Public and private partnerships: Performance standards and accountability

Since World War II, public and private partnerships have been on the rise. These partnerships help the federal government deliver public programs because they are often overwhelmed and understaffed. The partnerships are formed between private and third party partners. In addition to the federal government, public and private partnerships assist state and local governments. This thesis examines public and private partnerships, the role of two tools of government, government corporation and economic regulation, and whether or not the federal partner involved in the universal service partnership is to blame for the accountability issues that led to fraud, waste, abuse, and incidents of financial improprieties.;Here I propose that the federal government is to blame when things go wrong in these partnerships, despite the fact that there is a private or third party entity involved. Performance standards in public and private partnerships are addressed in this paper with a focus on the case study of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), a "hybrid" partnership that exists because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.;Additionally, many theorists and scholars view the partnerships as a possible way of governing. It is my belief that if "hybrid" partnerships similar to USAC have become a trend in governing, or used as an alternative, the partnerships will need to include stronger oversight or language in the legislation. The same care must be applied to the partnership agreement in order to deal with accountability issues. Public and private partnerships can continue, but the appropriate government tool has to be incorporated into the foundation of the partnership to prevent problems.;The success or demise of public and private partnerships is evaluated by tracing important historical and political history of legislation and regulation. The case study of the Universal Service partnership will trace telecommunications legislation and regulation, specifically the Communications Act of 1934, The Modified Final Judgment of 1982, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as well as how the regulation and legislation affected the telecommunications industry and how it evolved into the current "hybrid" partnership.;A comparison of past and present programs reveals that legislation and regulation and the use of two government tools, government corporations and economic regulation, helped form the current "hybrid" partnership. Additionally, I will discuss the current accountability problems that exist and offer solutions to deal with existing and future problems.;Based on research and an examination of relevant documents, it can be concluded that in the case of the universal service public and private partnership, the federal government is ultimately to blame when performance and accountability issues surface. Public and private partnerships will need to determine other ways to deliver programs if they are to continue, especially in light of Universal Service reform that occurred in October 2011 (the universal service reform was too late for inclusion in this thesis). Since the ink of the Universal Service reform is still drying, it is unclear as to how this new reform will affect the current partnership.;In order for this current partnership to continue, I propose several solutions. I believe it is necessary to address the following: scheduled and unscheduled audits of the fund conducted by internal and outside auditors; applying Donald Kettl's five imperatives that focus on open communication and sharing the risk between all parties; rewriting the bylaws of USAC to allow for changes to the program as they occur; limiting the FCC's role in this partnership by asking the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) or another private telecommunications entity to help monitor the partnership; and using and revising the tools of government as needed.