Accountability in public agency contracting : the case of child protective services in east Tennessee

In the United States, units of local, state, and federal governments have contracted out for goods and services for decades. However, in recent years there has been a growth in the provision of social services by private, not-for-profit vendors. The development of privatized public services has led to questions about the nature of accountability in public-private partnerships.

Contracting out is often government's solution to political and social pressures to cut costs and to improve services and efficiency. Not many would argue that government should buy goods and services for cheaper than it can produce them. Contracts between government and service vendors seem appropriate when the goods purchased are inanimate objects, such as bricks, cars, and bombs. However, far more questions are raised when the services purchased directly influence human lives. Indeed, despite the growing reliance upon contracting, there seems to be some reluctance to acknowledge the use of cost-benefit analysis in social services spending.

The purpose of this study is to address some of the issues of accountability inherent in public-private contract relationships. This research questions how the contractual transfer of social service provision from a public organization to a private agency impacts both citizen rights and citizen access to service. Through the use of a single-case study of a child protective services agency in East Tennessee, the methods by which the public agency fulfills its obligations to service recipients, as well as its legal, political, and constitutional mandates, are examined. The end result is a discussion of the effect that contracting has on the accountability of public agencies. Finally, the goals of this research are to introduce accountability into the literature on contracting out and to provide a foundation for future comparative research and analysis.