Prison privatization is not just a U.S. phenomenon, but rather a management tool used in numerous other countries, including Australia and the U.K. And while the location may vary, the public policy issues surrounding private prisons are very similar. Hence, there is an opportunity for U.S. policymakers to learn from their counterparts overseas, particularly given the growing interest in prison privatization in U.S. states as they grapple with major fiscal issues and work to rein in inflating corrections budgets.

In this context, a recently released New South Wales (Australia) Parliament report on prison privatization couldn’t have come at a better time. Prepared by a general purpose Parliamentary committee, the report details the results of the committee’s inquiry into the privatization of prisons and prison-related services in NSW, covering such topics as cost savings, public safety and escape rates, rehabilitation programs, staffing levels and the impact of privatization on publicly managed prisons.

The 228-page report (available here) is quite thorough and largely positive on prison privatization, well worth a read for anyone interested in the subject. Here are a few of the inquiry’s more relevant findings:

• [W]e are confident that the private management of prisons will also likely produce greater cost savings and efficiencies than if they were to remain in the public system.
• [T]he Committee notes that the evidence received suggests that the privatisation of correctional facilities can assist in achieving the primary objectives of the operation of the prison system, which are: 1. fulfilling the principles of sentencing; 2. improving inmate welfare and; 3. lowering rates of recidivism in a cost effective manner.
• The Committee notes the concerns raised by prison officers and their families. It is clear that for many staff affected by the decision to privatise, none of the three options available to them are satisfactory, and many prison officers will be left with no choice other than to accept a disadvantageous option. Whilst this is not a desirable outcome, the Committee emphasizes that the primary goals of the operation of a prison system are to…(see list above).
• Based on the evidence provided during this Inquiry, the Committee is satisfied that there is no evidence to suggest that assaults on inmates and/or staff are likely to increase as a result of privatisation.
• The Committee notes that inmate allocation is a matter for government, and not a decision of the private contractor [...] [W]e are satisfied that there is no evidence that privatisation of prisons will result in overcrowding.
• The Committee notes that the Department determines inmate classifications, and makes its decisions independently of private operators. Therefore we do not believe that privatisation will impact upon classification levels.
• The Committee notes that government regulation has a primary role to play in ensuring appropriate staff training standards and qualifications exist in both publicly and privately run prisons. On the evidence presented, the Committee is satisfied that concerns raised regarding the level of training and professionalism of prison officers at private institutions in Australia are misconceived. [...] The Committee believes that training and qualification requirements must be applied consistently in all prisons, regardless of whether they are run by DCS or a private provider.
• [T]he majority of the Committee supports the introduction of competition into the public sector due to the innovations and efficiencies it brings. We note the range of innovations outlined in evidence, and the corresponding effect that they have had on the public system through cross-fertilisation.

These findings are generally consistent with Reason Foundation’s corrections-related work, which is available here

.

The truth will out.

National Journal’s Transportation Experts blog is looking at the federal government’s goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled. As I previously wrote, this is a very bad idea:

Vehicle miles traveled reduction targeting, along the lines desired by environmental groups and some members of Congress, is already the law in California, thanks to SB 375, enacted last year.

In the name of greenhouse gas reduction, this law sets greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for each of the state’s 17 metro areas and requires them to draft smart-growth-oriented land use and transportation plans aimed at reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Those that produce the “best” plans to do this will get priority in the allocation of about $20 billion per year in federal and state transportation funding.

The logic chain that underlies such efforts goes something like this: Transportation is a major source of GHGs, and the more people drive, the more GHGs they emit. If their jobs, schools, and shopping are close to where they live, they won’t drive as much. Therefore, government should promote compact, high-density development so as to reduce driving and therefore to reduce GHGs.

When you work through this logic chain with data and numbers, it starts falling apart.

First, all of transportation (including trucking, airlines, barges, etc.) contributes 27.9% of U.S. GHG emissions, according to the EPA. Personal vehicles (cars and light trucks) are 61% of that; hence, personal vehicles are the source of 17% of GHGs, not one-third, as you will often hear.

Second, GHG emissions from vehicles are a function of speed. Stop & go driving (as in congestion) produces much greater GHG emissions than steady-speed driving between 30 and 60 miles per hour (mph); above about 60 mph, GHGs increase fairly rapidly.

Third, there is no hard data showing that people who live in higher densities drive significantly less than those who live in typical suburbia.

Fourth, there is excellent data from the Australian Conservation Foundation showing that among housing types, townhouses have the lowest carbon footprint, single-family suburban houses the second-lowest, and high-rise condo-type dwellings the highest. This logic chain also ignores considerable evidence that traffic congestion increases with urban density—which of course increases GHG emissions.

If the attempts to reduce vehicle miles traveled in these ways succeed, the result will be even greater reductions in mobility than Americans already suffer through from today’s traffic congestion.

News is breaking quickly on the corner of Lee and S. Elm streets, which the City of Greensboro wants to develop so badly. Ed Cone reports that high-powered developer Roy Carroll is flying Greensboro Mayor Yvonne Johnson, Guilford County Commissioner Skip Alston and Community Foundation president Walker Sanders to Washington to talk to members of [...]

In order to "solve" California’s massive budget crisis, the tax-and-spend lobby and left-leaning academics are again suggesting that we revise Proposition 13, which changed the state’s tax structure in 1978 by lowering property tax rates and limiting annual increases.

Today is the last day of the 2008-2009 fiscal year, and it is the final opportunity for the State Legislature to place on the Governor’s desk a comprehensive fix to next fiscal year’s way-out-out-whack budget before we are actually IN that fiscal year. By "comprehensive fix" — I mean a package of cuts and reforms that ensures that state government will be able to make it all of the way to June 30, 2010 without having yet another "fiscal crisis" where we are back at the cliff, again.

President Obama has been taking some political licks for backtracking on his campaign opposition to taxing employee health benefits.

Good. He so demagogued a somewhat similar proposal by his opponent, Sen. John McCain, that the president should be taking some heat for—at least potentially—flip-flopping.

Should a San Francicso-based computer scientist be allowed to rewrite the Constitution and redefine how we elect our presidents? We have some doubts.
 
But that’s exactly what Dr. John Koza is trying to do. Using state legislation, Koza and his National Popular Vote group are circulating legislation to do away with the Electoral College (with frightening success). Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Washington have joined the ranks of NPV, and bills are still on the move throughout the rest of the states.
 
The July issue of Townhall Magazine includes an article by myself and our Citizenship & Governance Center director, Trent England, delving into questions like “Who is John Koza?” and “What can we expect if the scheme is enacted?” To protect national stability and and the freedoms of our children, this issue needs to be taken seriously.
 
Look for the latest issue of Townhall in stores soon.
 

In June of 1990, then President George H.W. Bush famously reneged on his campaign promise not to raise taxes. Now fast forward to the most recent campaign promises of last Fall. If you were around a television set anytime late…