This paper is about service delivery that was used in order to meet the social standards through implementation of the state contracts to fit in the social welfare programs in Kansas. The case study reveals how Kansas had decided to privatize its social welfare services. This succeeded by checking on the possibilities of using alternatives to meet their strategies in terms of the services they delivered. The study addresses the contracts and how their management of cases in terms of the services delivered in the social programs occurs. To assess the case study, this paper aims at tackling the key concepts, starting with a reason for privatization and appropriate way of delivering services in Kansas. This should base on political and financial elements and matters to do with federalism. This paper will also analyze the main challenges that face the state administrators and their contractors during privatization based on accountability. In the end, there is an analysis of vital details and recommendations with relation to the references from the readings.
Seemingly, privatization was the best means of delivering social services in the state of Kansas, because the services offered by the private organizations were affordable and of high quality when compared to the government services. Studies carried out by the government agencies reveal that the emergence of privatization resulted into lower prices of the related services offered by the government firms, ranging from 10 to 25 percent when rated on an average basis. Through privatization, Kansas State benefited a lot, as it gave its citizens a chance to participate in delivering services such as offering IT services or engaging in shop businesses (Johnston & Romzek, 2000).
Based on politics, the individual privatization and their proposals suffered effects as they lacked bureaucratic support to differentiate myths from facts that could assist in running a business to achieve their potential projects. Without political support, it was difficult for individuals to engage in discussion about informed policies - a factor that affected privatization. Privatization tends to be effective when the government expands the centralized system, creating independent decisions in managing privatization for the efficiency of the government initiatives; this, in turn, played a pivotal role in federalism. Privatization also resulted into state competition and led to efficiency when dealing with financial issues by enhancing competition, accountability, and transparency (Johnston & Romzek, 2000). Considerably, privatization policy is effective on fiscal grounds, because it is significant when it comes to de-politicizing, contracting out, maximizing savings and finance value to give state services.
Administrators of state and contracting agencies face challenges in the privatization process’ for instance in prisons, the private firms provide such services as training the staff, providing medical services, and offering counseling. Based on accountability, the administrators find it hard to pay wages in most private companies because they lack support from the government to assist them with the payments and compensations. The administrators of state also find it hard to operate as most private firms since the prisons still use the public facilities. Private firms also tend to offer diffident cost saving, which results in moderate deductions, which affects the staff, extreme benefits, and other employment costs ((Meier & Bohte 2007). Contracting agencies also lack resources in managing their firms. Sometimes these agencies face the difficulty of accounting for their duties because of insufficient finances. Lack of funds has also resulted into outsourcing of services to assist in reducing the costs that the organization incurs.
There is exposure of administrators of state and the contracting agencies to risks when they indulge in privatization and fail to offer quality services. The social services they offer become unsuccessful because of accountability problems and impacts the services have on the recipients, which does not improve their welfare. Another challenge faced is destabilization of accountability after contractors’ agencies and the administrators’ reliance on a system that involved the multiple providers. Consequently, the shift in risk factors, together with adoption of new and emerging technology, affected the overall performance (Johnston & Romzek, 2000).
Based on the study, we found out that social services become complex to the government because they always require hiring expertise to be able to serve their clients, thus contributing to privatization. Policy makers also received support to apply historical precedents that aimed at hindering the government to provide services to the private organization. This is because the government faced problems while offering the services through contracts. Therefore, performance based contracts reached the state level to ensure achievement of goals and targets in offering social services (Meier & Bohte 2007).
In conclusion, when a private firm compares to a public organization in terms of effectiveness, there is no clear evidence to show that services offered by the private sectors are inadequate. The private organizations deliver higher quality services than public firms. Privatization has led to completion in delivering of public services in a flexible way. For privatization to be successful, the duties of contractors require specification to achieve their intended costs and the services they offer to the clients.