood of eviction and reliance on public assistance. A groundbreaking analysis found that incarceration costs American families nearly $350 billion each year in lost earnings and direct costs.15

This massive drain on resources disproportionately affects Black and Brown communities, exacerbating the racial wealth gap. The “criminogenic” nature of poverty means that this economic devastation feeds the cycle of incarceration, creating a feedback loop that sustains the system’s supply of human capital.2 The system essentially mines these communities for resources, extracting wealth through fees and labor while returning trauma and economic instability.

3. The Private Prison Industry: Merchants of Confinement

Perhaps the most contentious and morally fraught element of the economics of incarceration is the existence of for-profit prisons. These entities, primarily represented by industry giants like CoreCivic and The GEO Group, have built multi-billion-dollar business models explicitly predicated on the detention of human beings. Their existence raises fundamental questions about the alignment of incentives in a justice system: does a company that profits from incarceration have an interest in reducing crime?

3.1. The Rise of the Corporate Jailer

The modern private prison industry emerged in the 1980s, capitalizing on the overcrowding crisis precipitated by the “War on Drugs” and the implementation of tougher sentencing laws.2 As state and federal facilities became overwhelmed, private companies offered to build and operate facilities faster and cheaper than the government, promising efficiency through free-market principles. Today, the industry has consolidated into a powerful duopoly that manages a significant portion of the nation’s penal infrastructure.

Revenue and Scale:

As of recent reporting, CoreCivic and GEO Group generate billions in annual revenue. In 2022 alone, GEO Group reported $2.4 billion in revenue, with a significant portion derived from federal contracts.16 CoreCivic reported similar robust earnings, with expectations to surpass $1.96 billion in 2024.17 These companies manage dozens of facilities across the country, holding tens of thousands of individuals in state and federal custody. Their financial health is directly tied to the number of people behind bars; an empty bed represents lost revenue, while a full bed represents profit.

3.2. The “Bed Quota” Mechanism

A critical and often overlooked mechanism of the private prison business model is the “occupancy guarantee” or “bed quota” clause found in many government contracts. These clauses contractually obligate the state to maintain a certain level of prison occupancy—typically between 80% and 100%—or pay a penalty for the empty beds.3

The Economics of Quotas:

Analysis of contracts has shown that 65% of private prison contracts reviewed contained these occupancy requirements.18 States like Arizona, Louisiana, and Oklahoma have agreed to quotas as high as 96% to 100%.18 This contractual lock-in turns the justice system into a supply chain where the state is obligated to deliver bodies to corporate vendors, effectively commodifying the freedom of its citizens.

3.3. Lobbying and Political Influence

To protect this business model, the private prison industry invests heavily in the political process. In 2024, GEO Group and CoreCivic spent $1.38 million and $1.77 million, respectively, on federal lobbying.19 Their political action committees and executives contribute millions more to candidates and parties, targeting key decision-makers in the criminal justice system.19

This spending is not ideologically neutral; it is a strategic investment in the preservation of the carceral state. The industry’s own financial disclosures explicitly list “reductions in crime rates” and “changes in criminal justice policy” as risk factors that could negatively impact their bottom line.2 Consequently, their lobbying efforts have historically supported “tough-on-crime” legislation, mandatory minimums, and harsh immigration enforcement policies that ensure a continued demand for detention beds.10 By influencing the laws that govern incarceration, these corporations help to manufacture the very demand they exist to satisfy.

3.4. The Pivot to Immigration and E-Carceration

As public sentiment turns against mass incarceration and the federal government vacillates on the use of private prisons for criminal detention, the industry has aggressively pivoted toward immigration detention and electronic monitoring. This diversification ensures that even if traditional prison populations decline, revenue streams remain robust.

ICE as a Growth Market:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has become the primary client for private prison companies. In 2022, GEO Group derived nearly 44% of its total revenue—over $1 billion—from ICE contracts alone.16 CoreCivic generated 30% of its revenue from ICE in the same period.22 Despite the Biden administration’s executive order to phase out private prisons, which applied to the Department of Justice, the exclusion of the Department of Homeland Security has allowed this sector to flourish unchecked.22 The industry has effectively rebranded its facilities as “processing centers,” capitalizing on the militarization of the border and the criminalization of migration.

Electronic Monitoring:

The industry is also expanding into “alternatives to detention,” specifically electronic monitoring (EM). GEO Group’s acquisition of BI Incorporated, a leading provider of ankle monitors, allows it to profit from individuals even when they are released from physical custody.16 This shift represents an expansion of the carceral net, transforming private homes into satellite detention centers and ensuring that “decarceration” does not mean “de-monetization”.23 The “market in incarcerated people” is evolving into a market in “monitored people,” extending the reach of the PIC beyond the prison walls.

4. Captive Labor: The Economics of the 13th Amendment

The economic engine of the prison system is fueled not just by the housing of inmates, but by their labor. The use of incarcerated labor is a direct historical descendant of chattel slavery, legally preserved by the “Exception Clause” of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery “except as a punishment for crime”.2 This constitutional loophole has allowed for the development of a labor system that is coercive, exploitative, and economically distorting.

4.1. The Wage Gap and Exploitation

More than 800,000 incarcerated people work in U.S. prisons, generating at least $11 billion annually in goods and services.25 Yet, their compensation is negligible, often amounting to pennies per hour. This massive disparity between the value of labor generated and the wages paid constitutes a significant transfer of value from the incarcerated to the state and private corporations.

Wage Statistics:

4.2. Types of Prison Labor

Prison labor generally falls into three categories, each serving different economic masters and fulfilling different functions within the carceral economy.

  1. Institutional Maintenance: The vast majority of incarcerated workers (over 80%) are employed in maintaining the prison itself—cooking meals, scrubbing floors, mowing lawns, and doing laundry.25 This internal labor market subsidizes the cost of mass incarceration. Without this cheap labor, the cost of operating prisons would skyrocket, likely making the current scale of incarceration fiscally unsustainable for many states.27 In this sense, the prison system relies on the forced labor of the people it confines to remain operational.
  2. State Industries (UNICOR): Government-owned corporations use prison labor to manufacture goods for state agencies. Federal Prison Industries (marketed as UNICOR) produces office furniture, clothing, and military equipment. These entities often have “mandatory source” status, requiring government agencies to purchase from them, thereby insulating them from market competition.2 This creates a closed economic loop where the government utilizes captive labor to supply its own needs at below-market rates.
  3. PIECP and Private Partners: Through the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP), private companies can partner with prisons to use inmate labor. Inmates have been used to package Starbucks coffee, sew Victoria’s Secret lingerie, and manufacture parts for Patriot missiles.28 While these programs nominally require “prevailing wages,” massive deductions often reduce the take-home pay to levels far below the minimum wage, providing corporations with a highly compliant, low-cost workforce.

4.3. Economic Distortions and “Administrative Enslavement”

Economists argue that prison labor distorts local economies. By providing a pool of workers who cannot unionize, demand benefits, or quit, the prison system suppresses wages for free-world laborers, particularly in low-skill manufacturing sectors.28 This dynamic creates a monopsony where the state is the sole buyer of labor and can dictate terms without resistance.

Legal scholars have termed this condition “administrative enslavement,” a bureaucratic regime of forced labor that operates without the explicit designation of “slavery” but with all its economic hallmarks.24 The refusal to pay fair wages not only exploits the incarcerated but also hinders their ability to save for reentry, pay down debts, or support their families, thereby contributing to the cycle of poverty and recidivism.

5. The Vendor Ecosystem: Monetizing Basic Needs

While private prison operators and prison industries capture significant attention, a secondary tier of “correctional support” vendors extracts billions of dollars annually by monetizing the basic needs of the incarcerated. This ecosystem includes telecommunications, food service, financial services, and healthcare. In this captive market, consumers have no choice, and providers can charge predatory rates with impunity, effectively taxing the families of the incarcerated.

5.1. Telecommunications: The “Tax on Love”

The prison phone industry is a duopoly dominated by Securus Technologies (owned by Aventiv) and ViaPath (formerly GTL). Together, they control nearly 80% of the market.6 These companies have historically charged exorbitant rates for phone calls, exploiting the desire of families to stay connected with their incarcerated loved ones.

The Commission Model:

The industry’s pricing power stems from the “commission” system. To win exclusive contracts with jails and prisons, telecom providers offer kickbacks—legally termed “site commissions”—to the correctional agencies. These commissions can account for as much as 84% of the revenue generated from calls.29

These kickbacks function as a hidden tax on the families of the incarcerated, who are disproportionately low-income. To fund these payments to sheriffs and Departments of Corrections (DOCs), providers historically charged rates as high as $15 for a 15-minute call.30 This creates a direct conflict of interest where the state benefits financially from high phone rates, disincentivizing the negotiation of lower prices.

Regulatory Caps:

In 2024, the FCC introduced new rate caps to curb these predatory practices, limiting calls to $0.06 per minute for prisons and large jails.31 However, the industry has aggressively fought these regulations, and the FCC recently delayed implementation for some facilities until 2025-2027.33 Furthermore, as voice revenue comes under pressure, companies are pivoting to unregulated “ancillary services” and digital products to maintain their margins.

Digital Exploitation:

The introduction of “free” tablets into prisons has opened a new frontier for monetization. Companies like JPay (owned by Securus) charge for emails (via digital “stamps”), music, and video visitation. The pricing for these digital services is often far above market rates, and the “free” tablets can become paperweights if the user cannot afford the content.34 This shift represents the digitization of exploitation, moving the profit center from the telephone wire to the touchscreen.

5.2. Commissary and Financial Services: The High Cost of Survival

The prison commissary is often the only source for hygiene products, over-the-counter medicine, and supplemental food. Vendors like Keefe Group and Trinity Services Group dominate this space, operating essentially as monopolies within the prison walls.

Markups and Inflation:

Commissary prices are frequently marked up significantly above free-world retail prices, forcing inmates and their families to pay a premium for basic necessities.

Money Transfer Fees:

To purchase these items, families must transfer money to inmate accounts. Companies like JPay and Western Union charge steep fees for these transfers. A $20 transfer can incur a fee ranging from $3.95 to $6.70—a transaction tax of up to 33%.38 These fees siphon wealth directly from poor communities into the coffers of private equity firms, acting as a surcharge on the financial support provided by families.

5.3. Food Services: Profit Over Nutrition

Outsourcing food service is a common cost-cutting measure for prisons. Companies like Aramark and Trinity Services Group win contracts by promising to feed inmates for just over a dollar a day. To maintain profit margins at these rates, quality inevitably suffers, leading to health issues and unrest.

Scandals and Health Risks:

The economic consequence of poor nutrition is a hidden cost shifted to the healthcare budget. Inmates fed high-carb, low-nutrient diets develop chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease, increasing long-term medical costs for the state.10 The privatization of food service thus represents a short-term fiscal gain that results in long-term public health liabilities.

5.4. Privatized Healthcare: The Cost of Negligence

Perhaps the most dangerous intersection of profit and incarceration is in healthcare. Companies like Corizon (now YesCare) and Wellpath compete to provide medical services to jails and prisons. Their business model relies on capitated contracts, where they receive a fixed fee per inmate. This creates a direct financial incentive to deny care: every dollar not spent on treatment is a dollar of profit.43

The “Texas Two-Step” and Accountability: The pursuit of profit has led to widespread allegations of malpractice and wrongful death. Corizon/YesCare recently utilized a controversial bankruptcy maneuver known as the “Texas Two-Step” to shield its assets from liabilities related to hundreds of malpractice lawsuits.44 This legal gymnastics allows the company to continue operating and profiting while leaving victims of negligence with pennies on the dollar.

Wellpath, the largest provider, faces over 1,000 lawsuits and recently filed for bankruptcy to clear its balance sheet of liabilities, demonstrating a business model that treats malpractice settlements as a standard cost of doing business.43 This privatization of healthcare degrades the constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical care, turning patient health into a variable cost to be minimized.

6. The Financial Predation of Families: Pay-to-Stay and Fees

The economic burden of incarceration is not borne solely by the state; it is actively shifted onto the incarcerated and their families through a regime of “user fees.” This practice effectively resurrects the concept of the debtors’ prison, trapping individuals in a cycle of debt that hinders their reentry and economic stability.

6.1. Pay-to-Stay Statutes

Currently, nearly every state authorizes “pay-to-stay” fees, charging inmates for room and board.4 These fees operate on the logic that offenders should “pay their debt to society” in literal cash, covering the costs of their own imprisonment.

These fees accumulate into crushing debt. An individual incarcerated for a few years can emerge owing tens of thousands of dollars. States employ aggressive collection tactics, including civil lawsuits, wage garnishment, and seizing tax refunds, to recoup this debt.45

6.2. Inefficiency and Cruelty

Despite aggressive enforcement, collection rates are abysmal because the population is largely indigent. The cost of collection often exceeds the revenue generated. For example, Illinois repealed its pay-to-stay law after finding it failed to generate meaningful revenue while imposing severe hardship.46 The primary function of these fees is not fiscal solvency but the perpetual economic marginalization of the formerly incarcerated.47 They serve as a “civil death,” ensuring that even after the prison sentence ends, the financial sentence continues, preventing individuals from building credit, securing housing, or moving out of poverty.

7. The Myth of Rural Economic Development

A driving force behind the prison boom was the promise of economic revitalization for rural America. As manufacturing and agriculture declined, prisons were marketed as recession-proof engines of job growth. This “prison-as-development” strategy led hundreds of rural towns to lobby for facilities, offering tax breaks and infrastructure upgrades to attract them.48

7.1. The Failure to Deliver

Decades of data now show this promise was largely illusory. The anticipated economic boom rarely materialized for the host communities.

The reliance on prisons as economic anchors has created a dangerous dependency. When states attempt to close prisons, they face fierce opposition from rural lawmakers and unions who fight to protect jobs, creating a political barrier to decarceration.53

7.2. Prison Gerrymandering

While prisons fail to bring economic prosperity, they do bring political capital. The U.S. Census counts incarcerated people as residents of the district where they are confined, not their home communities.55 This practice, known as “prison gerrymandering,” inflates the population of rural, predominantly white districts, granting them outsized political representation and federal funding at the expense of the urban, predominantly minority districts from which the prisoners were removed.56 This represents a transfer of political power that mirrors the transfer of economic wealth, further entrenching the divide between the keepers and the kept.

8. Comparative Economics: The ROI of Rehabilitation

The inefficiency of the American punitive model becomes stark when compared to international alternatives. The U.S. focus on retribution results in high incarceration and high recidivism, a model that is fiscally ruinous. In contrast, the Scandinavian model, exemplified by Norway, prioritizes rehabilitation and yields vastly different economic outcomes.

8.1. The Cost of Recidivism

The U.S. recidivism rate is notoriously high, with over two-thirds of released prisoners rearrested within three years. This creates a revolving door that keeps costs perpetually high. The failure to rehabilitate offenders ensures a steady supply of “customers” for the prison system, sustaining the industry but draining public coffers. In contrast, Norway’s recidivism rate is approximately 20%, one of the lowest in the world.58

8.2. The Scandinavian Model

Norway spends significantly more per inmate upfront—approximately $90,000 to $330,000 annually, compared to the U.S. average.59 However, this investment in “normalization”—small facilities, rigorous education, high-quality healthcare, and job training—pays dividends.

9. Conclusion: Decoupling Profit from Punishment

The evidence presented in this analysis suggests that the American prison system functions effectively as an economic extraction machine. The profit motives embedded in private prisons, captive labor, and the vendor ecosystem create powerful headwinds against reform. As long as corporations can monetize the loss of liberty, and as long as rural economies and state budgets rely on the bodies of the incarcerated to balance their books, mass incarceration will persist.

Key Insights:

  1. The Market is Rigged: The prison economy is a captive market characterized by monopsony (in labor) and monopoly (in services), leading to extreme exploitation and price gouging.
  2. Incentives are Misaligned: The financial health of the PIC depends on failure (recidivism and high incarceration rates), putting it in direct conflict with the public interest of safety and rehabilitation.
  3. Wealth Transfer: The system functions as a regressive tax, siphoning billions from low-income families to corporate entities and state agencies.

True reform requires more than incremental policy tweaks; it demands the complete decoupling of profit from punishment. This means abolishing private prisons, paying incarcerated workers a fair wage to end the distortion of labor markets, regulating prison vendors as public utilities, and ending the predatory fees that trap families in poverty. Only by removing the financial incentives to incarcerate can the United States hope to build a justice system that values human life over the bottom line. The economics of incarceration must be dismantled if the promise of justice is ever to be unshackled.

References

1

Prison Policy Initiative. “Economics of Incarceration.”

12

USA Spending. “Salaries and Expenses, Federal Prison System, Justice.”

11

Urban Institute. “Criminal Justice Expenditures: Police, Corrections, and Courts.”

13

Vera Institute of Justice. “The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers.”

1

Prison Policy Initiative. “Economics of Incarceration” (Key Statistics).

14

California Legislative Analyst’s Office. “How much does it cost to incarcerate an inmate?”

19

Truthout. “Private Prison Companies Are Raking in Profits from Increased Deportations.”

20

GEO Group. “Political Activity and Lobbying Report 2024.”

17

CREW. “Trump’s Budget Bill Benefits Private Immigration Detention Companies.”

21

FollowTheMoney.org. “Private Prisons: Principally Profit-Oriented and Politically Pliable.”

9

Equal Justice Initiative. “Private Prison Quotas Drive Mass Incarceration.”

3

In the Public Interest. “Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and ‘Low-Crime Taxes’ Guarantee Profits.”

18

Syracuse University. “Lockup Quotas Case Study.”

1

Prison Policy Initiative. “Economics of Incarceration” (Labor).

26

Connecticut Bail Fund. “Prison Labor: Understanding the Role of Inmate Employment.”

8

Economic Policy Institute. “Rooted in Racism: Prison Labor.”

61

Worth Rises. “The Cost of Slavery.”

28

Institute for New Economic Thinking. “The Lasting Harm of Convict Labor.”

4

Institute for Research on Poverty. “Pay-to-Stay Jail Fees in Wisconsin.”

45

Rutgers University. “States Unfairly Burdening Incarcerated People with Pay-to-Stay Fees.”

46

USC Dornsife. “Pay-to-Stay Prison Reform Research.”

30

The Appeal. “Securus Bankruptcy & Prison Telecom Industry.”

6

New Jersey Policy Perspective. “Prison Profiteers.”

34

Brennan Center for Justice. “America’s Dystopian Incarceration System.”

38

Prison Policy Initiative. “Money Transfer Fees.”

27

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “Justice-Involved Individuals Report.”

31

Vera Institute. “The FCC is Capping Outrageous Prison Phone Rates.”

33

Prison Policy Initiative. “FCC Reversal on Phone Rates.”

10

New Jersey Policy Perspective. “Prison Profiteers Report.”

37

Fines and Fees Justice Center. “Locked In, Priced Out: Prison Commissary Price Gouging.”

35

Pennsylvania Prison Society. “The Steep Hike in Prison Commissary Prices.”

36

Prison Policy Initiative. “Commissary Report.”

48

Chorley Gov. “Prison Impact Review: Rural Prisons.”

52

Antonio Casella. “Economic Impact of Prisons.”

50

ResearchGate. “Economic Impact of Prisons in Rural Areas.”

51

Marshall Digital Scholar. “Rural Prison Siting.”

62

Equal Justice Initiative. “FCC Raises Phone Rate Caps.”

32

Prison Policy Initiative. “FCC New Caps.”

7

Prison Phone Justice. “Kickbacks Paid by Families.”

29

Montana Legislature. “Prison Phone Market.”

47

William & Mary Law Review. “Pay-to-Stay Fees.”

45

Rutgers University. “Recouping Fees.”

16

ACLU. “Unchecked Growth of Private Prison Corporations.”

22

ACLU Wyoming. “Unchecked Growth: Private Prison Corps and ICE.”

23

GEO Group Investors. “GEO Group Announces Investment in ICE Services.”

63

NCBI. “Financial Burden of Incarceration on Families.”

15

FWD.us. “Incarceration Costs American Families Nearly $350 Billion Each Year.”

1

Prison Policy Initiative. “Economics of Incarceration Resources.”

64

The Guardian. “US Private Prison Healthcare Companies.”

43

Worth Rises. “What We Learned from the Wellpath Bankruptcy.”

44

The Marshall Project. “Corizon YesCare Private Prison Healthcare Bankruptcy.”

39

PBS NewsHour. “Prison Strike Protest Aramark.”

40

Citizens Research Council of Michigan. “Privatization is a Tool.”

41

Federal Criminal Defense Attorney. “Aramark’s Correctional Food Services.”

42

Prison Legal News. “Trinity Services Group Faces Complaints.”

25

Walk Free. “Ending Forced Labour in US Prisons.”

24

University of Chicago News. “Rethinking Prison Labor Under the 13th Amendment.”

49

Prison Policy Initiative. “Big Prisons, Small Towns.”

59

Sacred Heart University. “Comparative Analysis of US Prison System.”

60

MDPI. “Prison Budgets and GDP.”

58

Coastal Carolina University. “Norwegian Prison System: Recidivism and Rehabilitation.”

56

Prison Policy Initiative. “Prison Gerrymandering.”

57

NAACP. “End Prison-Based Gerrymandering.”

55

Brennan Center for Justice. “Prison Gerrymandering Undermines Democracy.”

53

Urban Institute. “Curbing Rural Prison Demand.”

54

The Sentencing Project. “Repurposing Correctional Facilities.”

2

Justice Unshackled. “Episode 6: Is the Prison System Broken or Designed?”

5

Brennan Center for Justice. “Paying Your Time: How Charging Inmates Fees May Violate Rights.”

Works cited

  1. Economics of incarceration – Prison Policy Initiative, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/
  2. [Justice Unshackled]_[Episode_6]_[Is the Prison System Broken or Designed].pdf
  3. Criminal-Lockup-Quota-Report.pdf – In the Public Interest, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/Criminal-Lockup-Quota-Report.pdf
  4. Poverty Fact Sheet: Pay-to-Stay Jail Fees in Wisconsin, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Factsheet15-Pay-to-Stay-Jail-Fees-in-WI.pdf
  5. Paying for Your Time: How Charging Inmates Fees Behind Bars May …, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/paying-your-time-how-charging-inmates-fees-behind-bars-may-violate
  6. Prison Profiteers: How Private Companies Profit From Prison Phone Calls and Harm New Jersey Residents, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/prison-profiteers-how-private-companies-profit-from-prison-phone-calls-and-harm-new-jersey-residents/
  7. Prison Phone Justice: Rates and Kickbacks, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonphonejustice.org/
  8. Forced prison labor in the “Land of the Free”: Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation: Spotlight, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.epi.org/publication/rooted-racism-prison-labor/
  9. Private Prison Quotas Drive Mass Incarceration and Deter Reform, Study Finds, accessed November 26, 2025, https://eji.org/news/private-prison-quotas-drive-mass-incarceration/
  10. How Private Companies Profit From Prison Phone Calls and Harm New Jersey Residents, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.njpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/NJPP-PrisonProfiteers-Aug2024.pdf
  11. Criminal Justice Expenditures: Police, Corrections, and Courts | Urban Institute, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/criminal-justice-police-corrections-courts-expenditures
  12. Salaries and Expenses, Federal Prison System, Justice | Spending Profile – USAspending, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.usaspending.gov/federal_account/015-1060
  13. The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers – Vera Institute, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.vera.org/publications/price-of-prisons-what-incarceration-costs-taxpayers
  14. California’s Annual Average Cost to Incarcerate a Person – Legislative Analyst’s Office, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost
  15. NEW REPORT: Groundbreaking Analysis From FWD.us Finds Incarceration Costs American Families Nearly $350 Billion Each Year, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.fwd.us/news/new-report-groundbreaking-analysis-from-fwd-us-finds-incarceration-costs-american-families-nearly-350-billion-each-year/
  16. Unchecked Growth: Private Prison Corporations and Immigration Detention, Three Years Into the Biden Administration | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/unchecked-growth-private-prison-corporations-and-immigration-detention-three-years-into-the-biden-administration
  17. Trump’s budget bill benefits private immigration detention companies that donated to Trump – CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trumps-budget-bill-benefits-private-immigration-detention-companies-that-donated-to-trump/
  18. Case 2: Lockup Quotas for Private Prisons – John Yinger, accessed November 26, 2025, https://joyinger.expressions.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/PAI735ECN635.Case2_.LockupQuotas-1.pdf
  19. Private Prison Companies Are Raking in Profits From Increased Deportations | Truthout, accessed November 26, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/private-prison-companies-are-raking-in-profits-from-increased-deportations/
  20. Political Activity And Lobbying Report (2024) – The GEO Group, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.geogroup.com/media/tufn44mo/geo-political-activity-and-lobbying-report-_2024_.pdf
  21. Private Prisons: Principally Profit-Oriented and Politically Pliable – FollowTheMoney.org, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/private-prisons-principally-profit-oriented-and-politically-pliable
  22. Unchecked Growth: Private Prison Corporations and Immigration Detention, Three Years Into the Biden Administration – ACLU of Wyoming, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.aclu-wy.org/news/unchecked-growth-private-prison-corporations-and-immigration-detention-three-years-biden-0/
  23. The GEO Group Announces $70 Million Investment in Expanding ICE Services Capabilities and New Corporate Reorganization, accessed November 26, 2025, https://investors.geogroup.com/news-releases/news-release-details/geo-group-announces-70-million-investment-expanding-ice-services
  24. Rethinking prison labor under the 13th Amendment | University of Chicago News, accessed November 26, 2025, https://news.uchicago.edu/story/rethinking-prison-labor-under-13th-amendment
  25. November 5 vote could mark a turning point in ending forced labour in US prisons, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.walkfree.org/news/2024/november-5-vote-could-mark-a-turning-point-in-ending-forced-labour-in-us-prisons/
  26. Prison Labor: Understanding the Role of Inmate Employment in 2024 – Connecticut Bail Fund, accessed November 26, 2025, https://ctbailfund.org/blogs/prison-labor-understanding-the-role-of-inmate-employment-in-2024
  27. Justice-Involved Individuals and the Consumer Financial Marketplace – files.consumerfinance.gov., accessed November 26, 2025, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_jic_report_2022-01.pdf
  28. Economic Consequences of the U.S. Convict Labor System, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/the-lasting-harm-of-convict-labor
  29. Your Money: Kickbacks, Rates& Hidden Fees ln The Prison Phone lndustry”, – Montana State Legislature, accessed November 26, 2025, https://archive.legmt.gov/content/Committees/Interim/2017-2018/Law-and-Justice/Meetings/Jan-2018/Exhibits/LJIC-Jan29-2018-Ex10.pdf
  30. The Slow Death of a Prison Profiteer: How Activism Brought Securus to the Brink, accessed November 26, 2025, https://theappeal.org/securus-bankruptcy-prison-telecom-industry/
  31. The FCC Is Capping Outrageous Prison Phone Rates, but Companies Are Still Price Gouging | Vera Institute, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.vera.org/news/the-fcc-is-capping-outrageous-prison-phone-rates-but-companies-are-still-price-gouging
  32. Bowing to pressure from jails and companies, FCC raises phone rate caps, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2025/10/30/fcc-new-caps/
  33. FCC postpones its groundbreaking 2024 rules, allowing excessive phone and video rates to continue | Prison Policy Initiative, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2025/07/02/fcc-reversal/
  34. America’s Dystopian Incarceration System of Pay to Stay Behind Bars, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/americas-dystopian-incarceration-system-pay-stay-behind-bars
  35. The steep hike in prison commissary prices outpaced inflation – Pennsylvania Prison Society, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonsociety.org/updates/the-steep-hike-in-prison-commissary-prices-outpaced-inflation
  36. The Company Store: A Deeper Look at Prison Commissaries, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/commissary.html
  37. Locked In, Priced Out: How Prison Commissary Price-Gouging Preys on The Incarcerated, accessed November 26, 2025, https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/locked-in-priced-out-how-prison-commissary-price-gouging-preys-on-the-incarcerated/
  38. Show me the money: Tracking the companies that have a lock on sending funds to incarcerated people | Prison Policy Initiative, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/11/09/moneytransfers/
  39. Prison strike organizers to protest food giant Aramark | PBS News Weekend, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/prison-strike-protest-aramark
  40. What’s in this macaroni? Privatization is a tool, not a panacea – Citizens Research Council of Michigan, accessed November 26, 2025, https://crcmich.org/whats-in-this-macaroni-privatization-is-a-tool-not-a-panacea
  41. Aramark Correctional Food Services: Meals, Maggots & Misconduct, accessed November 26, 2025, https://federalcriminaldefenseattorney.com/aramarks-correctional-food-services-meals-maggots-and-misconduct/
  42. Trinity Services Group Faces Complaints Due to Inadequate Prison and Jail Food, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/8/trinity-services-group-faces-complaints-due-inadequate-prison-and-jail-food/
  43. Worth Rises — Wellpath Bankruptcy Prison Healthcare Analysis, accessed November 26, 2025, https://worthrises.org/blogpost/2025/6/24/what-we-learned-from-the-wellpath-bankruptcy
  44. Corizon Faced Lawsuits from Prisoners. Then It Went ‘Bankrupt.’ | The Marshall Project, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/09/19/corizon-yescare-private-prison-healthcare-bankruptcy
  45. States Unfairly Burdening Incarcerated People With “Pay-to-Stay” Fees | Rutgers University, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.rutgers.edu/news/states-unfairly-burdening-incarcerated-people-pay-stay-fees
  46. How one state’s repeal of a prison ‘pay-to-stay’ law could guide national reform, accessed November 26, 2025, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/pay-to-stay-prison-reform-research-could-guide-change/
  47. Paying for the Privilege of Punishment: Reinterpreting Excessive Fines Clause Doctrine to Allow State Prisoners to Seek Relief from Pay-to-Stay Fees – Scholarship Repository, accessed November 26, 2025, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol62/iss1/6/
  48. Economic Impact of Prisons in Rural Areas – Chorley Council, accessed November 26, 2025, https://chorley.gov.uk/downloads/file/973/g4i-appendix-9-prison-impact-review
  49. Big Prisons, Small Towns: Prison Economics in Rural America, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/inc_bigprisons.pdf
  50. (PDF) Economic Impact of Prisons in Rural Areas – ResearchGate, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252688398_Economic_Impact_of_Prisons_in_Rural_Areas
  51. Rural Prison Siting: Problems and Promises – Marshall Digital Scholar, accessed November 26, 2025, https://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=msjcj
  52. Forthcoming, Social Science Research January, 2013 PRISONS, JOBS AND PRIVATIZATION: THE IMPACT OF PRISONS ON EMPLOYMENT GROWTH – Antonio Casella, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.antoniocasella.eu/nume/Genter_2013.pdf
  53. Curbing Rural Prison Demand and Responsibly Closing Prisons – Urban Institute, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/curbing-rural-prison-demand-and-responsibly-closing-prisons
  54. REPURPOSING CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES TO STRENGTHEN COMMUNITIES | The Sentencing Project, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2022/10/Repurposing-Correctional-Facilities-to-Strengthen-Communities.pdf
  55. Prison Gerrymandering Undermines Our Democracy | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/prison-gerrymandering-undermines-our-democracy
  56. Building a Prison Economy in Rural America, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/building.html
  57. End “Prison-Based Gerrymandering” – NAACP, accessed November 26, 2025, https://naacp.org/resources/end-prison-based-gerrymandering
  58. Norway’s Prison System: Investigating Recidivism and Reintegration – CCU Digital Commons, accessed November 26, 2025, https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=bridges
  59. A Comparative Analysis of the United States’ Prison System – DigitalCommons@SHU, accessed November 26, 2025, https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2177&context=acadfest
  60. Cost Analysis of Penitentiary Systems and Comparison Between the Countries of the Council of Europe – MDPI, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/12/11/311
  61. The Cost of Slavery Economic Analysis – Worth Rises, accessed November 26, 2025, https://worthrises.org/blogpost/2024/4/16/the-cost-of-slavery
  62. FCC Raises Phone Rate Caps, Increasing Burden on Poor Families – Equal Justice Initiative, accessed November 26, 2025, https://eji.org/news/fcc-raises-phone-rate-caps-increasing-burden-on-poor-families/
  63. The direct financial costs of having a family member incarcerated – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed November 26, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12588257/
  64. When US prison healthcare companies went bust, victims’ families kept fighting, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/19/us-private-prison-healthcare-companies

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *