Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
how do I make a 10 minute presentation out of 5 pages?
To privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the US prison system.
Introduction More than 30 states have experimented with private prisons, with mixed results. The viability of establishing private prisons has been debated in many state legislatures. While private prisons hold promise, many questions remain. In the short time I have, I will try begin with a brief look at the trends in privatizing prisons across the country, address the question of whether or not prison privatization saves money, analyzes politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize prisons, and concludes with a brief summary in light of the evidence. Trends in Prison Privatization Shortly after the U.S. Congress enacted the Percy Amendment in 1979 that legalized prison privatization, Texas, in 1983, became the first state to privatize prison facilities. By 1985, Florida and Tennessee had joined Texas in prison privatization, and today, 158 private correctional facilities are operating in 30 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001). Prison privatization has grown considerably during the past decade; the capacity of privatized prisons grew from just more than 20,000 to almost 143,000 in the past 10 years (see, e.g., Chi, 1998; Thomas, 2001). It should further be noted that most private correctional facilities tend to be concentrated in the southern and western United States. Texas has the most facilities (42) followed by California (22) and Florida, Oklahoma, and New Mexico (each with 8; see Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001; Thomas, 2001). Although steeped in €śpublic choice€ť rationalizations to save costs through competitive bidding, privatization may be rooted more in the sociopolitical atmosphere that emerged from the antigovernment populism of the Reagan presidency. The privatization of prisons has not only led to significant changes in policy making and the management of prisons, but it has also generated widespread concerns that incarceration has become a profit-making industry, which in turn strengthens calls for policies on mandatory minimum sentencing that keep the prison industry growing. The majority of research on privatization has tended to focus on questions of efficiency; in other words, is the private sector able to provide public services at a cost savings to taxpayers? Even though some of this research shows that private firms do not always save costs, governments continue to justify decisions to privatize on the basis of cost efficiency. Economics as a determinant of decision to privatize state prisons Proponents of prison privatization The emergence of prison privatization began by advocacy coalition supporters with a common set of core beliefs regarding the primacy of a free market economy, the importance of limited government, and the ability of the private sector to be more innovative and efficient than the public sector. As Moe (1987) observed early on, among proponents of privatization, there is a shared belief that the public sector is too large and that many functions presently performed by government might be better assigned to private sector units, directly or indirectly, or left to the play of the market place. The private sector, it is argued, will perform these functions more efficiently and economically than they can be performed by the public sector. (p. 453) €˘ Some studies show that the privatization of correctional facilities leads to significant cost savings (Calabrese, 1993; Gorham, 1983; Hanke, 1987; Morris, 1999; Segal&Moore, 2002). Studies show that not only can private firms build prisons more cheaply (Chaiken & Mennemyer, 1987), but they can also operate prisons more efficiently because they are not hamstrung by labor unions or the strict purchasing guidelines that are imposed on state agencies (Montague, 2001). These studies in essence show that through competition, private companies can run prisons more efficiently and effectively in terms of costs. €˘ As noted, the primary motivation offered by state governments for privatizing prisons is that by relying on more economically efficient private vendors, costs will be reduced. It is further argued that contracting out also allows public agencies to take advantage of the efficiency and specialized skills believed to be offered by the private sector that may be unavailable within government (Morris, 1999; Shenk, 1995). Essentially, the presumptions here are that privatization promotes efficiency and competition to ultimately save costs in prison management and operations (Calabrese, 1993; DiIulio, 1987; Moore, 1998). €˘ Similarly, Moore (1998) states that governments make the argument that the private sector is more efficient because private firms are driven by the profit motive or maximizing shareholders wealth. Therefore, private firms have a powerful incentive to seek innovative approaches to reducing costs. Opponents of prison privatization The research on prison privatization shows mixed results as to whether privatization genuinely saves costs. €˘ Many studies show that the private sector cannot run prisons more effectively and efficiently. For example, the U.S. General Accountability Office (1996) conducted a study involving such states as California, Tennessee, and Washington that found that private prison facilities can sometimes be more costly than public facilities. Similarly, the Urban Institutes (1989) study comparing prisons in Kentucky and Massachusetts found that the public facilities operated just as efficiently as the private prisons. €˘ Other studies also show that privately run prisons do not result in cost savings (see, e.g., National Institute of Corrections, 1985; Perrone & Pratt, 2003; Pratt & Maahs, 1999; Sechrest & Shichor, 1996). Also, in a study conducted by a legislative oversight committee in Tennessee, there was virtually no difference in the average daily operational costs per inmate between public and private prisons (Tennessee Legislature Select Oversight Committee on Corrections, 1995). €˘ There are also studies that argue that it is impossible to measure prison costs with any precision, therefore making comparisons between the efficiency of public and private prisons futile. For example, Useem and colleagues (1996) argue that the facilities being compared tend to differ physically as well as in their inmate populations. They also found that it is difficult to distinguish between site-specific and systemwide costs. They conclude that €śit is impossible to say with any degree of certainty if the privatization of corrections produces substantial cost savings€ť (p. 7). €˘ In addition, many studies found that even if there are monetary savings, the political and legal costs remain high, thus outweighing any financial benefit of privatization (see, e.g., Moe, 1987; Morgan & England, 1988; Sullivan, 1987). Notwithstanding the fact that prison privatization is not always fiscally or legally prudent, governments continue to argue that privatizing is the most efficient way to deliver public services. Although the polemics of prison privatization continue to run high, and governments consistently maintain it is cost effective, few studies have empirically examined the actual determinants of contracting out. Although the motivations to privatize may in fact range from fiscal concerns to politics and symbolism (see, e.g., Moe, 1987, 1988; Van Slyke, 2003), no studies have empirically examined why governments decide to contract out their prison services to private industry (see Cohen, 2001). Politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize state prisons Although economics is the stated reason for prison privatization, many have argued that decisions to privatize relate more to political and ideological factors. As Henry (1999) has argued, €śthe decision by policymakers to contract out the implementation of their policies to private entrepreneurs is, in short, at least as much a political decision as it is a managerial and financial one€ť (p. 44). Those states that are more heavily lobbied by private prison corporations are more likely to privatize than those states that are not lobbied as heavily. Bender (2002) shows that private companies such as Wackenhut Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America contributed more than $1 million to 830 politicians in the 2000 election cycle. Corporations involved in corrections for profits form their own political action committees and organize lobbying efforts not only to encourage prison privatization (Shichor, 1993) but also to lobby for mandatory sentencing and other legislation that works to keep people incarcerated and is ultimately favorable to their bottom line (Stolz, 2001). In short, private prison corporations can influence state level decision makers to privatize prisons. It is also expected that states with Republican-controlled legislatures are more likely to privatize prisons than states with Democrat-controlled legislatures or split legislatures. A preponderance of the literature suggests that a conservative ideology among government officials can affect decisions to privatize correctional facilities. Shichor (1995) points out that a conservative ideology tends to be promoted more by Republicans, who advocate reduced government involvement and more private involvement in government activities. In general, they champion the free market idea and believe that the market is corrected by competition (Shichor, 1995). Patterson (1996) goes even further to argue that the policy-making behavior of state legislators may be affected by a number of factors, especially their party affiliation. Because privatization tends to follow a conservative ideology, it follows that if the legislature is conservative, there is a greater likelihood that legislation will support privatization. Conclusion In the end, to privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the United States prison system. The privatization of prisons continues to be a major source of controversy in this nation. From concerns that for-profit prisons skimp on such services as medical care, education, food, and staff costs to concerns that the privatization of prisons threatens to reinstitute the link between race and commerce that existed in the 1800s, prison privatization generates a multitude of questions by public policy analysts and researchers from all quarters of the country and beyond. Prison privatization decision is also about public values. Efficiency aside, prison privatization presents some serious dilemmas regarding public values such as safety, justice, rehabilitation, and legitimacy. €˘ Safety: Do private prisons pose a threat to the safety of prisoners, prison workers, or the general public? €˘ Justice: Are the mechanisms of private prisons liable to distort sentencing? €˘ Rehabilitation: Can the profit motive be reconciled with the need to prepare inmates for productive lives after prison? €˘ Legitimacy: Is incarceration an inherently governmental function? Is it right that profits be reaped from human imprisonment? |
#2
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
how do I make a 10 minute presentation out of 5 pages?
Put it into iambic pentameter..
"jarhead" wrote in message ... To privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the US prison system. Introduction More than 30 states have experimented with private prisons, with mixed results. The viability of establishing private prisons has been debated in many state legislatures. While private prisons hold promise, many questions remain. In the short time I have, I will try begin with a brief look at the trends in privatizing prisons across the country, address the question of whether or not prison privatization saves money, analyzes politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize prisons, and concludes with a brief summary in light of the evidence. Trends in Prison Privatization Shortly after the U.S. Congress enacted the Percy Amendment in 1979 that legalized prison privatization, Texas, in 1983, became the first state to privatize prison facilities. By 1985, Florida and Tennessee had joined Texas in prison privatization, and today, 158 private correctional facilities are operating in 30 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001). Prison privatization has grown considerably during the past decade; the capacity of privatized prisons grew from just more than 20,000 to almost 143,000 in the past 10 years (see, e.g., Chi, 1998; Thomas, 2001). It should further be noted that most private correctional facilities tend to be concentrated in the southern and western United States. Texas has the most facilities (42) followed by California (22) and Florida, Oklahoma, and New Mexico (each with 8; see Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001; Thomas, 2001). Although steeped in "public choice" rationalizations to save costs through competitive bidding, privatization may be rooted more in the sociopolitical atmosphere that emerged from the antigovernment populism of the Reagan presidency. The privatization of prisons has not only led to significant changes in policy making and the management of prisons, but it has also generated widespread concerns that incarceration has become a profit-making industry, which in turn strengthens calls for policies on mandatory minimum sentencing that keep the prison industry growing. The majority of research on privatization has tended to focus on questions of efficiency; in other words, is the private sector able to provide public services at a cost savings to taxpayers? Even though some of this research shows that private firms do not always save costs, governments continue to justify decisions to privatize on the basis of cost efficiency. Economics as a determinant of decision to privatize state prisons Proponents of prison privatization The emergence of prison privatization began by advocacy coalition supporters with a common set of core beliefs regarding the primacy of a free market economy, the importance of limited government, and the ability of the private sector to be more innovative and efficient than the public sector. As Moe (1987) observed early on, among proponents of privatization, there is a shared belief that the public sector is too large and that many functions presently performed by government might be better assigned to private sector units, directly or indirectly, or left to the play of the market place. The private sector, it is argued, will perform these functions more efficiently and economically than they can be performed by the public sector. (p. 453) . Some studies show that the privatization of correctional facilities leads to significant cost savings (Calabrese, 1993; Gorham, 1983; Hanke, 1987; Morris, 1999; Segal&Moore, 2002). Studies show that not only can private firms build prisons more cheaply (Chaiken & Mennemyer, 1987), but they can also operate prisons more efficiently because they are not hamstrung by labor unions or the strict purchasing guidelines that are imposed on state agencies (Montague, 2001). These studies in essence show that through competition, private companies can run prisons more efficiently and effectively in terms of costs. . As noted, the primary motivation offered by state governments for privatizing prisons is that by relying on more economically efficient private vendors, costs will be reduced. It is further argued that contracting out also allows public agencies to take advantage of the efficiency and specialized skills believed to be offered by the private sector that may be unavailable within government (Morris, 1999; Shenk, 1995). Essentially, the presumptions here are that privatization promotes efficiency and competition to ultimately save costs in prison management and operations (Calabrese, 1993; DiIulio, 1987; Moore, 1998). . Similarly, Moore (1998) states that governments make the argument that the private sector is more efficient because private firms are driven by the profit motive or maximizing shareholders' wealth. Therefore, private firms have a powerful incentive to seek innovative approaches to reducing costs. Opponents of prison privatization The research on prison privatization shows mixed results as to whether privatization genuinely saves costs. . Many studies show that the private sector cannot run prisons more effectively and efficiently. For example, the U.S. General Accountability Office (1996) conducted a study involving such states as California, Tennessee, and Washington that found that private prison facilities can sometimes be more costly than public facilities. Similarly, the Urban Institute's (1989) study comparing prisons in Kentucky and Massachusetts found that the public facilities operated just as efficiently as the private prisons. . Other studies also show that privately run prisons do not result in cost savings (see, e.g., National Institute of Corrections, 1985; Perrone & Pratt, 2003; Pratt & Maahs, 1999; Sechrest & Shichor, 1996). Also, in a study conducted by a legislative oversight committee in Tennessee, there was virtually no difference in the average daily operational costs per inmate between public and private prisons (Tennessee Legislature Select Oversight Committee on Corrections, 1995). . There are also studies that argue that it is impossible to measure prison costs with any precision, therefore making comparisons between the efficiency of public and private prisons futile. For example, Useem and colleagues (1996) argue that the facilities being compared tend to differ physically as well as in their inmate populations. They also found that it is difficult to distinguish between site-specific and systemwide costs. They conclude that "it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty if the privatization of corrections produces substantial cost savings" (p. 7). . In addition, many studies found that even if there are monetary savings, the political and legal costs remain high, thus outweighing any financial benefit of privatization (see, e.g., Moe, 1987; Morgan & England, 1988; Sullivan, 1987). Notwithstanding the fact that prison privatization is not always fiscally or legally prudent, governments continue to argue that privatizing is the most efficient way to deliver public services. Although the polemics of prison privatization continue to run high, and governments consistently maintain it is cost effective, few studies have empirically examined the actual determinants of contracting out. Although the motivations to privatize may in fact range from fiscal concerns to politics and symbolism (see, e.g., Moe, 1987, 1988; Van Slyke, 2003), no studies have empirically examined why governments decide to contract out their prison services to private industry (see Cohen, 2001). Politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize state prisons Although economics is the stated reason for prison privatization, many have argued that decisions to privatize relate more to political and ideological factors. As Henry (1999) has argued, "the decision by policymakers to contract out the implementation of their policies to private entrepreneurs is, in short, at least as much a political decision as it is a managerial and financial one" (p. 44). Those states that are more heavily lobbied by private prison corporations are more likely to privatize than those states that are not lobbied as heavily. Bender (2002) shows that private companies such as Wackenhut Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America contributed more than $1 million to 830 politicians in the 2000 election cycle. Corporations involved in corrections for profits form their own political action committees and organize lobbying efforts not only to encourage prison privatization (Shichor, 1993) but also to lobby for mandatory sentencing and other legislation that works to keep people incarcerated and is ultimately favorable to their bottom line (Stolz, 2001). In short, private prison corporations can influence state level decision makers to privatize prisons. It is also expected that states with Republican-controlled legislatures are more likely to privatize prisons than states with Democrat-controlled legislatures or split legislatures. A preponderance of the literature suggests that a conservative ideology among government officials can affect decisions to privatize correctional facilities. Shichor (1995) points out that a conservative ideology tends to be promoted more by Republicans, who advocate reduced government involvement and more private involvement in government activities. In general, they champion the free market idea and believe that the market is corrected by competition (Shichor, 1995). Patterson (1996) goes even further to argue that the policy-making behavior of state legislators may be affected by a number of factors, especially their party affiliation. Because privatization tends to follow a conservative ideology, it follows that if the legislature is conservative, there is a greater likelihood that legislation will support privatization. Conclusion In the end, to privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the United States prison system. The privatization of prisons continues to be a major source of controversy in this nation. From concerns that for-profit prisons skimp on such services as medical care, education, food, and staff costs to concerns that the privatization of prisons threatens to reinstitute the link between race and commerce that existed in the 1800s, prison privatization generates a multitude of questions by public policy analysts and researchers from all quarters of the country and beyond. Prison privatization decision is also about public values. Efficiency aside, prison privatization presents some serious dilemmas regarding public values such as safety, justice, rehabilitation, and legitimacy. . Safety: Do private prisons pose a threat to the safety of prisoners, prison workers, or the general public? . Justice: Are the mechanisms of private prisons liable to distort sentencing? . Rehabilitation: Can the profit motive be reconciled with the need to prepare inmates for productive lives after prison? . Legitimacy: Is incarceration an inherently governmental function? Is it right that profits be reaped from human imprisonment? |
#3
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
how do I make a 10 minute presentation out of 5 pages? - Talk a lot?
--
Regards, Pat Garard Melbourne, Australia _______________________ "jarhead" wrote in message ... To privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the US prison system. Introduction More than 30 states have experimented with private prisons, with mixed results. The viability of establishing private prisons has been debated in many state legislatures. While private prisons hold promise, many questions remain. In the short time I have, I will try begin with a brief look at the trends in privatizing prisons across the country, address the question of whether or not prison privatization saves money, analyzes politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize prisons, and concludes with a brief summary in light of the evidence. Trends in Prison Privatization Shortly after the U.S. Congress enacted the Percy Amendment in 1979 that legalized prison privatization, Texas, in 1983, became the first state to privatize prison facilities. By 1985, Florida and Tennessee had joined Texas in prison privatization, and today, 158 private correctional facilities are operating in 30 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001). Prison privatization has grown considerably during the past decade; the capacity of privatized prisons grew from just more than 20,000 to almost 143,000 in the past 10 years (see, e.g., Chi, 1998; Thomas, 2001). It should further be noted that most private correctional facilities tend to be concentrated in the southern and western United States. Texas has the most facilities (42) followed by California (22) and Florida, Oklahoma, and New Mexico (each with 8; see Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001; Thomas, 2001). Although steeped in "public choice" rationalizations to save costs through competitive bidding, privatization may be rooted more in the sociopolitical atmosphere that emerged from the antigovernment populism of the Reagan presidency. The privatization of prisons has not only led to significant changes in policy making and the management of prisons, but it has also generated widespread concerns that incarceration has become a profit-making industry, which in turn strengthens calls for policies on mandatory minimum sentencing that keep the prison industry growing. The majority of research on privatization has tended to focus on questions of efficiency; in other words, is the private sector able to provide public services at a cost savings to taxpayers? Even though some of this research shows that private firms do not always save costs, governments continue to justify decisions to privatize on the basis of cost efficiency. Economics as a determinant of decision to privatize state prisons Proponents of prison privatization The emergence of prison privatization began by advocacy coalition supporters with a common set of core beliefs regarding the primacy of a free market economy, the importance of limited government, and the ability of the private sector to be more innovative and efficient than the public sector. As Moe (1987) observed early on, among proponents of privatization, there is a shared belief that the public sector is too large and that many functions presently performed by government might be better assigned to private sector units, directly or indirectly, or left to the play of the market place. The private sector, it is argued, will perform these functions more efficiently and economically than they can be performed by the public sector. (p. 453) . Some studies show that the privatization of correctional facilities leads to significant cost savings (Calabrese, 1993; Gorham, 1983; Hanke, 1987; Morris, 1999; Segal&Moore, 2002). Studies show that not only can private firms build prisons more cheaply (Chaiken & Mennemyer, 1987), but they can also operate prisons more efficiently because they are not hamstrung by labor unions or the strict purchasing guidelines that are imposed on state agencies (Montague, 2001). These studies in essence show that through competition, private companies can run prisons more efficiently and effectively in terms of costs. . As noted, the primary motivation offered by state governments for privatizing prisons is that by relying on more economically efficient private vendors, costs will be reduced. It is further argued that contracting out also allows public agencies to take advantage of the efficiency and specialized skills believed to be offered by the private sector that may be unavailable within government (Morris, 1999; Shenk, 1995). Essentially, the presumptions here are that privatization promotes efficiency and competition to ultimately save costs in prison management and operations (Calabrese, 1993; DiIulio, 1987; Moore, 1998). . Similarly, Moore (1998) states that governments make the argument that the private sector is more efficient because private firms are driven by the profit motive or maximizing shareholders' wealth. Therefore, private firms have a powerful incentive to seek innovative approaches to reducing costs. Opponents of prison privatization The research on prison privatization shows mixed results as to whether privatization genuinely saves costs. . Many studies show that the private sector cannot run prisons more effectively and efficiently. For example, the U.S. General Accountability Office (1996) conducted a study involving such states as California, Tennessee, and Washington that found that private prison facilities can sometimes be more costly than public facilities. Similarly, the Urban Institute's (1989) study comparing prisons in Kentucky and Massachusetts found that the public facilities operated just as efficiently as the private prisons. . Other studies also show that privately run prisons do not result in cost savings (see, e.g., National Institute of Corrections, 1985; Perrone & Pratt, 2003; Pratt & Maahs, 1999; Sechrest & Shichor, 1996). Also, in a study conducted by a legislative oversight committee in Tennessee, there was virtually no difference in the average daily operational costs per inmate between public and private prisons (Tennessee Legislature Select Oversight Committee on Corrections, 1995). . There are also studies that argue that it is impossible to measure prison costs with any precision, therefore making comparisons between the efficiency of public and private prisons futile. For example, Useem and colleagues (1996) argue that the facilities being compared tend to differ physically as well as in their inmate populations. They also found that it is difficult to distinguish between site-specific and systemwide costs. They conclude that "it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty if the privatization of corrections produces substantial cost savings" (p. 7). . In addition, many studies found that even if there are monetary savings, the political and legal costs remain high, thus outweighing any financial benefit of privatization (see, e.g., Moe, 1987; Morgan & England, 1988; Sullivan, 1987). Notwithstanding the fact that prison privatization is not always fiscally or legally prudent, governments continue to argue that privatizing is the most efficient way to deliver public services. Although the polemics of prison privatization continue to run high, and governments consistently maintain it is cost effective, few studies have empirically examined the actual determinants of contracting out. Although the motivations to privatize may in fact range from fiscal concerns to politics and symbolism (see, e.g., Moe, 1987, 1988; Van Slyke, 2003), no studies have empirically examined why governments decide to contract out their prison services to private industry (see Cohen, 2001). Politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize state prisons Although economics is the stated reason for prison privatization, many have argued that decisions to privatize relate more to political and ideological factors. As Henry (1999) has argued, "the decision by policymakers to contract out the implementation of their policies to private entrepreneurs is, in short, at least as much a political decision as it is a managerial and financial one" (p. 44). Those states that are more heavily lobbied by private prison corporations are more likely to privatize than those states that are not lobbied as heavily. Bender (2002) shows that private companies such as Wackenhut Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America contributed more than $1 million to 830 politicians in the 2000 election cycle. Corporations involved in corrections for profits form their own political action committees and organize lobbying efforts not only to encourage prison privatization (Shichor, 1993) but also to lobby for mandatory sentencing and other legislation that works to keep people incarcerated and is ultimately favorable to their bottom line (Stolz, 2001). In short, private prison corporations can influence state level decision makers to privatize prisons. It is also expected that states with Republican-controlled legislatures are more likely to privatize prisons than states with Democrat-controlled legislatures or split legislatures. A preponderance of the literature suggests that a conservative ideology among government officials can affect decisions to privatize correctional facilities. Shichor (1995) points out that a conservative ideology tends to be promoted more by Republicans, who advocate reduced government involvement and more private involvement in government activities. In general, they champion the free market idea and believe that the market is corrected by competition (Shichor, 1995). Patterson (1996) goes even further to argue that the policy-making behavior of state legislators may be affected by a number of factors, especially their party affiliation. Because privatization tends to follow a conservative ideology, it follows that if the legislature is conservative, there is a greater likelihood that legislation will support privatization. Conclusion In the end, to privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the United States prison system. The privatization of prisons continues to be a major source of controversy in this nation. From concerns that for-profit prisons skimp on such services as medical care, education, food, and staff costs to concerns that the privatization of prisons threatens to reinstitute the link between race and commerce that existed in the 1800s, prison privatization generates a multitude of questions by public policy analysts and researchers from all quarters of the country and beyond. Prison privatization decision is also about public values. Efficiency aside, prison privatization presents some serious dilemmas regarding public values such as safety, justice, rehabilitation, and legitimacy. . Safety: Do private prisons pose a threat to the safety of prisoners, prison workers, or the general public? . Justice: Are the mechanisms of private prisons liable to distort sentencing? . Rehabilitation: Can the profit motive be reconciled with the need to prepare inmates for productive lives after prison? . Legitimacy: Is incarceration an inherently governmental function? Is it right that profits be reaped from human imprisonment? |
#4
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
how do I make a 10 minute presentation out of 5 pages?
Oh Jezebel!
Non-rhyming iambic pentameter - please! -- Regards, Pat -Garard- Shakespeare Melbourne, Australia _______________________ "Jezebel" wrote in message ... Put it into iambic pentameter.. "jarhead" wrote in message ... To privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the US prison system. Introduction More than 30 states have experimented with private prisons, with mixed results. The viability of establishing private prisons has been debated in many state legislatures. While private prisons hold promise, many questions remain. In the short time I have, I will try begin with a brief look at the trends in privatizing prisons across the country, address the question of whether or not prison privatization saves money, analyzes politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize prisons, and concludes with a brief summary in light of the evidence. Trends in Prison Privatization Shortly after the U.S. Congress enacted the Percy Amendment in 1979 that legalized prison privatization, Texas, in 1983, became the first state to privatize prison facilities. By 1985, Florida and Tennessee had joined Texas in prison privatization, and today, 158 private correctional facilities are operating in 30 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001). Prison privatization has grown considerably during the past decade; the capacity of privatized prisons grew from just more than 20,000 to almost 143,000 in the past 10 years (see, e.g., Chi, 1998; Thomas, 2001). It should further be noted that most private correctional facilities tend to be concentrated in the southern and western United States. Texas has the most facilities (42) followed by California (22) and Florida, Oklahoma, and New Mexico (each with 8; see Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001; Thomas, 2001). Although steeped in "public choice" rationalizations to save costs through competitive bidding, privatization may be rooted more in the sociopolitical atmosphere that emerged from the antigovernment populism of the Reagan presidency. The privatization of prisons has not only led to significant changes in policy making and the management of prisons, but it has also generated widespread concerns that incarceration has become a profit-making industry, which in turn strengthens calls for policies on mandatory minimum sentencing that keep the prison industry growing. The majority of research on privatization has tended to focus on questions of efficiency; in other words, is the private sector able to provide public services at a cost savings to taxpayers? Even though some of this research shows that private firms do not always save costs, governments continue to justify decisions to privatize on the basis of cost efficiency. Economics as a determinant of decision to privatize state prisons Proponents of prison privatization The emergence of prison privatization began by advocacy coalition supporters with a common set of core beliefs regarding the primacy of a free market economy, the importance of limited government, and the ability of the private sector to be more innovative and efficient than the public sector. As Moe (1987) observed early on, among proponents of privatization, there is a shared belief that the public sector is too large and that many functions presently performed by government might be better assigned to private sector units, directly or indirectly, or left to the play of the market place. The private sector, it is argued, will perform these functions more efficiently and economically than they can be performed by the public sector. (p. 453) . Some studies show that the privatization of correctional facilities leads to significant cost savings (Calabrese, 1993; Gorham, 1983; Hanke, 1987; Morris, 1999; Segal&Moore, 2002). Studies show that not only can private firms build prisons more cheaply (Chaiken & Mennemyer, 1987), but they can also operate prisons more efficiently because they are not hamstrung by labor unions or the strict purchasing guidelines that are imposed on state agencies (Montague, 2001). These studies in essence show that through competition, private companies can run prisons more efficiently and effectively in terms of costs. . As noted, the primary motivation offered by state governments for privatizing prisons is that by relying on more economically efficient private vendors, costs will be reduced. It is further argued that contracting out also allows public agencies to take advantage of the efficiency and specialized skills believed to be offered by the private sector that may be unavailable within government (Morris, 1999; Shenk, 1995). Essentially, the presumptions here are that privatization promotes efficiency and competition to ultimately save costs in prison management and operations (Calabrese, 1993; DiIulio, 1987; Moore, 1998). . Similarly, Moore (1998) states that governments make the argument that the private sector is more efficient because private firms are driven by the profit motive or maximizing shareholders' wealth. Therefore, private firms have a powerful incentive to seek innovative approaches to reducing costs. Opponents of prison privatization The research on prison privatization shows mixed results as to whether privatization genuinely saves costs. . Many studies show that the private sector cannot run prisons more effectively and efficiently. For example, the U.S. General Accountability Office (1996) conducted a study involving such states as California, Tennessee, and Washington that found that private prison facilities can sometimes be more costly than public facilities. Similarly, the Urban Institute's (1989) study comparing prisons in Kentucky and Massachusetts found that the public facilities operated just as efficiently as the private prisons. . Other studies also show that privately run prisons do not result in cost savings (see, e.g., National Institute of Corrections, 1985; Perrone & Pratt, 2003; Pratt & Maahs, 1999; Sechrest & Shichor, 1996). Also, in a study conducted by a legislative oversight committee in Tennessee, there was virtually no difference in the average daily operational costs per inmate between public and private prisons (Tennessee Legislature Select Oversight Committee on Corrections, 1995). . There are also studies that argue that it is impossible to measure prison costs with any precision, therefore making comparisons between the efficiency of public and private prisons futile. For example, Useem and colleagues (1996) argue that the facilities being compared tend to differ physically as well as in their inmate populations. They also found that it is difficult to distinguish between site-specific and systemwide costs. They conclude that "it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty if the privatization of corrections produces substantial cost savings" (p. 7). . In addition, many studies found that even if there are monetary savings, the political and legal costs remain high, thus outweighing any financial benefit of privatization (see, e.g., Moe, 1987; Morgan & England, 1988; Sullivan, 1987). Notwithstanding the fact that prison privatization is not always fiscally or legally prudent, governments continue to argue that privatizing is the most efficient way to deliver public services. Although the polemics of prison privatization continue to run high, and governments consistently maintain it is cost effective, few studies have empirically examined the actual determinants of contracting out. Although the motivations to privatize may in fact range from fiscal concerns to politics and symbolism (see, e.g., Moe, 1987, 1988; Van Slyke, 2003), no studies have empirically examined why governments decide to contract out their prison services to private industry (see Cohen, 2001). Politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize state prisons Although economics is the stated reason for prison privatization, many have argued that decisions to privatize relate more to political and ideological factors. As Henry (1999) has argued, "the decision by policymakers to contract out the implementation of their policies to private entrepreneurs is, in short, at least as much a political decision as it is a managerial and financial one" (p. 44). Those states that are more heavily lobbied by private prison corporations are more likely to privatize than those states that are not lobbied as heavily. Bender (2002) shows that private companies such as Wackenhut Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America contributed more than $1 million to 830 politicians in the 2000 election cycle. Corporations involved in corrections for profits form their own political action committees and organize lobbying efforts not only to encourage prison privatization (Shichor, 1993) but also to lobby for mandatory sentencing and other legislation that works to keep people incarcerated and is ultimately favorable to their bottom line (Stolz, 2001). In short, private prison corporations can influence state level decision makers to privatize prisons. It is also expected that states with Republican-controlled legislatures are more likely to privatize prisons than states with Democrat-controlled legislatures or split legislatures. A preponderance of the literature suggests that a conservative ideology among government officials can affect decisions to privatize correctional facilities. Shichor (1995) points out that a conservative ideology tends to be promoted more by Republicans, who advocate reduced government involvement and more private involvement in government activities. In general, they champion the free market idea and believe that the market is corrected by competition (Shichor, 1995). Patterson (1996) goes even further to argue that the policy-making behavior of state legislators may be affected by a number of factors, especially their party affiliation. Because privatization tends to follow a conservative ideology, it follows that if the legislature is conservative, there is a greater likelihood that legislation will support privatization. Conclusion In the end, to privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the United States prison system. The privatization of prisons continues to be a major source of controversy in this nation. From concerns that for-profit prisons skimp on such services as medical care, education, food, and staff costs to concerns that the privatization of prisons threatens to reinstitute the link between race and commerce that existed in the 1800s, prison privatization generates a multitude of questions by public policy analysts and researchers from all quarters of the country and beyond. Prison privatization decision is also about public values. Efficiency aside, prison privatization presents some serious dilemmas regarding public values such as safety, justice, rehabilitation, and legitimacy. . Safety: Do private prisons pose a threat to the safety of prisoners, prison workers, or the general public? . Justice: Are the mechanisms of private prisons liable to distort sentencing? . Rehabilitation: Can the profit motive be reconciled with the need to prepare inmates for productive lives after prison? . Legitimacy: Is incarceration an inherently governmental function? Is it right that profits be reaped from human imprisonment? |
#5
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
how do I make a 10 minute presentation out of 5 pages?
If you plan to read it, cut some stuff. Otherwise, organize the key points
you want to make and practice your presentation while keeping an eye on the clock. "jarhead" wrote in message ... To privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the US prison system. Introduction More than 30 states have experimented with private prisons, with mixed results. The viability of establishing private prisons has been debated in many state legislatures. While private prisons hold promise, many questions remain. In the short time I have, I will try begin with a brief look at the trends in privatizing prisons across the country, address the question of whether or not prison privatization saves money, analyzes politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize prisons, and concludes with a brief summary in light of the evidence. Trends in Prison Privatization Shortly after the U.S. Congress enacted the Percy Amendment in 1979 that legalized prison privatization, Texas, in 1983, became the first state to privatize prison facilities. By 1985, Florida and Tennessee had joined Texas in prison privatization, and today, 158 private correctional facilities are operating in 30 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001). Prison privatization has grown considerably during the past decade; the capacity of privatized prisons grew from just more than 20,000 to almost 143,000 in the past 10 years (see, e.g., Chi, 1998; Thomas, 2001). It should further be noted that most private correctional facilities tend to be concentrated in the southern and western United States. Texas has the most facilities (42) followed by California (22) and Florida, Oklahoma, and New Mexico (each with 8; see Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001; Thomas, 2001). Although steeped in "public choice" rationalizations to save costs through competitive bidding, privatization may be rooted more in the sociopolitical atmosphere that emerged from the antigovernment populism of the Reagan presidency. The privatization of prisons has not only led to significant changes in policy making and the management of prisons, but it has also generated widespread concerns that incarceration has become a profit-making industry, which in turn strengthens calls for policies on mandatory minimum sentencing that keep the prison industry growing. The majority of research on privatization has tended to focus on questions of efficiency; in other words, is the private sector able to provide public services at a cost savings to taxpayers? Even though some of this research shows that private firms do not always save costs, governments continue to justify decisions to privatize on the basis of cost efficiency. Economics as a determinant of decision to privatize state prisons Proponents of prison privatization The emergence of prison privatization began by advocacy coalition supporters with a common set of core beliefs regarding the primacy of a free market economy, the importance of limited government, and the ability of the private sector to be more innovative and efficient than the public sector. As Moe (1987) observed early on, among proponents of privatization, there is a shared belief that the public sector is too large and that many functions presently performed by government might be better assigned to private sector units, directly or indirectly, or left to the play of the market place. The private sector, it is argued, will perform these functions more efficiently and economically than they can be performed by the public sector. (p. 453) . Some studies show that the privatization of correctional facilities leads to significant cost savings (Calabrese, 1993; Gorham, 1983; Hanke, 1987; Morris, 1999; Segal&Moore, 2002). Studies show that not only can private firms build prisons more cheaply (Chaiken & Mennemyer, 1987), but they can also operate prisons more efficiently because they are not hamstrung by labor unions or the strict purchasing guidelines that are imposed on state agencies (Montague, 2001). These studies in essence show that through competition, private companies can run prisons more efficiently and effectively in terms of costs. . As noted, the primary motivation offered by state governments for privatizing prisons is that by relying on more economically efficient private vendors, costs will be reduced. It is further argued that contracting out also allows public agencies to take advantage of the efficiency and specialized skills believed to be offered by the private sector that may be unavailable within government (Morris, 1999; Shenk, 1995). Essentially, the presumptions here are that privatization promotes efficiency and competition to ultimately save costs in prison management and operations (Calabrese, 1993; DiIulio, 1987; Moore, 1998). . Similarly, Moore (1998) states that governments make the argument that the private sector is more efficient because private firms are driven by the profit motive or maximizing shareholders' wealth. Therefore, private firms have a powerful incentive to seek innovative approaches to reducing costs. Opponents of prison privatization The research on prison privatization shows mixed results as to whether privatization genuinely saves costs. . Many studies show that the private sector cannot run prisons more effectively and efficiently. For example, the U.S. General Accountability Office (1996) conducted a study involving such states as California, Tennessee, and Washington that found that private prison facilities can sometimes be more costly than public facilities. Similarly, the Urban Institute's (1989) study comparing prisons in Kentucky and Massachusetts found that the public facilities operated just as efficiently as the private prisons. . Other studies also show that privately run prisons do not result in cost savings (see, e.g., National Institute of Corrections, 1985; Perrone & Pratt, 2003; Pratt & Maahs, 1999; Sechrest & Shichor, 1996). Also, in a study conducted by a legislative oversight committee in Tennessee, there was virtually no difference in the average daily operational costs per inmate between public and private prisons (Tennessee Legislature Select Oversight Committee on Corrections, 1995). . There are also studies that argue that it is impossible to measure prison costs with any precision, therefore making comparisons between the efficiency of public and private prisons futile. For example, Useem and colleagues (1996) argue that the facilities being compared tend to differ physically as well as in their inmate populations. They also found that it is difficult to distinguish between site-specific and systemwide costs. They conclude that "it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty if the privatization of corrections produces substantial cost savings" (p. 7). . In addition, many studies found that even if there are monetary savings, the political and legal costs remain high, thus outweighing any financial benefit of privatization (see, e.g., Moe, 1987; Morgan & England, 1988; Sullivan, 1987). Notwithstanding the fact that prison privatization is not always fiscally or legally prudent, governments continue to argue that privatizing is the most efficient way to deliver public services. Although the polemics of prison privatization continue to run high, and governments consistently maintain it is cost effective, few studies have empirically examined the actual determinants of contracting out. Although the motivations to privatize may in fact range from fiscal concerns to politics and symbolism (see, e.g., Moe, 1987, 1988; Van Slyke, 2003), no studies have empirically examined why governments decide to contract out their prison services to private industry (see Cohen, 2001). Politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize state prisons Although economics is the stated reason for prison privatization, many have argued that decisions to privatize relate more to political and ideological factors. As Henry (1999) has argued, "the decision by policymakers to contract out the implementation of their policies to private entrepreneurs is, in short, at least as much a political decision as it is a managerial and financial one" (p. 44). Those states that are more heavily lobbied by private prison corporations are more likely to privatize than those states that are not lobbied as heavily. Bender (2002) shows that private companies such as Wackenhut Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America contributed more than $1 million to 830 politicians in the 2000 election cycle. Corporations involved in corrections for profits form their own political action committees and organize lobbying efforts not only to encourage prison privatization (Shichor, 1993) but also to lobby for mandatory sentencing and other legislation that works to keep people incarcerated and is ultimately favorable to their bottom line (Stolz, 2001). In short, private prison corporations can influence state level decision makers to privatize prisons. It is also expected that states with Republican-controlled legislatures are more likely to privatize prisons than states with Democrat-controlled legislatures or split legislatures. A preponderance of the literature suggests that a conservative ideology among government officials can affect decisions to privatize correctional facilities. Shichor (1995) points out that a conservative ideology tends to be promoted more by Republicans, who advocate reduced government involvement and more private involvement in government activities. In general, they champion the free market idea and believe that the market is corrected by competition (Shichor, 1995). Patterson (1996) goes even further to argue that the policy-making behavior of state legislators may be affected by a number of factors, especially their party affiliation. Because privatization tends to follow a conservative ideology, it follows that if the legislature is conservative, there is a greater likelihood that legislation will support privatization. Conclusion In the end, to privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the United States prison system. The privatization of prisons continues to be a major source of controversy in this nation. From concerns that for-profit prisons skimp on such services as medical care, education, food, and staff costs to concerns that the privatization of prisons threatens to reinstitute the link between race and commerce that existed in the 1800s, prison privatization generates a multitude of questions by public policy analysts and researchers from all quarters of the country and beyond. Prison privatization decision is also about public values. Efficiency aside, prison privatization presents some serious dilemmas regarding public values such as safety, justice, rehabilitation, and legitimacy. . Safety: Do private prisons pose a threat to the safety of prisoners, prison workers, or the general public? . Justice: Are the mechanisms of private prisons liable to distort sentencing? . Rehabilitation: Can the profit motive be reconciled with the need to prepare inmates for productive lives after prison? . Legitimacy: Is incarceration an inherently governmental function? Is it right that profits be reaped from human imprisonment? |
#6
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
how do I make a 10 minute presentation out of 5 pages?
Have you checked John's nostrils lately?
I know you're on top of the situation with George Bush, but Tony has been poking around lately! -- Regards, Pat Garard Melbourne, Australia _______________________ "Pat Garard" apgarardATbigpondDOTnetDOTau wrote in message ... Oh Jezebel! Non-rhyming iambic pentameter - please! -- Regards, Pat -Garard- Shakespeare Melbourne, Australia _______________________ "Jezebel" wrote in message ... Put it into iambic pentameter.. "jarhead" wrote in message ... To privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the US prison system. Introduction More than 30 states have experimented with private prisons, with mixed results. The viability of establishing private prisons has been debated in many state legislatures. While private prisons hold promise, many questions remain. In the short time I have, I will try begin with a brief look at the trends in privatizing prisons across the country, address the question of whether or not prison privatization saves money, analyzes politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize prisons, and concludes with a brief summary in light of the evidence. Trends in Prison Privatization Shortly after the U.S. Congress enacted the Percy Amendment in 1979 that legalized prison privatization, Texas, in 1983, became the first state to privatize prison facilities. By 1985, Florida and Tennessee had joined Texas in prison privatization, and today, 158 private correctional facilities are operating in 30 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001). Prison privatization has grown considerably during the past decade; the capacity of privatized prisons grew from just more than 20,000 to almost 143,000 in the past 10 years (see, e.g., Chi, 1998; Thomas, 2001). It should further be noted that most private correctional facilities tend to be concentrated in the southern and western United States. Texas has the most facilities (42) followed by California (22) and Florida, Oklahoma, and New Mexico (each with 8; see Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001; Thomas, 2001). Although steeped in "public choice" rationalizations to save costs through competitive bidding, privatization may be rooted more in the sociopolitical atmosphere that emerged from the antigovernment populism of the Reagan presidency. The privatization of prisons has not only led to significant changes in policy making and the management of prisons, but it has also generated widespread concerns that incarceration has become a profit-making industry, which in turn strengthens calls for policies on mandatory minimum sentencing that keep the prison industry growing. The majority of research on privatization has tended to focus on questions of efficiency; in other words, is the private sector able to provide public services at a cost savings to taxpayers? Even though some of this research shows that private firms do not always save costs, governments continue to justify decisions to privatize on the basis of cost efficiency. Economics as a determinant of decision to privatize state prisons Proponents of prison privatization The emergence of prison privatization began by advocacy coalition supporters with a common set of core beliefs regarding the primacy of a free market economy, the importance of limited government, and the ability of the private sector to be more innovative and efficient than the public sector. As Moe (1987) observed early on, among proponents of privatization, there is a shared belief that the public sector is too large and that many functions presently performed by government might be better assigned to private sector units, directly or indirectly, or left to the play of the market place. The private sector, it is argued, will perform these functions more efficiently and economically than they can be performed by the public sector. (p. 453) . Some studies show that the privatization of correctional facilities leads to significant cost savings (Calabrese, 1993; Gorham, 1983; Hanke, 1987; Morris, 1999; Segal&Moore, 2002). Studies show that not only can private firms build prisons more cheaply (Chaiken & Mennemyer, 1987), but they can also operate prisons more efficiently because they are not hamstrung by labor unions or the strict purchasing guidelines that are imposed on state agencies (Montague, 2001). These studies in essence show that through competition, private companies can run prisons more efficiently and effectively in terms of costs. . As noted, the primary motivation offered by state governments for privatizing prisons is that by relying on more economically efficient private vendors, costs will be reduced. It is further argued that contracting out also allows public agencies to take advantage of the efficiency and specialized skills believed to be offered by the private sector that may be unavailable within government (Morris, 1999; Shenk, 1995). Essentially, the presumptions here are that privatization promotes efficiency and competition to ultimately save costs in prison management and operations (Calabrese, 1993; DiIulio, 1987; Moore, 1998). . Similarly, Moore (1998) states that governments make the argument that the private sector is more efficient because private firms are driven by the profit motive or maximizing shareholders' wealth. Therefore, private firms have a powerful incentive to seek innovative approaches to reducing costs. Opponents of prison privatization The research on prison privatization shows mixed results as to whether privatization genuinely saves costs. . Many studies show that the private sector cannot run prisons more effectively and efficiently. For example, the U.S. General Accountability Office (1996) conducted a study involving such states as California, Tennessee, and Washington that found that private prison facilities can sometimes be more costly than public facilities. Similarly, the Urban Institute's (1989) study comparing prisons in Kentucky and Massachusetts found that the public facilities operated just as efficiently as the private prisons. . Other studies also show that privately run prisons do not result in cost savings (see, e.g., National Institute of Corrections, 1985; Perrone & Pratt, 2003; Pratt & Maahs, 1999; Sechrest & Shichor, 1996). Also, in a study conducted by a legislative oversight committee in Tennessee, there was virtually no difference in the average daily operational costs per inmate between public and private prisons (Tennessee Legislature Select Oversight Committee on Corrections, 1995). . There are also studies that argue that it is impossible to measure prison costs with any precision, therefore making comparisons between the efficiency of public and private prisons futile. For example, Useem and colleagues (1996) argue that the facilities being compared tend to differ physically as well as in their inmate populations. They also found that it is difficult to distinguish between site-specific and systemwide costs. They conclude that "it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty if the privatization of corrections produces substantial cost savings" (p. 7). . In addition, many studies found that even if there are monetary savings, the political and legal costs remain high, thus outweighing any financial benefit of privatization (see, e.g., Moe, 1987; Morgan & England, 1988; Sullivan, 1987). Notwithstanding the fact that prison privatization is not always fiscally or legally prudent, governments continue to argue that privatizing is the most efficient way to deliver public services. Although the polemics of prison privatization continue to run high, and governments consistently maintain it is cost effective, few studies have empirically examined the actual determinants of contracting out. Although the motivations to privatize may in fact range from fiscal concerns to politics and symbolism (see, e.g., Moe, 1987, 1988; Van Slyke, 2003), no studies have empirically examined why governments decide to contract out their prison services to private industry (see Cohen, 2001). Politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize state prisons Although economics is the stated reason for prison privatization, many have argued that decisions to privatize relate more to political and ideological factors. As Henry (1999) has argued, "the decision by policymakers to contract out the implementation of their policies to private entrepreneurs is, in short, at least as much a political decision as it is a managerial and financial one" (p. 44). Those states that are more heavily lobbied by private prison corporations are more likely to privatize than those states that are not lobbied as heavily. Bender (2002) shows that private companies such as Wackenhut Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America contributed more than $1 million to 830 politicians in the 2000 election cycle. Corporations involved in corrections for profits form their own political action committees and organize lobbying efforts not only to encourage prison privatization (Shichor, 1993) but also to lobby for mandatory sentencing and other legislation that works to keep people incarcerated and is ultimately favorable to their bottom line (Stolz, 2001). In short, private prison corporations can influence state level decision makers to privatize prisons. It is also expected that states with Republican-controlled legislatures are more likely to privatize prisons than states with Democrat-controlled legislatures or split legislatures. A preponderance of the literature suggests that a conservative ideology among government officials can affect decisions to privatize correctional facilities. Shichor (1995) points out that a conservative ideology tends to be promoted more by Republicans, who advocate reduced government involvement and more private involvement in government activities. In general, they champion the free market idea and believe that the market is corrected by competition (Shichor, 1995). Patterson (1996) goes even further to argue that the policy-making behavior of state legislators may be affected by a number of factors, especially their party affiliation. Because privatization tends to follow a conservative ideology, it follows that if the legislature is conservative, there is a greater likelihood that legislation will support privatization. Conclusion In the end, to privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the United States prison system. The privatization of prisons continues to be a major source of controversy in this nation. From concerns that for-profit prisons skimp on such services as medical care, education, food, and staff costs to concerns that the privatization of prisons threatens to reinstitute the link between race and commerce that existed in the 1800s, prison privatization generates a multitude of questions by public policy analysts and researchers from all quarters of the country and beyond. Prison privatization decision is also about public values. Efficiency aside, prison privatization presents some serious dilemmas regarding public values such as safety, justice, rehabilitation, and legitimacy. . Safety: Do private prisons pose a threat to the safety of prisoners, prison workers, or the general public? . Justice: Are the mechanisms of private prisons liable to distort sentencing? . Rehabilitation: Can the profit motive be reconciled with the need to prepare inmates for productive lives after prison? . Legitimacy: Is incarceration an inherently governmental function? Is it right that profits be reaped from human imprisonment? |
#7
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
how do I make a 10 minute presentation out of 5 pages? - Talk a lot?
I was thinking "Talk slowly"
-- JoAnn Paules MVP Microsoft [Publisher] "Pat Garard" apgarardATbigpondDOTnetDOTau wrote in message ... -- Regards, Pat Garard Melbourne, Australia _______________________ "jarhead" wrote in message ... To privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the US prison system. Introduction More than 30 states have experimented with private prisons, with mixed results. The viability of establishing private prisons has been debated in many state legislatures. While private prisons hold promise, many questions remain. In the short time I have, I will try begin with a brief look at the trends in privatizing prisons across the country, address the question of whether or not prison privatization saves money, analyzes politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize prisons, and concludes with a brief summary in light of the evidence. Trends in Prison Privatization Shortly after the U.S. Congress enacted the Percy Amendment in 1979 that legalized prison privatization, Texas, in 1983, became the first state to privatize prison facilities. By 1985, Florida and Tennessee had joined Texas in prison privatization, and today, 158 private correctional facilities are operating in 30 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001). Prison privatization has grown considerably during the past decade; the capacity of privatized prisons grew from just more than 20,000 to almost 143,000 in the past 10 years (see, e.g., Chi, 1998; Thomas, 2001). It should further be noted that most private correctional facilities tend to be concentrated in the southern and western United States. Texas has the most facilities (42) followed by California (22) and Florida, Oklahoma, and New Mexico (each with 8; see Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001; Thomas, 2001). Although steeped in "public choice" rationalizations to save costs through competitive bidding, privatization may be rooted more in the sociopolitical atmosphere that emerged from the antigovernment populism of the Reagan presidency. The privatization of prisons has not only led to significant changes in policy making and the management of prisons, but it has also generated widespread concerns that incarceration has become a profit-making industry, which in turn strengthens calls for policies on mandatory minimum sentencing that keep the prison industry growing. The majority of research on privatization has tended to focus on questions of efficiency; in other words, is the private sector able to provide public services at a cost savings to taxpayers? Even though some of this research shows that private firms do not always save costs, governments continue to justify decisions to privatize on the basis of cost efficiency. Economics as a determinant of decision to privatize state prisons Proponents of prison privatization The emergence of prison privatization began by advocacy coalition supporters with a common set of core beliefs regarding the primacy of a free market economy, the importance of limited government, and the ability of the private sector to be more innovative and efficient than the public sector. As Moe (1987) observed early on, among proponents of privatization, there is a shared belief that the public sector is too large and that many functions presently performed by government might be better assigned to private sector units, directly or indirectly, or left to the play of the market place. The private sector, it is argued, will perform these functions more efficiently and economically than they can be performed by the public sector. (p. 453) . Some studies show that the privatization of correctional facilities leads to significant cost savings (Calabrese, 1993; Gorham, 1983; Hanke, 1987; Morris, 1999; Segal&Moore, 2002). Studies show that not only can private firms build prisons more cheaply (Chaiken & Mennemyer, 1987), but they can also operate prisons more efficiently because they are not hamstrung by labor unions or the strict purchasing guidelines that are imposed on state agencies (Montague, 2001). These studies in essence show that through competition, private companies can run prisons more efficiently and effectively in terms of costs. . As noted, the primary motivation offered by state governments for privatizing prisons is that by relying on more economically efficient private vendors, costs will be reduced. It is further argued that contracting out also allows public agencies to take advantage of the efficiency and specialized skills believed to be offered by the private sector that may be unavailable within government (Morris, 1999; Shenk, 1995). Essentially, the presumptions here are that privatization promotes efficiency and competition to ultimately save costs in prison management and operations (Calabrese, 1993; DiIulio, 1987; Moore, 1998). . Similarly, Moore (1998) states that governments make the argument that the private sector is more efficient because private firms are driven by the profit motive or maximizing shareholders' wealth. Therefore, private firms have a powerful incentive to seek innovative approaches to reducing costs. Opponents of prison privatization The research on prison privatization shows mixed results as to whether privatization genuinely saves costs. . Many studies show that the private sector cannot run prisons more effectively and efficiently. For example, the U.S. General Accountability Office (1996) conducted a study involving such states as California, Tennessee, and Washington that found that private prison facilities can sometimes be more costly than public facilities. Similarly, the Urban Institute's (1989) study comparing prisons in Kentucky and Massachusetts found that the public facilities operated just as efficiently as the private prisons. . Other studies also show that privately run prisons do not result in cost savings (see, e.g., National Institute of Corrections, 1985; Perrone & Pratt, 2003; Pratt & Maahs, 1999; Sechrest & Shichor, 1996). Also, in a study conducted by a legislative oversight committee in Tennessee, there was virtually no difference in the average daily operational costs per inmate between public and private prisons (Tennessee Legislature Select Oversight Committee on Corrections, 1995). . There are also studies that argue that it is impossible to measure prison costs with any precision, therefore making comparisons between the efficiency of public and private prisons futile. For example, Useem and colleagues (1996) argue that the facilities being compared tend to differ physically as well as in their inmate populations. They also found that it is difficult to distinguish between site-specific and systemwide costs. They conclude that "it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty if the privatization of corrections produces substantial cost savings" (p. 7). . In addition, many studies found that even if there are monetary savings, the political and legal costs remain high, thus outweighing any financial benefit of privatization (see, e.g., Moe, 1987; Morgan & England, 1988; Sullivan, 1987). Notwithstanding the fact that prison privatization is not always fiscally or legally prudent, governments continue to argue that privatizing is the most efficient way to deliver public services. Although the polemics of prison privatization continue to run high, and governments consistently maintain it is cost effective, few studies have empirically examined the actual determinants of contracting out. Although the motivations to privatize may in fact range from fiscal concerns to politics and symbolism (see, e.g., Moe, 1987, 1988; Van Slyke, 2003), no studies have empirically examined why governments decide to contract out their prison services to private industry (see Cohen, 2001). Politics and ideology as potential determinants of decisions to privatize state prisons Although economics is the stated reason for prison privatization, many have argued that decisions to privatize relate more to political and ideological factors. As Henry (1999) has argued, "the decision by policymakers to contract out the implementation of their policies to private entrepreneurs is, in short, at least as much a political decision as it is a managerial and financial one" (p. 44). Those states that are more heavily lobbied by private prison corporations are more likely to privatize than those states that are not lobbied as heavily. Bender (2002) shows that private companies such as Wackenhut Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America contributed more than $1 million to 830 politicians in the 2000 election cycle. Corporations involved in corrections for profits form their own political action committees and organize lobbying efforts not only to encourage prison privatization (Shichor, 1993) but also to lobby for mandatory sentencing and other legislation that works to keep people incarcerated and is ultimately favorable to their bottom line (Stolz, 2001). In short, private prison corporations can influence state level decision makers to privatize prisons. It is also expected that states with Republican-controlled legislatures are more likely to privatize prisons than states with Democrat-controlled legislatures or split legislatures. A preponderance of the literature suggests that a conservative ideology among government officials can affect decisions to privatize correctional facilities. Shichor (1995) points out that a conservative ideology tends to be promoted more by Republicans, who advocate reduced government involvement and more private involvement in government activities. In general, they champion the free market idea and believe that the market is corrected by competition (Shichor, 1995). Patterson (1996) goes even further to argue that the policy-making behavior of state legislators may be affected by a number of factors, especially their party affiliation. Because privatization tends to follow a conservative ideology, it follows that if the legislature is conservative, there is a greater likelihood that legislation will support privatization. Conclusion In the end, to privatize or not to privatize is the question facing the United States prison system. The privatization of prisons continues to be a major source of controversy in this nation. From concerns that for-profit prisons skimp on such services as medical care, education, food, and staff costs to concerns that the privatization of prisons threatens to reinstitute the link between race and commerce that existed in the 1800s, prison privatization generates a multitude of questions by public policy analysts and researchers from all quarters of the country and beyond. Prison privatization decision is also about public values. Efficiency aside, prison privatization presents some serious dilemmas regarding public values such as safety, justice, rehabilitation, and legitimacy. . Safety: Do private prisons pose a threat to the safety of prisoners, prison workers, or the general public? . Justice: Are the mechanisms of private prisons liable to distort sentencing? . Rehabilitation: Can the profit motive be reconciled with the need to prepare inmates for productive lives after prison? . Legitimacy: Is incarceration an inherently governmental function? Is it right that profits be reaped from human imprisonment? |
#8
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
how do I make a 10 minute presentation out of 5 pages?
This thread has become seriously distasteful. love it.
"John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]" wrote in message ... If we were looking for either of them, John Howard's "nostrils" would not be the correct part of his anatomy to be looking in :-) On 30/3/06 2:43 PM, in article , "Pat Garard" apgarardATbigpondDOTnetDOTau wrote: Have you checked John's nostrils lately? I know you're on top of the situation with George Bush, but Tony has been poking around lately! -- Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410 |
#9
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
how do I make a 10 minute presentation out of 5 pages?
If we were looking for either of them, John Howard's "nostrils" would not be
the correct part of his anatomy to be looking in :-) On 30/3/06 2:43 PM, in article , "Pat Garard" apgarardATbigpondDOTnetDOTau wrote: Have you checked John's nostrils lately? I know you're on top of the situation with George Bush, but Tony has been poking around lately! -- Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How do I make Fax Header Roll down onto more pages? | Page Layout | |||
Creating pleading pages on intermitten pages in a long document | Page Layout | |||
WORD: How do I reorder pages (make page 1, page 4, etc)? | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Make gutter space same on odd %26 even pages | Page Layout | |||
How do i make extra pages for calendars? | Microsoft Word Help |