The performance of public services is determined to a large extent by the spatial distribution of facilities and resources that provide the service. Three measures of performance are discussed: efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. The last of these, equity, is recognized as being of growing importance, but has been generally neglected by management scientists. Different equitable formulas can be used for the spatial distribution of public services within a community. They are based on four general principles: equal payments, equal outputs, equal inputs, and equal satisfaction of demand. The application of these principles is illustrated by reference to municipal services. Mutual inconsistency among these formulas is evident, and is shown caused by the different values which underlie the choice of formulas. The choosing of values is, ultimately, a political process.
Computer simulation was used to analyze the possible improvements in ambulance service that would result from proposed changes in the number and location of ambulances. The cost-effectiveness of several alternatives was examined. A particular alternative was shown to be of considerable value and it was concluded that low-cost improvements in service could indeed be achieved by redistributing ambulances in accordance with this alternative. This marks the first time that the City of New York has utilized computer simulation as an aid to decision-making. In addition, this represents another step in the move to use computers more creatively in municipal management. More generally speaking, the notion of applying the "space-age methods" of systems analysis, operations research, cost-effectiveness analysis, etc., to solve urban problems is a very popular one, frequently written about, discussed, and presented at conferences. The work reported here has translated this concept into practical results in a vital area of public service. This is a small but significant advance, of potential value to urban governments everywhere.
Privatization is intended to improve public services by introducing competition and choice. Does privatization of social services result in competition? To answer this we studied New York City's experience with contracts for three services: shelters for homeless adults, home care, and employment training.A total of 132 contract awards to nonprofit agencies were examined. The evidence suggests the procurement procedures were competitive and followed good practices. There was significant competition in terms of the number of announcements issued, the number of requests for proposals distributed, and the number of proposals ultimately submitted-an average of 2.48 proposals per award.Contracting for homeless shelters has produced a voucher-like system with desirable features. Vouchers are also used for some employment training and could be used for home care. Such systems can introduce even more competition and choice for clients of social services. Problems of contracting with nonprofit agencies are reviewed.
Successful adoption of collaborative service delivery requires that governments develop better capacity to handle potential pitfalls. In this essay, Yijia Jing of Fudan University and E. S. Savas of the City University of New York provide a framework that compares and contrasts the management practices in China and America. Both nations favor collaborative service delivery and engage in it extensively. Can China’s state‐affiliated strategy and the United States’ competition‐oriented strategy both work effectively? Such distinct systems, embedded in vastly different socioeconomic and political institutional environments decisively influence the effectiveness of collaborative service delivery management in the two countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.