Erin EdmundsonSuzanne Gélinas

Joanne Sullivan

7th Annual Conference of Public AdministrationLord Nelson HotelJanuary 31, 2007

September 11, 2001, Flooding March 2003, Hurricane Juan, 2003, “White Juan”, 2004, Snowstorm Fall 2004.

Introduction Definitions and Context What is Alternative Service Delivery? Why ASD in Nova Scotia Understanding the Contract:

Emergency Response Benefits and Challenges Analysis: Application of ASD Literature Contrasting Models Conclusion

Increased attention on disasters and emergencies – major concern for policy makers and citizens

Nova Scotia: ◦ Swissair, 1998◦ 9/11, 2001◦ Hurricane Juan, 2003◦ “White Juan”, 2004◦ November Storm, November 2004

Disaster◦ Disaster = Hazard + Vulnerability◦ Policy Problem of “Global Scope”◦ Affects ALL regions

Poor or industrial Large or small

Emergency◦ “A present or imminent event…[that requires] prompt co-

ordination of action or regulation of persons or property…to protect property or the health, safety or welfare of the people”

Emergency Management◦ Four Elements

Mitigation Preparedness Recovery Response

Utilized by all government coordinates in Canada

Response, in recent years, to changing imperatives

Literature attempts to define in practical terms

Clear definition?◦ TBS (1995, 2002)◦ IPAC◦ Ford and Zussman

Alternative service delivery involves rethinking the roles and functions of government organizations to provide quality services, grounded in a strong policy foundation, to citizens through non-traditional means.

<1998 social services delivered on Two Tier System

1998 DCS took over >Swissair – considered other options for

ESS

DCS considered competitive contracting But only one organization had interest,

capacity, and Province-wide reach Canadian Red Cross Contract signed in March 2000

Little evidence of “government failure” DCS not unable to provide service Recognition that Red Cross had the necessary

knowledge, resources and skills There are reasons to contract out social

services Panet and Tribelcock:

◦ Non-profits: “better positioned to service community needs” “tend to be accountable…to the client population they

service” Greater flexibility “to engage in experimentation and to

tailor services innovatively” “community participation aspect”

Provincial Jurisdiction for Emergencies:◦ Contract for ESS

involving 25+ people or 10+ units Across municipal boundaries

Funding Duration

Spatial Model of Disaster

Alexander, S. (1993). Natural Disasters. New York: Chapman and Hall, p.1-40. As cited in: McAllister, I. (2006). Econ 5252, Module/Unit 7: Natural Disasters. Course Readings, Dalhousie University.

Zone of Total Impact◦ Immediate emergency, urgent threat◦ Structures severely damaged, destroyed◦ Mitigate injury

Zone of Marginal Impact◦ Damage less serious◦ Municipal actors (police, firefighters, etc.).

Zone of Filtration◦ No physical damage◦ Refugees in large numbers◦ Red Cross contract!

Assist DCS with plans for the provision of ESS

Annual Report Policy and Operational Review Positively promote the Red Cross-DCS

contract through media outlets

Large, international organization Emergency Response Teams Strong volunteer base Significant training

Benefits – DCS◦ Lower caseload for employees in ESS◦ Access to volunteers◦ Clear roles and responsibilities for provision of ESS◦ Alignment with international symbol

Benefits – Red Cross◦ Stable and predictable source of funding◦ Increased visibility in NS◦ Elevated responsibility – high performance

standards◦ Opened doors for acceptance at operation tables

Challenges – DCS◦ Loss of Control◦ Loss of interest of volunteers due to few/no

emergencies◦ Volunteer turnover

Challenges – Red Cross◦ No significant challenges identified

Contracts◦ “Virtually all governments contract for services”

(Savas, 70) ◦ Social-services usually provided by non-profit

organization◦ Savas (70) notes a number of conditions to make

contracts feasible: Unambiguous specification of the work to be done The existence of a competitive climate The ability to monitor performance Enforceable and documented terms

Roles and Responsibilities◦ Defining worked “unambiguously” is difficult in

ESS◦ Contract outlines 5 responsibilities and what each

means◦ How, where, when is difficult to predict

Evaluation and Results ◦ Great emphasis in literature on importance of

evaluation and results Panet and Trebilcock Savas Aucoin

◦ Reporting essential for effective, efficient, equitable use of public resources

◦ Red Cross required: to provide DCS with an Annual Report on March 31 of

every year that highlights ESS activities To conduct annual review with Minister with regard to

policy and operations

Value for Money and Focus on Outcomes◦ Value for money not most important element of

contract but still a factor Red Cross = volunteers v. DCS = overtime

◦ Focus on Outcomes more important Red Cross has a critical mass of knowledge and

experience DCS measures outputs based on capacity to respond

and actual response

Shared Objectives and Common Goals◦ DCS and Red Cross goals well aligned in ESS – to

provide for the needs of citizens◦ But contexts are necessarily different (Hall, Reed)◦ Red Cross – organizational mandate to provide

ESS◦ Emergencies target specific clients (depending on

situation)◦ Equitable service public service value

Loss of control◦ Savas – Principle/Agent problem◦ Concern of DCS – delegation of service provision

to Red Cross

Competitive Contracting◦ Savas: “institutionalizes competition…encourages

better performance”◦ Australia: “can improve quality and foster innovation…

achieve value for money outcomes and improve accountability and transparency”

◦ While in most cases competition is a best practice for ASD, it is often unavoidable

◦ DCS found that sole source contracting was unavoidable

◦ After consideration of competitive process, only one organization that had interest resources, knowledge, and geographic reach

Employee Transition◦ Often one of the most complicated issues when

contracting for services◦ DCS – no job loss to manage◦ ESS not a full time job for most◦ Public servants encouraged to volunteer

Cost Comparison◦ Often an important factor◦ No cost comparison by DCS◦ Difficult to determine cost-effectiveness in this

case

British Columbia◦ Local authorities have jurisdiction (in-house) for

ESS◦ Provincial government assists◦ Volunteers managed by government◦ Different needs and concerns related to size,

threats and vulnerabilities, and geographic location

Government of British Columbia. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. “About ESS”. Available [Online]: http://www.ess.bc.ca/about.htm

Government of Canada◦ May, 2006 PSEPC signed MOU with Red Cross◦ Recognizes the relationship between organization

with the goal to ensure emergency management is similar across Canada

◦ Not a legally binding guideline of roles and responsibilities

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. 2006. Online: http://www.psepc.gc.ca/media/nr/2006/nr20060508-en.asp

Benefits of this contract:◦ Government betting from knowledge and

resources◦ Red Cross is able to pass on expertise and

efficiency to tax payers – high standards of service

Contract creates a formal relationship grounded in ASD best practices between two organizations committed to public service

Precedent-setting model of ASD for other jurisdictions

Brochures available Volunteer forms available to join the Red

Cross Emergency Response Teams One meeting a month (2 hours) Lots of free training Lots of opportunity to make a difference in

your community

Aucoin, Peter. “Lesson 12: Collaborative Structures”, PUAD 5100 Lessons. Dalhousie University, 2005, 12.1-12.21

Boston, Jonathan. “Organizing for Service Delivery: Criteria and Opportunities”, B. Guy Peters and Donald J. Savoie (eds) Governance in the Twenty-first century. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000, 281-331.

Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat (1995). Framework for Alternative Program Delivery. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. Available [Online]: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/tbs-sct/tb_manual-ef/Pubs_pol/opepubs/TB_B4/dwnld/frdoce.doc

Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat (2002). Policy on Alternative Service Delivery. Ottawa. Available [Online]: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/asd-dmps/index_e.asp

Canadian Red Cross. About the Red Cross. 2006. Available [Online]: http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000318&tid=019 November 21, 2006

Comfort, L., B. et al. “Reframing disaster policy: The global evolution of vulnerable communities.” Environmental Hazards, June 1999, 1:1, 39-44.

Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Finance and Administration. “Competitive Tendering and Contracting Group”, Competitive Tendering and Contracting: Guidance for Managers, March 1998, 7-32.

Dollery, Brian E. and Joe L. Wallis, “Chapter 7: Public Policy Toward the Voluntary Sector” The Political Economy of the Voluntary Sector: A Reappraisal of the Comparative Institutional Advantage of Voluntary Organizations Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 129-164.

Ford, Robin and David Zussman, eds. 1997. Alternative Service Delivery:  Sharing Governance in Canada. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada and KPMG Centre for Government Foundation.

Government of Canada. Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. Modernization of the Emergency Preparedness Act: Consultation Paper July2005. Available [Online]: http://www.psepc.gc.ca/pol/em/fl/Modernization_EPA.pdf

Government of British Columbia. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. “What do ESS volunteers do?” Available [Online]: http://www.ess.bc.ca/people.htm#what

Government of the Province of Nova Scotia. Department of Community Services, Emergency Social Services Available [Online]: http://www.gov.ns.ca/coms/emergency_ss.html

Government of the Province of Nova Scotia. Subsection 2 (b) Emergency Measures Act. 1990. Available [Online]: http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/emergmsr.htm

Hall, Michael H. and Paul B. Reed, “Shifting the burden: how much can government download to the non-profit sector?” Canadian Public Administration, Spring 2000, 41:1, 1-20.

Kovacs, Paul and Howard Kunreuther, Managing Catastrophic Risk: Lessons From Canada Prepared for the ICLR/IBC Earthquake Conference March 23, 2001, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver. Available [Online]: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/downloads/01-09-HK.pdf

Langford, J.W. “Power Sharing in the Alternative Service Delivery World”. Ford, R. and Zussman, D. (Eds) Alternative Service Delivery: Sharing Governance in Canada. Toronto. Institute of Public Administration Canada. 1997, 59-70.

Langille, Ancel. Red Cross Field Associate, Central District. Canadian Red Cross Email, November 24, 2006 Langille, Ancel 2006. Red Cross Field Associate, Central District. Canadian Red Cross. Personal

Communication. Manuel, Barry. Presentation to Red Cross Emergency Response Team, Dartmouth Nova Scotia, November

14, 2006. Panet, Philip De L. and Michael J. Trebilcock, “Contracting-Out Social Services,” Canadian Public

Administration,” Spring 2000, 41:1, 21-50. Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. 2006. Online:

http://www.psepc.gc.ca/media/nr/2006/nr20060508-en.asp Red Cross and Department of Community Services Agreement. 2000. Savas, E. S. “Alternative Arrangements for Providing Goods and Services” Privatization and Public-Private

Partnerships New York: Chatham Home Publishers, 2000, 63-106. Savas, E. S. “Contracting for Public Services” Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships New York:

Chatham Home Publishers, 2000, 174-210. State of Washington Department of Revenue. Excise Tax Advisory. January 28, 2006.

http://dor.wa.gov/docs/rules/eta/2007r05.pdf November 9, 2006. United Nations. “Terminology” International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Available [Online]:

http://www.unisdr.org/eng/library/lib-terminology-eng%20home.htm Webb, John. Director, Nova Scotia Department of Community Services, Emergency Social Services Personal

Communications, November 17, 2006. Williams, B. 2005. The Federal Charter of the American Red Cross. American Red Cross. Online

http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/charter.asp Retrieved November