Seminar on the privatization of social services
Fall 2005
2:20-5:20pm, Tuesday

Basic Information

Instructor: Dr. Joanne S. C. Liu
Office＃: Room 405
Office Phone: 3366-1245
E-mail: scliu@ntu.edu.tw

Course Description

Many industrialized countries had faced the crisis of welfare state since 1980s. Privatization, voluntarism and self-help instead of the big government become the mainstream in the delivery of social services. Due to the wave of worldwide privatization, contracting-out of publicly-owned welfare services agencies in Taiwan has been implemented since 1990s and has become an critical welfare development lesson.
The focus of this course is the analysis of governmental privatization policy. We will examine privatization policy from various perspectives: (1) the historical context and processes by which policy is made; (2) ideological and theoretical background; (3) the relationship between government and the non-profit organizations; (4) the organizational change of the contracted NPOs; (5) the knowledge and skills in contract management (6) performance evaluation and accountability issue.

Learning Objectives

1. To learn how to read critically, digest, discuss and synthesize academic papers on privatization.
2. To gain a systematical knowledge on the contemporary privatization theories as well as current privatization issues as it applies to practice.
3. To learn the techniques of contract management, including strategic planning, contract negotiation, contract specification and performance evaluation.

Requirements

Requirements for the course include: reading assignments, class presentation, participation in class discussions, writing an abstract and comments on one assigned paper and a 10-12 page term paper.
This course is different from conventional lectures which are limited to those situations where lecturing is the most effective way to convey key information and arguments. Most classes will be discussion oriented. While the faculty will guide the conversation, summarize points and draw lessons, most of the class time will be devoted to exchange about course topics. So, students are expected to read the assigned reading before the class period to which it is assigned(30﹪ of course grade). E-mailing reading questions and comments to the faculty and other students in advance is welcomed. Students are also expected to prepare to discuss in the class and actively contribute to class discussion. Contributions need to include efforts to fully understand and apply the assigned readings to Taiwan's current situation. About 50 points of the class participation (30﹪ of course grade) will come from in-class discussion and in-class response to the reading questions.
Each student is required to complete a 10-12 page term paper(40﹪ of course grade) on some privatization policy and practice issues. The paper including three components at least: (1) it introduces a specific privatization issue or problem and discusses why it is a critical issue to be addressed; (2) it reviews academic papers to understand the issue and relevant arguments thoroughly; (3) it proposes some policy and strategic suggestions. Students are welcomed to make appointment with the faculty before decide the subject of the term paper. Each student also expected to give 25 minute presentation on his(or her) paper. The paper presentations are worth 30 points of final report. Points are awarded based on the professionalism of the presentation, the clarity of the presentation, and the ability to answer questions and to discuss the topic with the class.

Class Schedule and Readings

Sep. 20
Introduction

Sep. 27
1. Public sector revolution
2. Theories of privatization
3. The meaning and types of privatization
4. The historical context and development of social services contracting in Taiwan.
Rhodes, R. A. W., P. Carmichael, J. McMillan & A. Massey (2003). Decentralizing the Civil Service: From Unitary State to differentiated polity in the United Kingdom. Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Kolderie, T. (1986). "The Two Different Concepts of Privatization", Public Administration Review, 285-290.

Oct. 4
Privatization of Social Services: Policies and Politics
Forder, J., Knapp, M., Hardy, B., Kendall, J., Matoservic, T. and Ware, P. (2004). 'Price, Contracts and Motivation: Institutional Arrangements in Domiciliary Care', Policy & Politics, 32(2): 207-22.
Martin, L. L.（1999）. Contracting for Service Delivery: Local Government Choices. Washington, DC.: International City/County Management Association（ICMA）.
O'Connell, B.(1996). A Major Transfer of Government Responsibility to Voluntary Organizations? Proceed with Caution, Public Administration
Review, 56(3), 222-225.

Oct. 11
The rationale of social services contracting: Competition and choices
Savas, E. S. (2002). "Competition and Choice in New York City Social Services" , Public Administration Review, 62(1):82-91.
Martin, L. L. (1999). Contracting for Service Delivery: Local Government Choices, Washington, DC.: International City/County Management Association（ICMA）.
Johnston, J. M. and B. S. Romzek (1999). 'Contracting and Accountability in State Medicaid Reform: Rhetoric, theories, and reality', Public Administration Review, 59(5): 383-99.

Oct. 18
The limitation of social services contracting
Hansen, J. J. (2003). 'Limits of Competition: Accountability in government contracting', The Yale Law Journal, 112(8): 2465-507.
Van Slyke, D. M.(2003). 'The Mythology of Privatization in Contracting for Social Services', Public Administration Review, 63(3): 296-316.
Franck, E. & Leitsinger, M. (2000). "System Failure", The Village Voice, NY, May 23.
Sawicky, M. B. (1998). "Can Union Make It in the market? Contractors and Competition in Social Service Provision", New Zealand Journal of Industrial Relations, 23(2), pp.105-118.
Panet, P. D. & Trebilcock, M. J. (1998). "Contracting-out Social Services", Canadian Public Administration, 41(1), pp. 21-50.

Oct. 25
The relationship between government and non-profit organizations under contracting system
Schwartz, R. (2005). 'The Contracting Quandary: Managing local authority-VNPO relations', Local Government Studies, 31(1): 69-83.
Austin, M. J. 2003). 'The Changing Relationship between Nonprofit Organizations and Public Social Service Agencies in the Era of Welfare Reform', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,32(1): 97-114.
Brinkerholf, J. M. 2002). "Government-Nonprofit Partnership: A defining framework" Public Administration and Management, 22(1):19-30.
Kramer, R. M. (1994). "Voluntary Agencies and the Contract Culture: Dream or nightmare?" Social Service Review, March, 33-60.
Lewis, J. (1994). "Voluntary Organizations in 'New Partnership' with Local Authorties: The anatomy of a contract", Social Policy and Administration, 28(3):206-220.

Nov. 1
The organizational change of the contracted non-profit organizations
Eikenberry, A. M. and J. D. Kluver (2004). 'The Marketization of the Nonprofit Sector: Civil Society at Risk?' Public Administration Review, 64(2):132-140.
Kettner, P. M.（2002）. Achieving Excellence in the Management of Human Service Organizations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Galaskiewicz, J. & Bielefeld, W. (1998). Nonprofit Organizations in an Age of Uncertainty: A study of organizational change. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Gann, N. (1996). Managing Change in Voluntary Organizations: A Guide to Practice. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Kettner, P. M. ＆ Martin, L. L. 1996). The impact of declining resources and purchase of service contracting on private, nonprofit agencies. Administration in Social Work, 20(3),21-38.

Nov. 8
contract management: knowledge, techniques and regulations
Van Slyke, David M.（2002）. "The Public Management Challenges of Contracting with Nonprofits for Social Services ", International Journal of Public Administration, 25(4):489-517.
Romzek, B. R. and Johnston, J. M. (2002). 'Effective Contract Implementation and Management: A Preliminary Model', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3): 423-453.
Gooden, V. (1998). "Contracting and Negotiation: Effective Practice of Successful Human Service Contract Managers", Public Administration Review, 58(6):499-509.
Lavery, K. (1999). Smart Contracting for Local Government Services: Processes and experience. London: Praeger Publishers.
Ch.5 The make or Buy Decision and Contract Management
Ch.6 Smart Contracting for Public Services.

Nov. 15
OFF(Anniversary celebration of NTU)
Nov. 22
Performance-based Contracting and performance evaluation
Martin, L. L. (2005). 'Performance-Based Contracting for Human Services: Do It Work?', Administration in Social Work, 29(1): 63-77.
Martin, L. L.(2002). " Performance-based Contracting for Human Services: Lessons for public procurement?" Journal of public procurement , 2(1):55-72.
Brown, T. & M. Potoski (2003)." Managing Contract Performance: A Transaction cost approach." Journal of policy Analysis and Management , 22(2):275-297.
Eggers, W. D. (1997). Performance-Based Contracting: Designing state-of-the-art contract administration and monitoring system. Los Angeles, CA: Reason Public Policy Institute.
Behn, R. (2003). 'Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures', Public Administration Review, 63(5): 586-606.
Campbell, G. J. & McCarthy, E. (2000). " Conveying Mission Through Outcome Measurement: Service to the homeless in New York City," Policy Studies Journal, (28)2.
Peat B., & Costley, D. L. (2000). "Privatization of Social Services: Correlates of Contract Performance", Administration in Social Work, 24:(1),21-38 .
W.K. Kellogg Foundation (1998). W.K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
United Way of American (1996). Measuring Program Outcomes:A practical approaches. Alexandria, VA.
Martin L. L. & Kettner, P. M. (1996). Measuring the Performance of Human Service Programs, CA.: Sage Publications, inc..

Nov. 29
Accountability
Johnston, J. M., & Romzek, B. S.(2005) State Social Services Contracting: Exploring the Determinants of Effective Contract Accountability. Public Administration Review,(65): 436-449.
Van Slyke, D. M. (2004). 'What Do They Know, and Whom Do They Hold Accountable? Citizens in the Government-NonProfit Contracting Relationship', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2): 191-209.
Van Slyke, D. M. (2003). 'The Mythology of Privatization in Contracting for Social Services', Public Administration Review, 63(3): 296-316.
Breaux, D. A., C. M. Duncan, C. D. Keller & J. C. Marris（2002）."Welfare Reform, Mississippi Style: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Search for Accountability." Public Administration Review, 62（1）:92-103.
Walker, P. (2002). 'Understanding Accountability: Theoretical models and their implications for social service organizations', Social Policy & Administration, 36(1): 62-75.
Gilman, M. E. (2001). 'Legal Accountability in an Era of Privatized Welfare', California Law Review, 89(569):571-642.
Gilman, M. E. (2002).'"Charitable Choice" and the Accountability Challenge: Reconciling the need for regulation with the First Amendment religion clauses', Vanderbilt Law Review, 55(3):799-888.
Miller, C. (2002). 'Towards A Self-Regulatory Form of Accountability in the Voluntary Sector', Policy & Politics, 30(4): 551-66.
Johnston, J. M. & B. S. Romzek (1999). 'Contracting and Accountability in State Medicaid Reform: Rhetoric, theories, and reality', Public Administration Review, 59(5): 383-99.

Dec. 6
Principles of administrative law
Tang, A. (1997). "The Changing Role of Government in Community services: Issues of access and equity to administrative review", Australian Journal of Public Administration, 56(2), pp.95-105.
Braye, S. and M. Preston-Shoot (1999). 'Accountability, Administrative Law & Social Work Practice: Redressing or reinforcing the power imbalance?', Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 21(3):235-56.

Dec. 13
Oral presentation and discussion (1)
Dec. 20
Oral presentation and discussion (2)
Dec. 27
Oral presentation and discussion (3)
Jan. 3, 2006
Overall review