The churches and non profits used to provide services for the poor, but the government decided it would use tax dollars, and slowly over time, they have pushed the folks who would normally do this out. And personally, why would a church or a non profit want to partner with a government entity and put up the money, so the city, state or federal government could try to take over as the manager (which is what this is all about really). They want to blur the lines and ingratiate themselves into everything which is what private-public partnerships are about. I far prefer the non profits and churches handling things as they make sure it really goes to those in need and don't make it a forever thing.............they try to get people past a bad time not give them an alternative to working and earning their own way.

As far as privatizing functions of the city ........... sure, good idea, but only if you determine what you need, are specific, and have some sort of follow up to be sure that the contract really is providing what you asked for and the taxpayers are happy with the service. Then, put it out for bid and stay the heck out of trying to tell someone how to run their business since government doesn't do anything efficiently or they wouldn't save money privatizing things. The government is non competititive period when it comes to everything they do. They pay too much for everything including the folks who do the work, because unlike the private sector, they just pass their inefficiency on to the tax payers.

February 6, 2012

The most popular thing out there for governments right now is to champion public-private partnerships (P3’s).

And what government wouldn’t want to do that when they can realize cost savings of 20 percent to 50 percent? To date, it seems that Mayor Alvin Brown’s focus on P3’s has been promoting parades and his mentors program. But is he leaving money on the table by not including any public dollars in these efforts?

And just how much money could the city save by contributing dollars to other P3’s?

The National Council for Public Private Partnerships states that public-private partnerships can be an essential tool in challenging times. They can lead to better public safety, better educational opportunities for children and even better roads.

Yet, up to now it appears that Brown’s definition of a P3 is that the private sector puts up all the financing, while the public sector acts largely as the cheerleader. Examples would be the Holiday Light and Martin Luther King parades and the Mayor’s Mentoring program.

For public-private partnerships to work effectively, both parties have to derive reasonable value from the relationship. One-sided P3’s are not sustainable. The mayor’s apparent view of these partnerships is worrisome to many of my friends in the nonprofit world because there is presently extremely high demand for services resulting from the poor economy at a time when philanthropy has dropped.

Sherry Magill, executive director of the Jessie Ball duPont Fund, explains that the nonprofit definition of public-private partnership is one public dollar plus one private dollar combine to help support a body of work performed by the nonprofit sector. She adds that LISC Jacksonville (a former client of mine) is the epitome of that definition. And it’s one that highlights the way that public-sector funds are dramatically leveraged by private funding that would otherwise not be available.

Here are the details of that successful P3 relationship. For the past 12 years, LISC Jacksonville has worked to improve underserved neighborhoods. It has annually received $500,000 from the city. That money has been leveraged into more than $148 million of improvements, including 1,520 homes and apartments, 229,000 square feet of commercial space and more than 3,100 jobs created.

Single-family housing supported by LISC Jacksonville has even been shown to lower crime rates in the neighborhoods where homes are located. LISC Jacksonville would not be here without that public contribution.

And that holds true for many nonprofits. They couldn’t do the work of improving the quality of life for all without the input of public funds. So, reducing or eliminating public funding for nonprofits represents a devastating blow, gutting their ability to leverage those dollars for exponentially more from the private sector.

My hope is that Brown’s administration understands that future partnerships must provide both the public and private sectors with an equitable deal that gives value to both.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-02-06/story/amy-rankin-publ...