<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
		<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
			<channel>
			<title>Reason Magazine - Contributors</title>
			<link>http://www.reason.com/contrib</link>
			<description></description>
			<managingEditor>info@reason.com (Reason Online)</managingEditor>
			<generator>http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1</generator>
			
<item>
<title>Private Screening</title>
<link>http://www.reason.com/news/show/36584.html</link>
<description>  

&lt;p&gt;In November the Transportation Security Administration began
accepting applications from airports to opt out of using federal security
services to screen passengers. The new option, dubbed the Screening Partnership
Program, began with a five-airport pilot program but is now open to all 450
commercial airports in the U.S.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There is some evidence from the five pilot-program
airports--located in San Francisco, Kansas City, Rochester, Jackson Hole, and
Tupelo--that private contractors were able to make existing security dollars go
further. It's not clear, however, whether greater reliance on contractors will
save money in the short term, since it would not alter the formula by which
federal dollars are disbursed to airports. Three evaluations found no
meaningful differences in security performance between the five test airports
and their federally screened counterparts. But there are other factors that
might make the option attractive, most notably the possibility that flexible
private contractors will provide shorter wait times and better customer
service.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;At press time, the government had only received one real
opt-out application--from a small airport in Elko, Nevada--but House Aviation
Subcommittee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) says about 100 airports of all sizes
have inquired about the program. (The pilot-program airports will keep their
contracts for the next year.) Among the large and medium-sized institutions
that have expressed interest are Baltimore/Washington International, Denver
International, and Washington Dulles International.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">36584@http://www.reason.com</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate><author>info@reason.com (Geoffrey Segal)</author>
</item>
			<atom:link href="http://reason.com/contrib/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			</channel>
		</rss>
  		