But one aspect amid the increases has not changed -– there has been no federally-mandated minimal level of oversight for facilities run by private prisons.

There are three main issues that worry critics about the lack of oversight in privatized facilities: the standards of confinement, the cost oversight and the ability to get information on either of these points from privately-run detention facilities.

“I think that prisons are closed institutions in general as they are outside the public view … and most citizens have very little understanding of what goes on behind the closed doors,” said Michele Deitch, a senior lecturer at the University of Texas School of Law. “But that changes dramatically when looking at private prisons.

“They are not subject to the same requirements about open records, the sharing of public information,” Deitch continued, “and because they have a contract with the government, not directly with the people, there is a layer of bureaucracy and privacy that is even deeper.”

This growth has been led by a handful of companies, including the two largest private prison companies, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which partners with all three federal corrections agencies, according to its website, and “almost half of all states and several municipalities;” and GEO Group, which runs prisons outsourced by federal, state and local prison bureaus as well as immigration facilities around the country.

CCA houses 75,000 inmates at more than 60 facilities in 19 states, and GEO Group follows closely behind with more than 60 facilities in more than 15 states, as well as a prison health-care arm.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (PDF), the growth of the inmate population in private prisons is 5 percent a year. This does not include jails or immigration detention facilities. In the latter, private companies control nearly half of all detention beds.

Private prison oversight so far

Historically, federal courts have stepped in to oversee particularly egregious examples of prison abuse, but because no federally-mandated minimal level of oversight exists, how private contractors are watched depends on the locality doing the contracting.

“The issue of transparency is really big,” said Mel Wilson, assistant director of Officer Workforce Studies at the National Association of Social Workers. “If you look closely at the criminal justice system, each state has a lot of latitude in structuring what level of oversight it has.”

At the federal level, the Office of Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) was created in 2000 to provide oversight of federal prisons, but the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 — and decreased focus on the detention crisis — has left the OFDT to function primarily as a Department of Justice agency that contracts out prisons with private companies, according to a 2010 report from the Center for International Policy.

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) also established an Office of Detention Oversight in 2009 to look over the then-32,000 detention beds in 350 facilities. Most of these were not run by ICE employees, the ICE fact sheet noted, but were “operated by county authorities or detention centers operated by private contractors.”

Both CCA and GEO Group, the biggest players in the private-corrections-facility game, lobby directly to some of these agencies. In 2011, CCA spent $810,000 on lobbying agencies including the U.S. Marshals Service, which awards private-prison contracts, and the Bureau of Prisons. GEO Group spent $160,000 lobbying in 2011 -– it expanded its agency targets to ICE, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice, according to Open Secrets.

Recently, GEO Group lobbied on a DHS budget bill, in particular on the issue report related to alternatives to detention for immigrants. CCA also lobbied on the bill, focusing on three issue reports about budgeting for federal agencies overseeing detention. The filings do not say the position of the companies.

On the local level, 27 states have bodies with mandatory inspection duties, eight states have a discretionary monitoring authority, three have a statewide voluntary inspection body and five states have a local jail inspection body, according to a study (PDF) in Pace Law Review by Deitch.

Seventeen states — Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Washington, Wyoming — have no oversight bodies at all.

The states with the two fastest-growing prison populations (PDF) -– West Virginia and Indiana -– both have little or no regularized oversight, and no independent monitoring agencies.

In Indiana, where the prison population increased 5.2 percent between 2008 and 2010, according to the Pew Center (PDF), an ombudsman with the state government is charged with investigating any prison-related grievances submitted voluntarily.

West Virginia’s facilities are overseen by the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Authority, though its oversight is not enforced through regular inspections and the state has “no formal external prison or jail oversight mechanisms.”

This can be contrasted to what Deitch calls one of the best prison oversight systems –- Ohio, which provides external oversight of its prisons through the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, which was created by the state Legislature for independent oversight in 1977.

Private prison exceptionalism

But with private prisons, critics say setting up effective oversight mechanisms is only part of the battle.

“There is just example after example of the failure of oversight,” said David Shapiro, a staff attorney at the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has monitored prison issues since 1972.

The Corrections Corporation of America notes on its website that over 93 percent of it’s 60 facilities have passed an audit done every three years by the American Correctional Association (ACA), another private group that “offers training, support and operational standards to correctional facilities and officers.”

But critics question the reliability of the audit. A three-year accreditation (PDF) from the ACA costs $3,000 per day and $1,500 dollars for the each auditor on the team. Ken Kopczynski, with the non-profit Private Corrections Working Group, writes that this is a sign of pay-for-play.

Kopczynski also notes that “at least two CCA employees serve as ACA auditors – CCA warden Todd Thomas and company vice president Dennis Bradby,” further breaking down the ACA’s authority as an independent auditor.

Meanwhile, CCA has dealt with lawsuits around the country. Hawaii took more than 200 prisoners back from CCA prisons outside the state after they alleged they had been abused by guards; 234 inmates from Colorado sued CCA for injuries suffered from guards after a riot they didn’t participate in; and in Minnesota the company was a defendant in eight cases between 1997-2006, according to court records obtained by staff at The Minnesota Independent.

Future steps

Deitch stresses the importance of independent oversight for objective observation of a facility. Budgets cuts could make localities “less likely to be able to conduct appropriate oversight,” which puts both prisoners and staff in danger.

Shapiro, with the ACLU, also worries about the revolving door. In New Mexico, the corrections secretary Joe Williams didn’t penalize CCA and GEO Group for breaking their contractual obligations by running under-staffed prisons and then pocketing extra profits. As The New Mexico Independent reported, before becoming corrections secretary, Williams was hired by GEO Group as a warden for the Lea County Correctional Facility.

The American Bar Association (ABA) passed a resolution in 2008 calling for independent correctional oversight in every jurisdiction that has now been adopted as part of ABA policy. Deitch co-chairs the ABA’s committee on correctional oversight.

But Shapiro says no amount of oversight can ever make as opaque an institution as a private prison function transparently. The ACLU has called for the “elimination of private prisons” in its policy priorities as far back as 2001.

“The best approach to private prisons is just say no,” said Shapiro “No amount of oversight can really account for the problems with the profit motive and the problematic incentives that it creates.”

(Jon Collins contributed to reporting this story)

Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, said the vote was done by “acclamation,” or voice vote, and there was no opposition. A spokesperson for Manchin did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Politico reported yesterday that Manchin might not support Reid for majority leader.

The NRSC’s statement underscores the precarious position Manchin has put himself in. Manchin, the former governor of West Virginia, ran against President Obama’s agenda, criticizing the health care and cap-and-trade bills. Now that Manchin is a full-fledged member of the Senate, it appears that Republicans won’t be shy to highlight those instances when Manchin votes with the majority. In fact, the statement even calls Manchin “liberal.”

Senate Democrats voted today to keep Reid on as majority leader. Here is the rest of the Senate Democrat’s leadership, via Reid’s office:

Daniel Inouye, President Pro Tempore
As President pro tempore, Senator Inouye will continue to provide the Democratic Caucus leadership and experience gained from a lifetime of public service.

Dick Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
As Assistant Majority Leader, Senator Durbin will continue to serve as the Majority Leader’s key aide on and off the floor, helping to lead the Democrats’ fight to protect America and help working families get ahead.

Charles E. Schumer, Vice Chair of the Conference and Chair of the Democratic Policy Committee
The third-ranking member of the Democratic leadership, Senator Schumer will continue to oversee strategy and policy to keep and build support for Democratic values.  He will also coordinate messaging for the caucus and help integrate legislative- and message-crafting function into a central, coordinated entity that encompasses policy, media and politics.

Patty Murray, Secretary of the Conference
As Secretary of the Conference, Senator Murray will continue to play a critical role in helping shape and set the Democratic agenda while working with Senators Reid and Durbin to move that agenda through the Senate floor.

Debbie Stabenow, Vice Chair of the Democratic Policy Committee

Senator Stabenow will continue to help guide the Senate Democratic caucus’ messaging and strategy efforts.

Mark Begich, Chair of Steering and Outreach Committee
Senator Begich will serve as Chair of the Steering and Outreach Committee.  In his role as chair, Senator Begich will engage Democratic Senators and community leaders across the country in an active dialogue about the pressing issues facing our nation.

First, Gov. Joe Manchin (D) is projected to beat Republican John Raese in the West Virginia Senate race. Manchin campaigned heavily against cap-and-trade. In fact, in a now-infamous campaign ad, he actually shot the House climate bill.

Second, projections indicate that Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) lost his re-election bid to his opponent, state Sen. Robert Hurt, in Virginia’s 5th district. Hurt and others in the conservative Virginia district have criticized Perriello for voting for the House cap-and-trade bill. Environmentalists, for their part, targeted Hurt in a series of advertisements that focused on his support for increased oil drilling. In the end, despite an eleventh-hour campaign stop by President Obama, Perriello couldn’t pull off the win.

So far, it’s not been a good night for Democrats who voted for cap-and-trade. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who voted for the House climate bill and helped shepherd it through the Energy and Commerce Committee, is projected to lose his re-election bid as well. But others who voted for the cap-and-trade bill are projected to win their re-election bids, including Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)

It’s no secret that the U.S. Chamber has had some big policy differences with the administration and Democrat leaders in Congress.  During his current campaign Gov. Manchin has promised to break with his party and administration when necessary to support common sense economic policies that will spur the creation of jobs.  As a nonpartisan organization that supports both Republicans and Democrats based on their support for economic growth and free enterprise, we are proud to join with our partners at the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce and endorse Joe Manchin for U.S. Senate.

Reports filed by the Chamber with the FEC indicate that the group’s issue ads are almost solely going after Democrats. I can’t find any record of the Chamber cutting ads either in favor of Manchin or in opposition to his opponent, Republican businessman John Raese, but maybe the Chamber agreeing to sit the race out is the closest equivalent to an endorsement that a Democrat can hope for these days.

There’s nothing inherently untoward about the manner in which Greer, a Morgantown-based network of businesses that deal in limestone, steel and asphalt, among other interests, won the contracts, but in a race steeped with rhetoric about the role of government spending, the Manchin camp hopes it will highlight the hypocrisy of its opponent, who recently told the Associated Press that he “can’t think of very many times when a government agency has helped me.”

Just last week, the candidates debated about the role of federal earmarks, which Raese derided but Manchin said were crucial for West Virginia’s infrastructure needs in rural areas where the private sector is unwilling to invest. Indeed, West Virginia is displaying the same schizophrenic attitude towards earmarks and government spending as the rest of the country — only it’s magnified by the conflicting pulls of the sharp conservative turn in the electorate and the worsening economic conditions in a poor state that relies on government help — and it’s proving a tough issue for both candidates to stake out positions as a result.

Raese’s grand pronouncements against state spending resonate with voters fed up with or worried about federal government spending, but they also leave him vulnerable to the claims that his broad opposition would have an impact on a number of projects that are easy to point to in West Virginia. And while government spending is looking pretty bad to voters in abstract, it still can look a lot like jobs when presented to them as a factory or public works project in their district.

The emails told me that last night Manchin said “[Obama] is dead wrong on cap-and-trade,” “I don’t think, during a time of recession you mess with any of the taxes, or increase any taxes,” and “I am not prepared to scrap the entire [Obama health care] bill. There’s parts that need change. There are parts that need repeal” — then referred me to statements by Manchin in the past in which he appeared to indicate mixed feelings on extending the tax cuts and stronger support for Obama’s health care bill.

The Raese campaign’s argument was that Manchin was posturing with his more conservative views, but some Democrats might be taking away the opposite fear: What liberal views does Manchin still hold, and what, if anything, could he be relied upon to vote for in the Senate?

Just the other week, the West Virginia Gazette ran a story headlined, “Manchin tries to reassure labor after Chamber endorsement,” in which Manchin told reporters that he opposed key provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act — the unions’ primary legislative goal in Congress — and some union leaders grumbled privately about the issue but affirmed their support in public.

Manchin, of course, is in no danger of losing union support, but the reasons — his belief in a minimum wage and mine safety laws, and his opposition to privatizing social security — are getting pretty minimalistic and speak to the dramatic rightward shift on economic issues that appears to be occurring in West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the union once known for its heavy unionization and economic populism.

Federal regulators have increased their inspections at 89 coal mines with poor safety records, including Loveridge. They have also upped their use of orders to shut down mines until safety problems are fixed.

But despite their efforts, five men were killed by heavy machinery; four were killed by falling rock. They died in mines where safety citations had increased about 31 percent after the Upper Big Branch blast.

The story sheds light on the flawed mining oversight process. When companies are cited for safety violations, they often appeal them, resulting in a massive backlog. In turn, penalties often aren’t paid for long periods of time.

Here’s an example from the story:

At Consol, for instance, the company has contested 31 percent of the safety citations issued to its mines since January. That’s more than 1,000 citations, with fines totaling $2.6 million, which won’t be paid until the cases are resolved.

Mike Lillis, who has since left The Washington Independent for The Hill, did some great work on mining safety for TWI. You can read his stories here.

Separately, The Huffington Post notes today:

In one of the most bizarre Big Coal public relations ads yet, online readers of the Washington Post today were forced to view a fatuous “clean coal” ad prior to viewing an extraordinary photo galley on “Death at American coal mines.”

“Obama said he wants to tax coal even to bankruptcy,” the narrator of the ad says. “So listen to Obama’s rubber stamp Joe Manchin, he’s for it too.” This statement is enough to make the Charleston Gazette’s Ken Ward Jr. want to tear his hair out, but worse, he notes, is an Associated Press story that basically mimics Raese’s claims as facts:

“Manchin supported energy legislation that passed the state legislature calling for a 25 percent reduction in the amount of coal that West Virginia power plants can use over the next 15 years, an idea similar to what national Democrats are pushing.”

OK, now the next sentence in the story was a quote that might indicate to some readers that this wasn’t necessarily fact, but was an allegation tossed around by Raese campaign ads and political consultants:

“It’s Obama’s cap and trade bill, West Virginia style,” an announcer says in one Raese television ad.

But the best that AP’s Elliott could do in explaining whether this allegation was true was this:

“The West Virginia Coal Association on Thursday endorsed Manchin, saying the energy law he backed would help — not hurt — the state’s coal industry.”

I’ll oblige Ward and note that the state law Manchin supported isn’t at all like the one House Democrats signed to set up a cap-and-trade system for carbon. Not only is Manchin’s bill supported by the coal industry, but it stipulates that the 25 percent quota of “alternative energy” that utilities must generate by 2025 can include all sorts of coal energy, including fuel produced by a coal gasification or liquefaction facility, waste coal, or “advanced coal technology” — which can mean basically anything the industry wants it to.

Despicable! That’s the best description of how readers should feel about John Raese’s attempt to buy their opinion.

Raese, the Republican candidate for the unexpired term of the late Sen. Robert Byrd, is offering to pay a West Virginian in each county who submits the most published letters to the editor in support of his candidacy, which can only be seen as ethically disgusting and insulting to those who truly have a political opinion they wish to share with newspaper readers. The “contest,” as Raese’s spin doctor called it, makes every letter received by a newspaper questionable as to its motive for being written.

I’m assuming this practice isn’t on par with such illegal activities as vote buying, but it does at the very least call into question, as the News and Sentinel points out, the independence of concerned citizens throughout the state. As such, the tactical significance of Raese’s move — to the extent that it becomes common knowledge — seems perhaps as questionable as the practice itself.