Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Study gives insight into covering governments' deals with private partners

Some states, cities and towns have turned to public-private partnerships to deliver public services or spur economic development, and the partnerships are not without controversy. A study published in State and Local Government Review gives journalists guidance on how to cover the topic, Leighton Walter Kille reports for Journalist's Resource, a service of the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University.

The study by Cheryl Hilvert of the nonprofit Center for Management Strategies and David Swindell of Arizona State University’s Center for Urban Innovation says "Service delivery is often thought of as being purely governmental (for example, policing), managed by private interests (a contract for snow removal) or left completely up to community groups or individuals (raising funds for a bike path, perhaps), but the report identifies 10 steps between the two extremes," Kille writes. "Among those discussed are intergovernmental agreements, contracts with or grants to private firms, voucher systems, franchises and more. For journalists, understanding the benefits and risks of each option and their use by cities is crucial to covering these issues."

Researchers concluded, “When structured properly, (collaborative service delivery can) have demonstrated benefits including cost savings, enhanced quantity and quality of services, as well as less tangible benefits such as addressing community needs, enhancing trust between participating entities and increasing citizen support." But they also found public-private partnerships “can be problematic if not approached through formal transparent bidding/request for proposal processes and formalized agreements to begin the collaborative activity.” (Read more)

No comments: