In October 2020, the Inspector General of the United States Postal Service (USPS) conducted a survey of the American public and found that despite service challenges largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic-employee absenteeism, mail and package delays-91% of respondents held a positive opinion of the agency. Indeed, the percentage of respondents who said that the USPS provided excellent customer service rose seven points between 2019 and 2020, from 68% to 75%. But even as the public expressed its pride, support and satisfaction with the USPS, the agency posted a $9.2 billion loss in 2020. The General Accountability Office noted that USPS had lost $69 billion over the previous 11 fiscal years. This, despite steady revenue increases; in 2020, the USPS increased revenues by $2 billion over 2019, to $73 billion, which included new revenue from an 18.8% rise in package delivery. This case details the history of the USPS and its unique role as an independent agency of the US Federal government, with a focus on the financial, management and policy decisions that have contributed to its precarious position.
This case, about creating a startup with a social mission, is designed to help students think through the strategic alignment of public value, legitimacy/support, and operational capacity in a simple context. Together with an in-class video "reveal," the case package follows the thinking of two Masters of Public Policy graduates as they create TurboVote, a nonprofit service designed to increase voter turnout by sending subscribers reminders and helping them register and vote by mail. The case shows that-despite a straightforward business idea-the young founders had to address consequential choices. The written case includes background information about the voter turnout problem and ends with the TurboVote leaders contemplating the basics of a business plan-in particular, the options and implications of different financing models. The case package includes a set of three short videos. "Meet the Founders" (5:37 min) provides a brief introduction to the two protagonists. Students will want to read the case and watch this video before class. The other two videos (4:45 min and 4:09 min, respectively) are designed to be played by the instructor partway through class. The first reveals how the founders approached some key strategic choices. In the second, they reflect on their decisions, particularly in terms of funding, and talk briefly about their hoped-for path forward. The instructor may play these videos separately or together, and follow them up with further discussion.
In early 2010, Robert Griffiths, Counselor for Economic Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, braced himself for the possibility of serious diplomatic fallout with Thailand's government. Griffiths was in charge of providing the analysis on human trafficking in Thailand for the U.S. State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons report, but with a steady rise in victims of trafficking, Thailand was at risk of being put on the State Department's "watchlist" of countries making inadequate progress. For the Thai government, which took pride in its counter-trafficking efforts, being placed on the U.S. watchlist would constitute humiliation by a longtime friend. And for Griffiths, a senior representative of the U.S. Foreign Service in Thailand, provoking the host government's ire could imperil not only future collaboration against human trafficking, but also important engagements on trade, intellectual property and security. The case traces the hard realities of fighting human trafficking even when close allies, like the U.S. and Thailand, share similar aspirations. With an in-depth profile of the U.S. legislation against global human trafficking, the case offers an insider's view of the charged diplomatic engagement between the two countries in 2010. Case number 1991.0
This sequel accompanies case number 1985.0, "Cracking Oyster: Shashi Verma & Transport for London Confront a Tough Contract (B)." "Cracking Oyster (B)" is the second part of a two-part case set, intended for use in a two-class sequence. The (B) case may also be taught on its own, but students will need to read (or at least skim) the (A) case in order to understand (B). "Cracking Oyster (B)" is accompanied by a six-and-a-half minute video companion piece. The (B) case describes how Shashi Verma (MPP '97), Director of Fares and Ticketing for London's super agency, Transport for London, copes with a frustrating contract at the heart of the agency's ticketing operation-the Prestige Contract, which is, when he assumes his position in 2006, at the midpoint of a 17-year contract term. While the (A) case lays out the nature of Verma's frustrations with Prestige (a cumbersome process for negotiating variations, excessive costs, inadequate performance requirements, and poor incentives for the contractor to col-laborate with TfL on new innovations), the more provocative (B) case describes how Verma-using techniques of "game theory" and taking some political and legal risks-tries to negotiate much more favorable contract terms for TfL. The case ends with Verma, TfL, and the TfL board on the horns of a dilemma-whether to go forward or re-treat after a high court grants one of the contractors an injunction that will require TfL to defend its actions in a court trial (or, more likely, settle out of court) if it goes forward with its plans. This one-page sequel describes what happens: TfL does decide to go forward, does settle the legal matter out of court, and ultimately obtains a contract on much more favorable terms than the original Prestige. The video companion piece shows Verma in conversation with HKS Professor Richard Zeckhauser, as the two reflect on Verma's use of game theory, a subject taught by Zeckhauser. Case number 1985.1
""Cracking Oyster (B)" is the second part of a two-part case set, "Cracking Oyster (A) and (B)," intended for use in a two-class sequence. The (B) case may also be taught on its own, but students will need to read (or at least skim) the (A) case in order to understand (B). "Cracking Oyster (B)" is accompanied by a six-and-a-half minute video companion piece. The (B) case describes how Shashi Verma (MPP '97), Director of Fares and Ticketing for London's super agency, Transport for London, copes with a frustrating contract at the heart of the agency's ticketing operation-the Prestige Contract, which is, when he assumes his position in 2006, at the midpoint of a 17-year contract term. While the (A) case lays out the nature of Verma's frustrations with Prestige (a cumbersome process for negotiating variations, excessive costs, inadequate performance requirements, and poor incentives for the contractor to col-laborate with TfL on new innovations), the more provocative (B) case describes how Verma-using techniques of "game theory" and taking some political and legal risks-tries to negotiate much more favorable contract terms for TfL. The case ends with Verma, TfL, and the TfL board on the horns of a dilemma-whether to go forward or re-treat after a high court grants one of the contractors an injunction that will require TfL to defend its actions in a court trial (or, more likely, settle out of court) if it goes forward with its plans. A one-page sequel describes what happens: TfL does decide to go forward, does settle the legal matter out of court, and ultimately obtains a contract on much more favorable terms than the original Prestige. The video companion piece shows Verma in conversation with HKS Professor Richard Zeckhauser, as the two reflect on Verma's use of game theory, a subject taught by Zeckhauser. Case number 1985.0 "
""Cracking Oyster (A)" is the first part of a two part case set, "Cracking Oyster (A) and (B)," intended for a two-class sequence, but the (A) case may also be taught on its own. It is accompanied by a brief, two-part video companion piece with a total length of six-and-a-half minutes. The (A) case introduces Shashi Verma (MPP '97) in 2006, soon after he has received a plum appointment: Director of Fares and Ticketing for London's super agency, Transport for London. The centerpiece of the agency's ticketing operation was the "Oyster Card," developed and managed under the terms of a 1998-2015 PFI (Private Finance Initiative) contract called "Prestige." Thus, in pursuing his goals for TfL ticketing-a reduction of costs, expanded service, and adoption of convenient, lower cost technologies-he knows he will have to negotiate with the contractor, a consortium called TranSys, governed by its two leading partners, Cubic Transportation Systems, a San Diego based company specializing in automated fare collection equipment and service, and EDS, one of the world's largest information technology service providers. Though the Oyster system-reliable and popular-was widely regarded a smash success, Verma soon learns that within TfL, the Prestige Contract is the source of much frustration. The case details the perceived shortcomings of the contract: a cumbersome process for negotiating variations, excessive costs, inadequate performance requirements, and poor incentives for the contractor to collaborate with TfL on new innovations. While the contract does, technically, allow TfL the opportunity to opt out early, TfL appears to have little practical ability to do so, as intellectual property for the complex system resides with the contractors. "Cracking Oyster (A)" ends with Verma facing a broadly-framed dilemma: what to do about Prestige? Case Number 1984.0 "
This case describes the task that confronted Coast Guard Captain Suzanne Englebert, the staff point-person who led an initiative to develop new regulations intended to improve the security of the nation's ports from terrorist attacks, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is intended for use in a strategic management class. Students are challenged to weigh an array of political, practical, legal, and technical considerations in assessing Englebert's approach. The case provides students with the background information they need to discuss the challenges inherent in tightening port security, including: basic information about the economic import of maritime trade, the range of conditions at US ports, the nature of international shipping and regulation, the particular problems posed by containerized shipping, and the kinds of terrorist attack foreseen by security experts. This case also describes several initiatives, undertaken in parallel, to improve port security immediately after 9/11, including immediate protocol shifts in the international ports, and bilateral negotiations with the largest ports outside the United States. The case introduces Englebert and describes her role in the Coast Guard's simultaneous efforts to work with US legislators to create a domestic port security law and with international partners in the International Maritime Organization to create a worldwide port security regime. The case ends with Englebert facing her next herculean task: to turn the mandates of the new federal law into specific, concrete regulations in just a few months' time. The case was designed as a companion piece to a dvd, case number: 1946.9. Case number 1946.0
In November 1994, California voters were presented with a ballot initiative on a proposed "three strikes" measure, which would impose stiff penalties on repeat offenders. Under the terms of Proposition 184, offenders with one or two violent or serious felonies on their records would get much longer sentences for second or third felony crimes-in the case of a third "strike," a term of 25 years to life; moreover, these repeat crimes did not have to be violent or serious to qualify as a strike. Although California already had a three strikes law on its books, a voter-approved initiative would make it difficult for future lawmakers to tamper with the bill's tough provisions. This case consists of three parts. The first provides background on the California three strikes law, and then briefly describes the proponents and opponents of the ballot measure, and the arguments each side put forward. HKS Case Number 1908.0
This sequel is the second part of this three part case. The main case (case 1908.0) provides background on the California three strikes law, and then briefly describes the proponents and opponents of the ballot measure, and the arguments each side put forward. The next two parts can be read sequentially in class. This brief sequel summarizes the impact of the ballot initiative-which was overwhelmingly approved by voters-on both the state prison system and the state budget. The third part (supplement 1908.4) tells a different story: of two judges in Pennsylvania who pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks from the owners of two juvenile detention centers, in a scheme many labeled "kids for cash." HKS Case Number 1908.1
This supplement is the third part of a three part case. The main case (case 1908.0) provides background on the California three strikes law, and then briefly describes the proponents and opponents of the ballot measure, and the arguments each side put forward. The sequel and supplement can be read sequentially in class. The brief sequel summarizes the impact of the ballot initiative-which was overwhelmingly approved by voters-on both the state prison system and the state budget. This supplement tells a different story: of two judges in Pennsylvania who pleaded guilty to taking kickbacks from the owners of two juvenile detention centers, in a scheme many labeled "kids for cash." HKS Case Number 1908.4
This public leadership case puts students in the shoes of King County Executive Ron Sims, the top elected official in Washington State's largest and most diverse county. The year is 2005, and Sims wishes to take a high profile leadership role on the climate change issue-locally and on the national stage-by tackling the nearly uncharted realm of "adaptation," preparing at the local level for impacts of climate change considered inevitable. In addition to addressing certain generic leadership challenges-how to navigate the difficult intersection of politics and science, how to think about uncertainty, how to make an argument for long term investments, how to prove effective on both local and national stage-the case has the advantage of introducing readers to a compelling contemporary public issue, sure to grow in urgency worldwide. The case details the array of considerations that went into Sims' decision to take on the adaptation issue, including a brief summary of a concurrent local debate about designing a new wastewater treatment plant to deliver reclaimed water to customers in the future, if needed. HKS Case Number 1906.0
This sequel reveals which actions the County took, and describes the outcome of each in brief. It also includes two exhibits: a summary of the "goals and actions" outlined in the adaptation section of the 2007 King County Climate Plan and a list of executive orders intended to reduce the county's contribution to global warming. In addition to addressing certain generic leadership challenges-how to navigate the difficult intersection of politics and science, how to think about uncertainty, how to plan for the long term, how to prove effective on both local and national stage-the case has the advantage of introducing readers to a compelling contemporary public issue, sure to grow in urgency worldwide. HKS Case Number 1906.1
Under pressure from the European Union, which had admitted Italy to the "Eurozone" hesitantly, on condition that the country control its deficit spending and reduce its high public debt, the central government in Italy initiated dozens of cost-cutting programs in the late 1990s and early 2000s. One such program aimed to economize, to the tune of billions of euros, on public procurement of goods and services. The program's first priority was to identify products and services bought widely by public agencies at every level of government, and consolidate them into nation-spanning mega contracts. By aggregating public sector demand in this manner, analysts had reasoned, Italy's public sector could greatly increase its market leverage and win big discounts from suppliers. This appraisal proved correct-but also politically explosive. In November 2003, Italy's Minister of Economy and Finance ordered a temporary halt to the program to give political and administrative leaders a chance to figure out what to do. HKS Case Number 1925.1
Under pressure from the European Union, which had admitted Italy to the "Eurozone" hesitantly, on condition that the country control its deficit spending and reduce its high public debt, the central government in Italy initiated dozens of cost-cutting programs in the late 1990s and early 2000s. One such program aimed to economize, to the tune of billions of euros, on public procurement of goods and services. The program's first priority was to identify products and services bought widely by public agencies at every level of government, and consolidate them into nation-spanning mega contracts. By aggregating public sector demand in this manner, analysts had reasoned, Italy's public sector could greatly increase its market leverage and win big discounts from suppliers. This appraisal proved correct-but also politically explosive. In November 2003, Italy's Minister of Economy and Finance ordered a temporary halt to the program to give political and administrative leaders a chance to figure out what to do. This decision-forcing case allows students to consider how Italy might have averted this political backlash, and challenges them to propose how the government might adjust the project in ways that address the concerns of the critics, but still allow it to improve procurement efficiency and reduce its costs. HKS Case Number 1925.0
When a public sector agency decides to privatize a large government function (as opposed to a more discreet job), the process of negotiating the service contract becomes a more complex and far-reaching endeavor. This case study describes the dilemmas that surfaced when a government agency in British Columbia-the Ministry of Provincial Revenue-negotiated a 10-year, $750 million contract for non-tax revenue collection to EDS Canada, a subsidiary of the Texas-based Electronic Data Systems corporation. The appeal of the deal, from the public sector perspective, was that it transferred the risk of upgrading an outmoded, under-resourced system to the private sector. The appeal to the private sector was that it allowed the company to recover costs and make a profit by taking a share of the financial benefits that resulted from the upgrade. But negotiating the ins and outs of the contract for this ambitious project was to prove a formidable-nearly an insurmountable-hurdle for two organizations that inhabited different cultures, held different assumptions, and pursued different mandates. For example, what profit level was reasonable? Should the company be required to reveal its costs to the government? To what extent should the details of the contract be public, if at all? In what areas-if any-should public officials be able to regulate the firm's business practices? And how should either party be held accountable for its contractual promises? The case was developed for a Kennedy School course on public-private partnerships. It affords students a balanced, inside look at the nitty-gritty dilemmas of both the public and private sector negotiators. HKS Case Number 1835.0
This case study examines-through the lens of governance structure-the evolution of the Central Artery (or "Big Dig") in Boston, a public works project of historic proportion which had the potential to create a green oasis of parks in the heart of downtown. It tells the story of the struggle over who would eventually control and finance the maintenance of the Rose F. Kennedy Greenway-the name given to land created when an elevated highway was dismantled and the roadway rebuilt underground. Those who wanted control, but not necessarily financial responsibility, included the mayor of Boston, the governor, the legislature and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (a quasi-governmental body). Issues of park design entangled with governance questions, leading to a stalemate of nearly 15 years. But in 2004, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) pushed for a resolution so that the Greenway could be dedicated in connection with Boston's role as host of the July Democratic Party presidential convention. Over the years of debate, various models of governance for the Greenway were discussed and dismissed. Some of them involved private sector partners; some did not. Students will have the opportunity to compare and contrast the proposed governance models, judging them on their merits as well as on their political suitability. They will gain insight into the differences in operations and public accountability among a public agency, a foundation, a conservancy or a nonprofit trust. HKS Case Number 1839.0
In a gradual but profound transition, New York's park system had become dependent on private partners. The private sector's involvement was pervasive by 2003, but came in very different forms. This case, a companion to "Adrian Benepe's Challenge," highlights specific items to map the spectrum of engagement ranging from contracts where government is clearly in control, to philanthropy where government is mostly passive, to a range of complex collaboration in between. The five points of focus are: ·Outsourcing much of the maintenance of the Parks Department's fleet of vehicles; ·The evolution of the Central Park Conservancy from an informal group of volunteers to a sophisticated and well-funded non-profit with full responsibility for managing New York's flagship park; ·Bryant Park's transformation from a drug market to a glittering landmark, under the auspices of a private corporation subject to only limited Parks Department influence; ·The emergence of the Bronx River Alliance, comprising dozens of public and private organizations, as steward for the troubled river and the lands on its banks; ·The single-minded (and almost single-handed) campaign of the entertainer Bette Midler to realize her unique vision for a public park in a rough area of Harlem. HKS Case Number 1744.0
New York's public parks, brought to their magnificent peak by the legendary Parks Commissioner Robert Moses in the mid-20th-century heyday of direct government activism, were in disarray in a new era of public-sector austerity. As the City's hard-pressed government found itself short of money and manpower the parks-from the iconic Central Park to neighborhood playgrounds-grew dingy and dangerous. With few other options, park officials began experimenting in the 1980s with a new approach: Shifting responsibilities to the private sector. By 2003 this "partnership" strategy had become the linchpin of the park system. Private organizations-ranging from sophisticated organizations funded by New York's rich and famous to informal networks of neighborhood volunteers-had taken on major roles in maintaining, upgrading, and day-to-day management of the City's park system. Commission Adrian Benepe, though a veteran Parks Department employee deeply committed to public service, had contributed to the development of the partnership approach throughout his career. But as he was promoted to the top job, he faced the challenge of pursuing a complex mission when much of the essential capacity was subject to his influence but by no means under his control. Attending fundraisers, massaging donors' egos, and motivating volunteers-rather than the direct exercise of authority-are Benepe's most important management tools. HKS Case Number 1743.0