A quasi public corporation, sometimes referred to as a public service corporation, is a private corporation that is backed by a government agency that has a public requirement to provide certain services. Most quasi public corporations begin as government agencies, but thereafter branch off on their own, becoming a separate entity. Such corporations, while quasi public, can still offer shares to the public and have investors involved to help gain capital for the business. Therefore, the quasi public corporation operates similar to an ordinary private corporation in that it will file the articles of incorporation and elect a board of directors. In turn, the board of directors will hire officers to oversee the daily operations of the business.
Some entities are created because it is believed that debt may be more accepted in the capital markets because of the perceived o efficiency of a separate corporate-style structure…. Corporate governance. The basis of the controversy often comes down to fundamental issues of managerial accountability, fiduciary responsibility, and rights that inhere to governmental organizations, but not to private organizations, such as the right to the full faith and credit of the United States treasury. NED, recall, was created Sax neck strap a private entity because it was not supposed to be viewed as an independent, nongovernmental entity. Livestock Quadi Association S. Categories : Government-owned companies Types of business entity. The USIS has free access to government computer databases Private buy of quasi public agency otherwise available to the public or possible competing corporations. They maintain that the subsidy retained from the presence of the federal implied guarantee of GSE obligations is passed on to the consumer in the form of lower mortgage rates. The governmental and private sector cooperated, but were kept legally distinct in the interests of protecting citizens' rights against a potentially arbitrary government.
Click model management new york. Most Popular
Cite it. If the carriers are federal employees, then it seems it would still be a government entity. Retrieved January 20, McHugh, D. Bangkok escort services the words Private buy of quasi public agency the county contact, until recently, the case manager had a pretty heavy hand in case management decisions, participating in discussions about the case plan goals, service, visitation and permanency decisions. A commemorative book entitled Amtrak: An American Story was published, and a documentary was created. Postal Service mail from passenger trains to trucks, airplanes, Latex pvc wear freight trains in late deprived those trains of badly needed revenue. AB Sub-No. The group reviews and assesses the service intervention needs of the child and family and provides advice about appropriate interventions and permanency options. In a footnote to its most recent report on postal finances, the Congressional Research Service, part of the Library Pfivate Congress, pulic this to say:. Despite a veto threat by President Bush, a similar bill agecy the House on June 11,with a veto-proof margin — Share RSS. Unless we have a bunch of federal employees, working for Prlvate privatized business? In a recent study of the Philadelphia foster care system, researchers noted that Philadelphias dual system still struggles to clearly define roles of both public agency workers and workers employed by private Private buy of quasi public agency.
- Earlier this week we dealt with the popular belief that because the US Constitution mentions post offices, it would take a constitutional amendment to eliminate or privatize the USPS.
- Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.
- Moreover, we understand the power of organized connection and collaboration among varied stakeholders to unlock new opportunities and galvanize renewed vision.
- The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone.
- A quasi-public corporation is a company in the private sector that is supported by the government with a public mandate to provide a given service.
- The National Railroad Passenger Corporation , doing business as Amtrak , is a passenger railroad service that provides medium- and long-distance intercity service in the contiguous United States and to nine Canadian cities.
To assist Congress in its oversight, this report provides an overview of federally related entities that possess legal characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. These hybrid organizations e. Several categories of quasi governmental entities are defined and discussed: 1 quasi official agencies; 2 government-sponsored enterprises GSE ; 3 federally funded research and development corporations; 4 agency-related nonprofit organizations; 5 venture capital funds; 6 congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations; and 7 instrumentalities of indeterminate character.
The quasi government, not surprisingly, is a controversial subject. To supporters of this trend toward greater reliance upon hybrid organizations, the proper objective of governmental management is to maximize performance and results, however defined.
In their view, the private and governmental sectors are alike in their essentials, and thus subject to the same economically derived behavioral norms. They tend to welcome this trend toward greater use of quasi governmental entities. Critics of the quasi government, on the other hand, tend to view hybrid organizations as contributing to a weakened capacity of government to perform its fundamental constitutional duties, and to an erosion in political accountability, a crucial element in democratic governance.
They tend to consider the governmental and private sectors as being legally distinct, with relatively little overlap in behavioral norms.
There is nothing modest about the size, scope, and impact of the quasi government. Quasi governmental entities run the gamut, from not-for-profit organizations that raise funds for the upkeep of parks to venture capital entities that fund the development of new technologies of use by federal agencies. A brief review of executive branch organizational history is followed by a description of entities with ties to the executive branch, although they are not "agencies" of the United States as defined in Title 5 of the U.
In recent decades, both Congress and the President have increasingly used hybrid organizations for the implementation of public policy functions traditionally assigned to executive departments and agencies. Hybrid organizations attract both support and criticism. There are today, associated with the federal government alone, hundreds of hybrid entities that have collectively been called the "quasi government.
The scope and consequences of these hybrid organizations have not been extensively studied. Basic definitional issues resist resolution. Even the language to be used in discussing the quasi government is in dispute.
Should government management be discussed in the language of law, economic theory, or the business school? The traditional tools for holding executive agencies accountable, such as the budget and general management laws, are inapplicable in most instances, often leaving these hybrids with the freedom to pursue their own institutional interests, which may or may not conform to the public interest as defined by the nation's elected leadership.
The current popularity of the quasi government option can be traced to at least five major factors at work in the political realm:. This report introduces the reader to the quasi government, suggests categories of entities within this sector, and examines their legal characteristics, behavior, and possible policy consequences. The report will be revised and updated as new information and analyses become available.
The quasi government, virtually by its name alone and the intentional blurring of the governmental and private sectors, is not easily defined. In general, the term is used in two ways: to refer to entities that have some legal relation or association, however tenuous, to the federal government; or to the terrain that putatively exists between the governmental and private sectors.
For the most part, this report will use the term quasi government in the former context, referring to entities with some legal relationship to the federal government. The one common characteristic to this melange of entities in the quasi government is that they are not agencies of the United States as that term is defined in Title 5 of the U.
If a quasi governmental entity is not an agency of government, what is it? For this report's purposes, it is a hybrid organization that has been assigned by law, or by general practice, some of the legal characteristics of both the governmental and private sectors. While different categories of quasi governmental organizations can be described and found useful as an analytic tool, such categories are artificial, with porous lines of distinction and differentiation, and tend to be imposed upon the disparate entities after the fact.
First, there is the linear spectrum model where the existence of a quasi government between the governmental and private sectors is designated and categories of organizations e.
Second, there is the categoric organization model involving, in this instance, the suggestion of four categories: pure government organization; quasi governmental organization "quago" ; quasi nongovernmental organization "quango" ; and pure private.
A quago is essentially a government organization that is assigned some, or many, of the attributes normally associated with the private sector.
A quango, on the other hand, is essentially a private organization that is assigned some, or many, of the attributes normally associated with the governmental sector. This report follows the linear spectrum approach in describing the elements within the quasi government.
It is possible to begin with what are referred to in the U. Government Manual as "Quasi Official Agencies," those entities, arguably, closest to the executive branch, and move on to the other end of the spectrum, "congressionally chartered nonprofit organizations," those entities, arguably, the furthest from the executive branch.
It was the intent of the framers of the Constitution that the authority and organization of the executive branch be as much as possible unified under the President, and that Congress be the source to which accountability was rendered.
This theoretical proposition was put into practice when the first Congress convened in One of the first orders of business was the establishment of executive departments. Three "organic" statutes were enacted creating three "great" departments; Treasury, State, and War. All the particular functions of the newly created executive branch, save that of delivering the mail, were entrusted to these departments. With respect to fundamental authorities and lines of accountability, however, the executive branch has never been a pristine unity.
From the decision in the first Congress to give the comptroller in the Department of the Treasury a substantial degree of legal autonomy within the department, 5 down to the more recent "independent counsels" functioning in an uneasy relationship with the executive branch, 6 not all officers have been directly accountable to the President.
Reinforcing the hierarchical concept of the accountable executive has been the view that authority ought to be assigned by delegation from the President or department heads to subordinate officers, rather than being assigned directly by Congress to a nondepartment head.
Subsequently, more independent regulatory commissions would be added. In the 20 th century, an increasing number of "independent" agencies were established, the term "independent" meaning that an agency was not established within a department e.
Nonetheless, the independent agencies generally remained full government agencies operating under all the general management laws, 10 except where exempted. The view that all government activities should be accountable in some manner to politically responsible officials received its most forceful iteration in the 20 th century in the Hoover Commission report of Through the s the organization and management of the executive branch generally followed some basic rules.
If an entity was established by Congress to accomplish a public purpose, the probability was that it was an agency of the United States operating under the general management laws enforced by the President. These values, originating with the founding fathers, as reinterpreted by the Progressives, featured the centrality of public law, departmental integration and political accountability.
The President was viewed as the chief manager of the administrative system. These values began to be challenged in the s as evidenced in the establishment of the Communications Satellite Corporation ComSat in Congress, in this instance, created a private, for-profit corporation indicating a more flexible attitude towards organizational innovation.
Additional organizations appeared that were intentionally mixed in their legal characteristics. The term "quasi governmental" began to appear in legislation, and unusual structures would be constructed to promote "flexibility," even when flexibility sometimes resulted in less accountability.
This was one of the arguments made for creating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 81 Stat. In the late s, the concept of legally distinctive governmental and private sectors began to be seriously questioned. Internationally, the New Public Management NPM 17 movement, coupled with the movement toward privatization of governmental agencies and programs, became the reigning orthodoxy. Gore's National Performance Review NPR , 18 which sought to "reinvent" some executive branch units and create corporate style, entrepreneurial structures.
The purported, and often realized, strength of entrepreneurial management lies in the flexibility it provides managers to improve the performance of their agencies. Performance in the entrepreneurial context, is usually measured in "output" or "results" terms, rather than in conformance to process regulations. Hence, risk-taking by managers to achieve improved performance is to some degree accepted and encouraged. The evidence thus far available suggests that the new, entrepreneurial management has resulted in improved management in many executive agencies.
On the other hand, simply improving performance, as was the case with the Internal Revenue Service in the early s, has occasionally proven politically counterproductive to the agency if the improved performance in this case increased tax collections came at the apparent expense of other values, such as due process of law.
The rapid ascendency of these "new" values in the United States has not been without challenge 20 and has had consequences with respect to the quasi government, as will be discussed more fully later in the report. Within the quasi government, it is possible to begin with those entities that are, arguably, closest to the executive branch.
The category is something of a "catchall" designation to include entities the National Archives and Records Administration NARA , compilers of the Manual , find difficult to comfortably fit elsewhere.
Insofar as NARA provides a defining characteristic for quasi-official agencies, it is that they "are not executive agencies under the definition of 5 U. The issues associated with quasi official agencies tend to be related to their legal status. Because they occupy a realm between the private and the public, a quasi governmental entity may find it in its interest to assert its private or governmental status. Quasi official agencies, like other elements of the quasi government, may exist in what has been called "the twilight zone" between the governmental and private sectors.
Distinctions between the governmental and private sectors are especially blurred with respect to a category of organization known as "government-sponsored enterprises" GSE. There is no established criteria defining standards to be met prior to the establishment of a GSE, nor is there a listing of GSEs in the U. Each GSE is created sui generis with its attributes defined by Congress in its enabling legislation. For the purpose of budgetary treatment, Congress defined the term "government-sponsored enterprise" in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of to refer to.
I make loans or loan guarantees for limited purposes such as to provide credit for specific borrowers or one sector; and. II raise funds by borrowing which does not carry the full faith and credit of the Federal Government or to guarantee the debt of others in unlimited amounts; and. B i does not exercise powers that are reserved to the Government as sovereign such as the power to tax or to regulate interstate commerce ;.
Few scholars of public administration and finance are likely to argue that this definition is incorrect. However, some have argued that the above definition omits an essential characteristic—a GSE "benefits from an implicit federal guarantee to enhance its ability to borrow money.
Congress created GSEs to help make credit more readily available to sectors of the economy believed to be disadvantaged in the credit markets.
GSEs are part of a tradition of mercantilist financial institutions in that the government assigns them benefits and privileges in their charters that are not available to fully private corporations. The present GSEs are traceable in concept to several enterprises created during the Great Depression. There are five GSEs. Advocates of the GSEs and the economic concepts upon which they are based argue that GSEs continue to meet a national need that would not otherwise be met or be met poorly by corporations fully in the private sector.
Further, they contend that the current GSEs are generally well managed, financially sound, and assist less-advantaged mortgage borrowers. They maintain that the subsidy retained from the presence of the federal implied guarantee of GSE obligations is passed on to the consumer in the form of lower mortgage rates. Fannie Mae, in a national advertising campaign, suggested that its special GSE status is worth a quarter of a percent in mortgage interest and thus , families are provided mortgages that would not otherwise be qualified to do so.
One mission. One purpose. To do whatever we can to lower the cost of home ownership. The economic rationale for GSEs is the belief that without such a government sponsored institution, a critical area of necessary debt financing would go unserved, or would be serviced at an expensive or inefficient level. Government, according to this rationale, should use some of its sovereign powers e. Treasury to encourage the development of private financial intermediaries to serve selected markets.
In terms of meeting their original congressional objective, that was to liquify the mortgage credit markets on a national rather than regional or state basis, the GSEs have been remarkably successful.
However, GSEs have been criticized on two broad fronts. First, there is the matter of accountability.
All Amtrak's routes were continuations of prior service, although Amtrak pruned about half the passenger rail network. In late multiple proposals emerged in the United States Congress , including equipment subsidies, route subsidies, and, lastly, a "quasi-public corporation" to take over the operation of intercity passenger trains. Should be privatized and have better performance standards. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 11, Retrieved June 19,
Private buy of quasi public agency. Navigation menu
Premiums would disappear, and 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care. The Medicare for All Act of , H. This handy chart compares single payer and the ACA. Let Congress know they should support single payer. Click here to send an editable letter in support to your representative. For other steps you can take in support of single payer, check out our Take Action page.
Over the past two decades, peer-reviewed research by PNHP leaders framed the debate on health care and focused it on the need for fundamental reform. The private community-based lead agency receives the case during the investigation when it becomes clear that ongoing services either voluntary or court ordered are needed.
The lead agency retains the case until the case is closed. The responsibilities of the private agency include placement and service delivery functions in addition to case management. In Floridas Circuit 10, public agency protective investigators conduct an initial safety assessment during the investigative process and must complete a home study and risk assessment prior to placement of a child in the home of a relative or non-relative.
Protective Investigators also initiate the comprehensive behavioral health assessment which is completed on every child sheltered away from a parent. The referral for a comprehensive behavioral health assessment must be completed by the protective investigator within 7 days of the shelter and the assessment is completed within 24 days of the referral. The results of the comprehensive behavioral health assessment are shared with the private provider in an effort to better address the physical, educational, environmental and mental health needs of the child and family.
Cases and case management authority are transferred to the private, lead agency at the early intervention staffing. This staffing is designed to ensure that the appropriate services for the child and family are identified and steps to ensure early engagement of the family are outlined. The Protective Investigator presents the case to the private agency and a standing committee of treatment professionals.
The group reviews and assesses the service intervention needs of the child and family and provides advice about appropriate interventions and permanency options. The private agency has a Staffing Master who facilitates the meeting and takes the lead during the staffing in developing an initial service plan.
This plan is used by the case manager as a precursor to the initial case plan that will be developed with the family and submitted to the Court for approval. Decisions are made during the staffing regarding the familys risk level, intensity of services, identification of absent parents and frequency of contact needed to ensure continued safety.
Because the information on the comprehensive behavioral health assessment is not available at placement, a placement assessment which gathers information on mental health and the delinquency history of the child among other things, is conducted by the Placement Unit within the private agency prior to placement of a child in a licensed setting. Following privatization, the state noted that the information needed for this function rested with private providers.
Under federal rules, only state agencies can make the final determination of a childs eligibility under title IV-E and submit claims to the Federal Administration for Children and Families for reimbursement. Five of the seven sites interviewed described systems where public agency staff continue to carry out most of the functions for determining eligibility for Federal IV-E funds and Medicaid.
While private agencies may supply the state with support information and documentation, it is the public agency that determines eligibility and prepares the paperwork for Federal claims. In the two remaining sites, private agencies played larger roles in this process. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, there is a separate private contractor that completes eligibility determination based on information received from the private agency case manager and then State public agency staff are responsible for final approval of submissions.
In Floridas Circuit 10, the private lead agency has an eligibility determination unit that focuses on title IV-E claims. In this circuit, the state co-located two public agency staff in the private agency offices that focus on determining Medicaid eligibility. These public agency staff also review and approve information collected by the private agency staff for title IV-E claims. This was supported in our seven sites.
In six of the seven sites, site officials reported that the private agency makes decisions about the appropriateness of services to be provided or purchased for clients. In two instances, county officials volunteered that private providers needed to get authorization for services not typically funded through child welfare or Medicaid payments, including specialized therapies or for specialized events such as surgery.
Kent County, Michigan was the only site of the seven where a worker in the public agency continued to have primary decision making authority for client services. Officials in six of the seven sites reported that private providers had primary case management authority to determine level of placement for clients, subject to periodic review or review of certain placements by a public agency worker and the courts.
For instance, in the District of Columbia, private providers make most placement decisions but must get permission to use a residential treatment facility prior to placing the child. In this case, the public or private agency worker must first get authorization from the citys Department of Mental Health before placing children in these facilities. In Sedgwick County Wichita , Kansas, while private agency workers were recently given primary authority for placement decisions, the county official explained that during intake and investigation, when out-of-home placement becomes likely, public agency workers look for relatives with whom to place the child ren.
If relatives are identified by the time of referral to the private agency, public agency workers encourage the private providers to pursue these leads. Site officials described more public agency or court input into decisions about visitation schedules.
For instance, the Kent County, Michigan official explained that provider contracts clearly stipulate the intensity of visitation schedules and the number of required casework contacts. In the District of Columbia, the implementation decree associated with the court settlement the agency operates under specifies that if the plan is reunification, visitation between parents and children must occur weekly and visitation between siblings must occur twice per month.
If the private provider cites extenuating circumstances such as the child not wanting to visit the parent or if the parent presents a clear threat to child, then the private provider must document these issues and seek a court order changing pre-established visitation schedules.
All sites concurred that the decision to return home is made by the courts. In most cases, the private agency develops a recommendation, and in some sites, there is a case staffing with the public agency worker prior to the hearing. Similarly, all sites discussed the fact that it is ultimately the courts decision to terminate parental rights. Kent County, Michigan described a process where the private agency worker makes suggestions, but the public agency worker makes the determination.
In Floridas Circuit 10 and Milwaukee, it is the private agency worker that puts forth this recommendation to the courts with limited public agency involvement. Both Franklin County, Ohio, and Sedgwick County, Kansas use some form of a formalized case staffing to reach agreement about the appropriateness of the termination.
In Ohio, the private agency managed care agency submits a recommendation for TPR to the public agency. This is followed by a meeting that includes the public agency attorney and public agency director as well as the managed care staff to review the case, the recommendations and the criteria for TPR. If the public agency approves the decision, the case is returned to the public agency and the public agency worker pursues TPR.
If the public agency denies the recommendation for TPR, the reasons are put in writing and the managed care agency continues working with family to identify needs and services, and to seek alternative placements when necessary. In Sedgwick County, Kansas, following the private providers recommendation for TPR, there is a permanency staffing involving the private agency case manager, two co-chairs who are independent of the case one from the public and one from the private agency , therapists, the representing attorney from either the public agency or Assistant District Attorney and the Guardian ad Litem.
The group reviews whether reasonable efforts to return the child home have been implemented and together, decide the appropriateness of TPR. Once this is decided, the group considers options for adoption. In all seven sites, for hearings held after the detention or protective custody hearing, a private agency case worker presents the case plan in court, with some exceptions described below.
In several cases, a public agency worker also attends the hearings. For instance, in Sedgwick County, Kansas while private providers present all case plans in court, a public agency worker is also present to discuss policy and procedural issues if they arise e.
This public agency monitor, who carries a caseload of approximately families, is familiar with the case plan if other issues arise. Also, in Franklin County, Ohio, if the decision is made to terminate parental rights, it is a public agency worker that presents the case in court.
In Sedgwick County, Kansas, both the private and public agency workers present the case for termination to the judge. In Kent County, Michigan, the private agency worker presents the case in all quarterly hearings held subsequent to the initial hearing. The site official interviewed explained that this process had evolved over time because judges once expected a public agency worker to attend all hearings as they do in other parts of the state.
However, if the judge has questions or concerns about the case, they can request that a public agency worker be present. Like Kansas, these public agency case monitors carry large caseloads and are familiar with the case. It was noted that there are instances when the private agency requests that the public agency worker attends a hearing in anticipation of questions or concerns from the bench. In these instances, the public agency workers primary role is to reassure the judge that the agencies concur on the case plan decision.
States use various arrangements to provide legal representation for the states case. In some instances, the attorney assigned changes at different points in the case, for instance, in Sedgwick County Kansas, the states case is first represented by the Countys Assistant District Attorney at the disposition hearing, and then by the public agency attorney for all remaining hearings.
All but two of the sites consulted Floridas Circuit 10 and St. Louis discussed instances when the private agency also brought its own attorney. In Milwaukee, private agencies bring attorneys when there are divergent interests between the public and private agency. In Kansas, it was reported that the only time a private agency brings its own attorney is when the worker is in contempt of court, which was described as a very rare event. At these times, the only role of the private agency attorney is to provide consultation on the private agencys actions, not to present information on the case plan.
Among the initiatives consulted, only Franklin County Ohio uses private agency attorneys for child welfare proceedings on a regular basis once the case is disposed.
These attorneys are responsible for representing the caseworker and filing motions. However, if the decision is to terminate parental rights, the public agency attorney is solely responsible for representing the case in court. Public and private agency legal staff meet quarterly to discuss issues as they arise on both a case-level and policy basis. All sites were asked what they had learned about establishing roles and responsibilities in the privatization process.
Three lessons emerged across the sites:. Louis echoed this and added that it is equally important to clarify roles and responsibilities within the public and private agencies to ensure that workers understand their responsibilities, their reporting structure and who to contact when issues arise. While Kansas privatized its child welfare services a decade ago, in Sedgwick County, there continue to be monthly meetings with judges, and public and private agency officials; quarterly meetings with both the public and private agencies and the District Attorneys Office, Guardian ad Litem and agency legal staff; and quarterly meetings with the areas service providers mental health, etc.
The District of Columbia echoed this, discussing the need to clearly communicate agency mandates to the private provider community. The District realized that its providers did not fully understand the court decree under which the child welfare system was operating, nor were providers clear about all Federal mandates.
The public agency has had to clearly communicate the system needs that applied equally to the public and private agencies. These public agency staff increased their caseloads from cases per worker to approximately per worker. In the words of the county contact, until recently, the case manager had a pretty heavy hand in case management decisions, participating in discussions about the case plan goals, service, visitation and permanency decisions. After extensive work with both public and private agency administrators where all dual case management functions were identified, the decision was made to streamline the system, and core activities were gradually transitioned to the private agencies.
The central role of the case monitors today is to review plans and provide guidance about key decisions or assist the private providers when specific questions arise. Because roles and responsibilities continue to evolve, the site official from Franklin County explained that the public agency must continually assess the needs of the private providers and support their work when issues emerge.
She highlighted as an example the recent implementation of SACWIS in the state and the provider needs associated with using this system. The public agency official in Milwaukee also described the evolving need for training and other supports for private providers.
She explained that when the county was first privatized, the pressing need was to prepare clear procedures and policies that had to be followed to ensure that services were delivered and families were served. Once providers were able to comply with these standards, the agency began to spend more time helping providers understand why they were carrying out these tasks and the importance of this work. She explained that in order to improve the quality of services, workers need to move beyond checking off tasks to understanding the value and meaning of their work.
One central responsibility for case managers is data entry into computerized case management systems for the purpose of tracking cases and monitoring results. This has presented as a challenge in many places where private and public agency information systems are incompatible, necessitating dual data entry.
Between and , the Federal Childrens Bureau made enhanced funding available to states to support the development of comprehensive automated case management tools that would support case management practice for child welfare workers, known as SACWIS or State Automated Child Welfare Information Systems. In New York, 50 to 60 percent of the states SACWIS system users are private agency staff who are responsible for prevention, foster care and adoption cases.
Similarly, in the District of Columbia, private case management agencies have contract stipulations regarding the use of DC SACWIS as their comprehensive web-based case management system. Jurisdictions reported challenges related to designing systems to serve both public and private agencies as well as addressing compatibility issues between states automated systems and private agencies proprietary systems.
New York reported issues related to designing a SACWIS compliant system that meets the needs of government agencies and diverse private providers ranging from very small agencies in rural areas to large agencies in urban areas. In another example, Franklin County, Ohio has used private contractors since , but because no other county had the same type of arrangement, the SACWIS system was not set up to easily accommodate the private providers. Agencies are having to decide if caseworkers enter information in both systems or if the private agency must abandon its own system.
States have actively tried to facilitate access through collaborative implementation activities and infrastructure enhancements. New York held forums, and teleconferences to explain the system to public and private agency users. It also published job aids to help users learn the new system.
New York also engaged agencies in a systems improvement process and agencies have identified additional system needs including the ability to access SACWIS remotely.
They also provided training, technical support for their use of the technology as well as hardware and maintenance for the SACWIS.
New York originally provided computers for private providers. Subsequently, private agencies have assumed the maintenance for the systems and New York State has made changes to the rate structure to permit agencies to hire IT staff and be reimbursed for these costs. In New York, new functionalities to the system are typically introduced to executive and administrative staff through the use of statewide regional forums or teleconferences.
Supervisory and direct service workers are provided direct training and other training aids, such as Step by Step manuals. As states and counties shift additional case management authority to private providers, there is a greater need to partner effectively within a contracting relationship.
As presented in this paper, states and jurisdictions have taken several approaches to preparing for and providing case management services to clients under privatized child welfare systems. Local implementation is influenced by local context as well as state and federal regulations and, in some cases, agency labor agreements. Sites discussed the importance of:.
Perhaps as important as anything else is the understanding and anticipation of change. Oversight needed to make privatization work initially may not be necessary several years later as public and private agencies, the courts and other partners, become familiar, and comfortable, with the new system. These processes are fluid. What is most effective at one stage of implementation will likely change at the next stage.
The next paper in this series presents examples of what the field has learned about writing effective contracts for child welfare services.
It will describe key topics to include in contracts based on information from the child welfare literature and that of related fields and from public and private agency officials with experience in this area. Collins-Camargo, C. In Press. Embry, R. Managed care and child welfare challenges to implementation. Children and Youth Services Review, 22 2 , Ensign, K. Figgs, J. Freundlich, M. James Bell Associates, Inc. FY Final Report. Kahn, A. Casey Foundation. Kansas Action for Children.
Lee, E. Literature review on the privatization of child welfare services. McCullough, C. McCullough and Associates Child welfare privatization. Retrieved on May McHugh, D. The implementation of managed care in child welfare: The legal perspective. Report No. Ortega, D. Rosenthal, M.
Public or Private Children's Services? Privatization in Retrospect. Social Service Review, 74 2 , Government Accountability Office. Publication No. Washington, DC. General findings from the federal child and family services review. State innovations in child welfare financing. Wulczyn, F. Four state study of fiscal reform. For example, performance based contract reforms in Illinois and the District of Columbia did not significantly increase the proportion of services that were outsourced.
However, contract expectations, roles and responsibilities of public and private agency workers, and contract payment arrangements, did change significantly in these sites. However, we focused our analysis of the state responses on those that had previously identified themselves as using, at least partially privatized foster care system.
Home Evolving Roles of Public and P Similar content. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent positions of the U. Was this page helpful? Leave this field blank. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of , no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
The valid OMB control number for this information collection is The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection.
If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate s or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.
FROM STATE AGENCY TO A QUASI-WHAT? - Hartford Courant
These are municipal agencies that are supposed to act more like private businesses; they can act as parking authorities, manage public markets, or build stadiums and airports. Such entities sometimes have awesome power—they can issue bonds and licenses, collect fees, and even have eminent domain. And they can do these things largely outside of public scrutiny.
Not surprisingly, suspicion about these types of agencies often prevails—especially toward urban development corporations, or UDCs, which defy classification as a city department but are usually also not entirely private. Critics of UDCs often suspect these organizations are in cahoots with private developers and exist to circumnavigate open meeting laws and other regulations.
But those critics might be surprised to learn that UDCs were, in fact, created as a response to government obfuscation and shady dealing.
Before and after the New Deal, planners needed a way to work around often-corrupt local government. Enabled by state laws in the s, local development corporations proliferated, initially focusing on housing and so-called slum clearance.
Originally top-down Robert Moses-style entities, development corporations evolved into model structures for public-private partnerships another term enjoying a renaissance lately during the Carter Administration. In , President Carter created the federal Urban Development Action Grant Program to aid distressed communities, giving cities the ability to wheel-and-deal directly with private developers on eye level, mostly outside of public scrutiny.
In whatever period they were created, a duality of purpose was inherent in UDCs: They were supposed to be outside of government, yet beholden to it.
They could act like private business, but with the power of government in the name of public interest. They were supposed to be efficient and nimble—but had access to public money. Most of all, they lacked public oversight and accountability. Sometimes agencies erred more on the one side to be more like government , sometimes on the other to be more like a private corporation.
The distance between City Hall and the quasi-governmental 3CDC was seen as a necessity for successful redevelopment. But the bipolar nature of development corporations also invites the opposite view. Concerns are not limited to control and oversight, they also extend to financial accountability. A recent study by the Legislative Research Commission of Kentucky dealt with that aspect. Some entities are created because it is believed that debt may be more accepted in the capital markets because of the perceived greater efficiency of a separate corporate-style structure….
Legal autonomy derives from corporate powers, including the ability to buy, sell, lease, and mortgage property in its own name, and the power to sue and be sued without recourse to the government itself. The contrary views regarding quasi-governmental agencies in general and development corporations in particular come from the many different purposes they serve—and various amounts of power they exert.
In a country with strong emphasis on private property rights, they are among the select few organizations that have the power to condemn private property for public interest.
This is even more astounding if one considers their lack of oversight and control. A quasi-governmental development agency condemning private property to immediately give it back to another private entity with the sole purpose of private redevelopment resulted in the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Kelo v.
New London, in which those condemnation practices were confirmed as legal. In spite of the ruling, this case dampened the eagerness of cities to use eminent domain for private redevelopment, as the matter became politically unpopular and lacked positive results.
Today, the kind of urban renewal built around involuntary displacement and large-scale site clearing has fallen out of favor. But we learn slowly: Cities and small towns continue to create nonprofit development corporations to push through just that kind of redevelopment. A recent case was in the Western Maryland city of Cumberland, which is still reeling from the decline of coal and trying to get a foothold in tourism.
As in most U. For city leaders, the pertinent question is whether it is possible to combine the advantages of quasi-governmental agencies—their nimbleness and sense of purpose—with the oversight, transparency and accountability expected of regular government agencies. Not all municipal agencies must be inefficient.
And where they are, the inefficiency is usually not caused by open meeting laws, reporting requirements, political oversight, and accountability but by a lack of purpose, bad management practices, and the absence of measurable metrics of progress. All these ailments can also afflict quasi-governmental agencies, especially after they have been in place for decades and begin acting just like a government agency.
An ineffective quasi-governmental corporation that lacks oversight combines two disadvantages and should be abolished. On the other hand, cities do need nimble bodies that can tackle large problems and implement solutions. One way to maintain effectiveness could be to require that quasi-public bodies be established for a specific purpose, such as building a stadium, and then disband.
Equip the enabling laws with a sunset date. The idea of running cities more like private companies may have been progress during the corrupt boss system of the early 20th century, but governance in the public interest is far different from managing a business.
It is time to rethink the purpose, structure and operations of quasi-governmental agencies, so that the deals they get done can begin to address the huge inequality in our cities. In an interview with CityLab, the presidential candidate spells out a climate policy that is overtly attentive to race.
An estimated 1. It all began with the Metro. Behind the dry-as-dust name is a powerful and controversial tool for financing urban redevelopment. A new book reveals how airline flight maps have evolved over the past century, from exoticizing to stylish to more basic.
Richard Florida Oct 24, Equity CityLab University: Tax Increment Financing Behind the dry-as-dust name is a powerful and controversial tool for financing urban redevelopment. Benjamin Schneider Oct 24, Design The Rise and Fall of the Exuberant Airline Map A new book reveals how airline flight maps have evolved over the past century, from exoticizing to stylish to more basic.
Benjamin Schneider Oct 25,