Pa 450

Front 1

10 Significant Trends
1

Back 1

Population shifts to the suburbs and to the western and southern regions of the country in the 1970-1980s

Front 2

10 Significant Trends
2

Back 2

Consolidation of local government occurs

Front 3

10 Significant Trends
3

Back 3

Increase in the workforce of state and local governments from 1950-present

Front 4

10 Significant Trends
4

Back 4

Aging of populations; greater demand for workers to support social security

Front 5

10 Significant Trends
5

Back 5

1990s brings a massive wave of legal and illegal immigration

Front 6

10 Significant Trends
6

Back 6

Shift from strong mayor to manager council structure in local governments

Front 7

10 Significant Trends
7

Back 7

Entry-level jobs develop outside of the central cities while welfare to work laws create a spatial mismatch problem. Despite this, welfare rolls drop by 50% from 1996 to 2000

Front 8

10 Significant Trends
8

Back 8

Gentrification and public-private ventures

Front 9

10 Significant Trends
9

Back 9

Privatization and reinventing government (emphasizes performance measures, benchmarks, and a customer-orientation toward taxpayers)

Front 10

10 Significant Trends
10

Back 10

Increase in gaming to enhance revenues partly for education because of tax revolts

Front 11

Colorado State Auditors Model

Back 11

•It is a systematic approach to evaluating the technical feasibility of contracting out.

Front 12

Colorado State Auditors Model

Back 12

•Assumes that the activity being considered is currently being provided in-house.

Front 13

Colorado State Auditors Model

Back 13

•After the 9 key decision factors have been decided the scores are transferred to the Privatization Profile Summary Form. If the majority of the scores are on the right side of the form then it is a good candidate for contracting out, if it is mostly on the left side then it would probably not be a good idea to contract out

Front 14

Colorado State Auditors Model

Back 14

•If line hovers 0 CSA suggests revising each of the key decision factors that favor in-house delivery
• Problems- assumes that all key decision factors are of equal importance therefore some factors must be weighted.

Front 15

Colorado State Auditors Model

Back 15

•Dealing with the impact on public employees- providing transfers, include in the contract that they have to hire public employees

Front 16

Colorado State Auditors Model

Back 16

•Dealing with political resistance-design compromises into the contract, delay to a better time of year

Front 17

CSA’s 9 Decision Factors for Service Contracting
1

Back 17

Market Strength- the commercial characteristics of the service or activity that may make the private sector more or less interested in providing it.

Front 18

CSA’s 9 Decision Factors for Service Contracting
2

Back 18

Political Resistance- that amount of opposition to a change in the provider of a service or activity, as demonstrated by current recipients/beneficiaries, elected officials, citizens, or other interest groups (ex. Unions)

Front 19

CSA’s 9 Decision Factors for Service Contracting
3

Back 19

Service Quality- the expected impact that contracting out will have on the effectiveness, timeliness, and other quality characteristics of the service or activity

Front 20

CSA’s 9 Decision Factors for Service Contracting
4

Back 20

Impact on Public Employees

Front 21

CSA’s 9 Decision Factors for Service Contracting
5

Back 21

Legal Barriers-the effect that any laws, statutes, or ordinances may have on a decision to contract out

Front 22

CSA’s 9 Decision Factors for Service Contracting
6

Back 22

Risk- the degree to which contracting out exposes the government to additional hazards, including legal and/or financial exposure, service disruption, corruption, and other factors

Front 23

CSA’s 9 Decision Factors for Service Contracting
7

Back 23

Resources- the efficient and effective use of government assets, including in-house or private sector advantages in terms of professional expertise, facilities or equipment, time constraints, and revenue or expenditure restrictions

Front 24

CSA’s 9 Decision Factors for Service Contracting
8

Back 24

Control- the government’s ability to exercise ultimate control over the service

Front 25

CSA’s 9 Decision Factors for Service Contracting
9

Back 25

Cost Efficiency- the expected cost of contracting out for a service, assuming no change in quantity or quality

Front 26

City of Cincinnati’s Model cost comparison methodology

Back 26

Fully Allocated Costs Approach- compares contractor costs with the total direct and indirect costs and it assumes that all government indirect costs are avoided when a target service is contracted out

Front 27

City of Cincinnati’s Model cost comparison methodology

Back 27

Avoidable Costs Approach-doesn’t assume the above stated but includes only those costs that the government will no longer incur by contracting out

Front 28

City of Cincinnati’s Model cost comparison methodology

Back 28

Computing the Cost of In-House Government Service Delivery- Personnel Costs, non-personnel costs, overhead (indirect) costs, depreciation costs

Front 29

City of Cincinnati’s Model cost comparison methodology

Back 29

Computing the Costs of Contract Service Delivery- Contract price, contract admin. costs, one time conversion costs, revenue, disposal of assets, local income tax

Front 30

Pros for Contracting Out

Back 30

1. Harnesses competitive forces
2. Takes advantage of specialized skills
3. Promotes minority entrepreneurs
4. All tasks are essentially similar
5. Emphasizes entrepreneurship

Front 31

Cons for Contracting Out

Back 31

1. Promotes corrupt practices
2. Costs in layoffs, wages, UE
3.job losses in minority community
4. public tasks are different/harder
5. Encourages insider deals (honest graft)

Front 32

Examples of Privatization

Back 32

1. Airport operations

Front 33

Examples of Privatization

Back 33

2. Animal control

Front 34

Examples of Privatization

Back 34

3. Building security

Front 35

Examples of Privatization

Back 35

4. Recreation facilities

Front 36

Examples of Privatization

Back 36

5. Solid waste collection

Front 37

GAO top 1

Back 37

Political Champion- privatization can best be introduced/sustained when P leader C it

Front 38

GAO second

Back 38

Implementation Structure- gov’t leader need to establish a structure

Front 39

GAO bottom
1

Back 39

Legislative & resource changes- gov’t may need to enact Lchanges & reduce resources

Front 40

GAO bottom
2

Back 40

Reliable Cost Data- to support decisions & assess overall performance

Front 41

GAO bottom
3

Back 41

Strategies for workforce transition- need strategies to manage workforce

Front 42

GAO bottom
4

Back 42

Monitoring and oversight- MO needed to protect gov’t interests

Front 43

Seven criterion for taxes
1

Back 43

1.Revenue Productivity: Does the tax provide enough revenue? Will it work long-term?

Front 44

Seven criterion for taxes
2

Back 44

2.Neutrality: Taxes should not distort people’s decisions to work, save, etc. the broader the tax, the less likely the distortion.

Front 45

Seven criterion for taxes
3

Back 45

3.Equity: Vertical Equity- deals with ability to pay
Horizontal Equity- deals with equals being treated equally.

Front 46

Seven criterion for taxes
4

Back 46

4.Tax Exporting: An increasing number of local governments are adopting sales taxes because a sizable portion is shifted to commuters.

Front 47

Seven criterion for taxes
5

Back 47

5.Investment/Economic Growth: A tax structure should relate to a jurisdiction’s competitiveness regionally, nationally, and internationally.

Front 48

Seven criterion for taxes
6

Back 48

6.Administrative Feasibility/Cost: A tax should be easy to collect and inexpensive to administer.

Front 49

Seven criterion for taxes
7

Back 49

7.Taxpayer Compliance Costs: A tax system should be relatively easy to understand.