個案總覽

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.

This sequel accompanies Case Number 2047.0. Designed for a course in public finance or in transportation, this case describes the financial crisis that, in 2013, loomed over the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the transit system serving Philadelphia and four surrounding counties. The difficulties were predominantly in the system's long-inadequate capital budget, which funded maintenance, repair, and replacement costs for the aging legacy system, but these problems were severe enough that they were threatening day-to-day operations. SEPTA had been forced to delay needed reinvestment in the system for so many years that, absent significant new funding, the SEPTA board and general manager warned that they would be forced to shrink its system dramatically over the next 10 years, reducing service in the city of Philadelphia and nearly eliminating suburban commuter rail service. To ground the discussion, the case provides political and structural background about SEPTA, alongside the recent financial history of both operating and capital budgets, allowing students to understand the nature of the funding difficulties that had historically beset the authority. The case also provides enough information on transit finance to support a more general conversation. Case exhibits include demographic and commuting data for the five counties served by SEPTA; fare and subsidy information by mode of transport; fare elasticity by mode of transport; sources of subsidy in both operating and capital budgets; information about the tax burden in Pennsylvania; the projected consequences of abolishing SEPTA for commuting costs, jobs, and property values; and pros and cons of using different kinds of state funding to finance transit. A brief 2-page sequel describes how proponents were eventually able to win legislative approval for additional funding, and what the legislature ultimately chose as its revenue source. Case number 2047.1

Designed for a course in public finance or in transportation, this case describes the financial crisis that, in 2013, loomed over the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the transit system serving Philadelphia and four surrounding counties. The difficulties were predominantly in the system's long-inadequate capital budget, which funded maintenance, repair, and replacement costs for the aging legacy system, but these problems were severe enough that they were threatening day-to-day operations. SEPTA had been forced to delay needed reinvestment in the system for so many years that, absent significant new funding, the SEPTA board and general manager warned that they would be forced to shrink its system dramatically over the next 10 years, reducing service in the city of Philadelphia and nearly eliminating suburban commuter rail service. To ground the discussion, the case provides political and structural background about SEPTA, alongside the recent financial history of both operating and capital budgets, allowing students to understand the nature of the funding difficulties that had historically beset the authority. The case also provides enough information on transit finance to support a more general conversation. Case exhibits include demographic and commuting data for the five counties served by SEPTA; fare and subsidy information by mode of transport; fare elasticity by mode of transport; sources of subsidy in both operating and capital budgets; information about the tax burden in Pennsylvania; the projected consequences of abolishing SEPTA for commuting costs, jobs, and property values; and pros and cons of using different kinds of state funding to finance transit. A brief 2-page sequel describes how proponents were eventually able to win legislative approval for additional funding, and what the legislature ultimately chose as its revenue source. Case number 2047.0

In July 2012, three freshly-minted Harvard Kennedy School graduates bought one-way tickets to Medellin, Colombia, to launch a nonprofit startup they called Instiglio. Their idea: to bring Social Impact Bonds, still experimental even in affluent nations, to Colombia and other low to middle income countries. This statistics case-one of two nearly identical HKS cases about Instiglio-provides background about the SIB model (a financing mechanism for experimental social programs, with private investors shouldering the financial risk of failure) and tracks the early experience of the HKS graduates in Colombia. The case includes a summary of the issues the group faced in designing a first draft SIB agreement, including several questions about evaluation design and tricky issues in structuring a payment system. The other HKS Instiglio case, HKS case number 2026.0, "Betting Private Capital on Fixing Public Ills: Instiglio Brings Social Impact Bonds to Colombia," intended for a policy analysis course, emphasizes the process of selecting a project, given limited information and political complexities. Case number 2043.0

Set in 2009-2010, during the fractious U.S. Congressional debate over enacting the Obamacare health reform bill, this ethics case focuses on the choices and constraints facing Bart Stupak, a Democratic Congressman from Michigan's Upper Peninsula, who was both a dedicated advocate for healthcare reform and a lifelong opponent of abortion (as were the majority of voters in his rural, largely Catholic district). The case provides basic background about Stupak, his district, and the Obamacare debate but the heart of the story belongs to the abortion policy sub-plot of the larger healthcare reform drama, which culminated with the final, razor-close vote on the Affordable Care Act in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 21, 2010. At this critical moment, with the fate of the ACA hanging by a thread, the Democratic leadership pressed Stupak and his small group of pro-life House Democrats to abandon their controversial abortion stance and deliver their critically-needed votes to pass the Obamacare bill. At the same time, Stupak's traditional pro-life and Catholic supporters doubled-down on demands that he and his group hold the line, even if it meant dealing the death blow to health reform. Anti-Obamacare Republicans, meantime, maneuvered around the edges, seeking to leverage the abortion issue in a last-ditch effort to kill the bill. The case closely follows Stupak's own perceptions, conflicts, and choices as he tried to walk a middle path in this highly charged atmosphere. In the end, he made a deal with President Barack Obama, who agreed to put abortion restrictions in the form of an executive order in exchange for the support of Stupak and his bloc on the ACA.

In February 2010, Germany's national railway broke ground on a project that had been under negotiation for more than 20 years-the Stuttgart segment of the European Magistrale, a 930-mile cross-Europe high-speed rail line that would one day extend from Paris through Munich and Vienna to Budapest and Bratislava. At long last, the German national railway, the state of Baden-Württemberg, and the city of Stuttgart had come to agreement on the routing and station design of the megaproject. Yet within the year, the project would spark the largest citizen demonstrations Germany had seen since the reunification of the country. The Stuttgart 21 opponents were diverse, and so were their concerns, but nearly all were united by one overriding contention: that political elites had conceived the plan without public input and had later refused to take citizen objections seriously. The case provides basic background and context for this controversy, then describes four kinds of public participation that took place in the course of developing the project: (1) a city-sponsored open-participation process in 1997 allowing citizens to weigh in on the neighborhood re-development portions of the project; (2) a petition drive by opponents to hold a city referendum on the project, later followed by mass demonstrations; (3) a state-sponsored mediation process between supporters and opponents of the project; and (4) a state election followed by a state referendum on the project.

This case traces the evolution of thinking about, and the implementation of, performance assessment at one of Turkey's largest and most respected nonprofit organizations, the Educational Volunteers Foundation of Turkey (TEGV). TEGV delivers a broad array of educational enrichment programs to low income children across Turkey through a team of volunteers. In contrast to many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) across the world, which have adopted performance measurement reluctantly, as a necessary but onerous condition of receiving grant funds, TEGV embraced the idea early, for its own organizational purposes. In the course of telling TEGV's performance assessment story, the case includes detailed descriptions of two different approaches to program review and two broader impact studies. It includes 17 pages of exhibits-most of which provide samples of study results for students to review and discuss. TEGV's approach to assessment has been varied, creative and has evolved over time. Students of performance evaluation will likely see both pluses and minuses in the nature of each assessment described in this case, ensuring a rich and lively discussion. HKS Case Number 2028.0.

In July 2012, three freshly-minted Harvard Kennedy School graduates bought one-way tickets to Medellin, Colombia, to launch a nonprofit startup they called Instiglio. Their idea: to bring Social Impact Bonds, still experimental even in affluent nations, to Colombia and other low to middle income countries. This public policy case-one of two HKS cases about Instiglio-provides background about the SIB model (a financing mechanism for experimental social programs, with private investors shouldering the financial risk of failure) and tracks the early experience of the HKS graduates in Colombia. The case focuses on two of the most critical decisions the Instiglio group faced: (1) how to pick a project topic, in the midst of competing demands and limited information and (2) with a project topic in hand, how to design a SIB agreement that would satisfy the needs of both investors and government leaders. A second case on this topic, ''Devil in the Details: Designing a Social Impact Bond Agreement in Medellin,'' is a statistics case. It includes much of the same background information as ''Betting Private Capital,'' but hones in on the technical challenges of designing a SIB agreement. HKS Case Number 2026.0.

The bulk of the case consists of background material, explaining why the Bush Administration favored the negotiation of such a pact, though it reversed 30 years of US foreign policy with respect to nuclear weapons proliferation. It summarizes several important topics, crucial to understanding the issues involved in the negotiation of the joint statement: the history of US-Indian relations, India's history with respect to nuclear weapons, and issues in the international nuclear non-proliferation agreements. It gives an example of the kind of word-smithing Burns and Saran would have to engage in, to complete the joint statement. And it explains, in brief, five areas of particular difficulty that the two diplomats would have to address in some fashion. A brief sequel describes an 11th hour crisis in the negotiation and its resolution, provides the text of the final joint agreement, and very briefly summarizes the final outcome of the three-year negotiation that followed. Case Number 2023.0 A 12.5-minute video short, featuring U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran, two of the protagonists of the early negotiations that resulted in the India-U.S. Joint Statement of July 2005, provide a behind-the-scenes look at the process that led to that groundbreaking agreement. From the initial distrust between the U.S. and India to the way in which compromises were found to address the two countries' seemingly irreconcilable priorities, Burns and Saran vividly recall the many tense moments and intricate wordsmithing that characterized the meetings and the down-to-the-wire conclusion of the first round of negotiations.

Supplement for HKS890

This negotiations case describes the approach, over time, of Santa Clara, a small Pueblo Indian tribe in New Mexico, to recover a piece of land tribal leaders viewed as integral to their ancestral homeland. Unlike many negotiations cases, which concern the strategizing of two or more powerful players, this case describes the evolving strategy of a small, marginal player, striving mightily for a seat at a negotiating table dominated by several powerful interests. Initially taking a rights-based line of attack, the Santa Clara Pueblo eventually adopted a more strategic approach, seeking to understand the perspective of the U.S. Forest Service, the New Mexico Congressional delegation, and other important stakeholders, and to frame its arguments in a way the agency representatives and politicians would find most compelling. The case ends partway through the final, detailed negotiation between Santa Clara and the U.S. Forest Service, when a tense standoff arose. At this juncture, Santa Clara faced a difficult choice-whether to accept a partial win, to walk away, or to fight for more and perhaps risk losing all. A brief sequel describes what Santa Clara did, what the U.S. Forest Service did, and the resolution ultimately embraced by both sides. Case number 2021.0

This negotiations case describes the approach, over time, of Santa Clara, a small Pueblo Indian tribe in New Mexico, to recover a piece of land tribal leaders viewed as integral to their ancestral homeland. Unlike many negotiations cases, which concern the strategizing of two or more powerful players, this case describes the evolving strategy of a small, marginal player, striving mightily for a seat at a negotiating table dominated by several powerful interests. Initially taking a rights-based line of attack, the Santa Clara Pueblo eventually adopted a more strategic approach, seeking to understand the perspective of the U.S. Forest Service, the New Mexico Congressional delegation, and other important stakeholders, and to frame its arguments in a way the agency representatives and politicians would find most compelling. The case ends partway through the final, detailed negotiation between Santa Clara and the U.S. Forest Service, when a tense standoff arose. At this juncture, Santa Clara faced a difficult choice-whether to accept a partial win, to walk away, or to fight for more and perhaps risk losing all. A brief sequel describes what Santa Clara did, what the U.S. Forest Service did, and the resolution ultimately embraced by both sides.Case number 2021.1

This strategy case describes an initiative in the Western Cape province of South Africa to capitalize on an oil boom off the western coast of Africa by cultivating an industrial "cluster" of complementary businesses with the capacity to service, repair, and build components for oil and gas drilling vessels and equipment. The first half of the case lays out the initial thinking, planning, and strategizing. It includes the motive for launching the initiative, reasons to think the Western Cape was well-positioned to make a success of it, and anticipated obstacles. The second half summarizes the first ten years of the initiative, in which a string of difficulties-some foreseen, some not-severely limits the initiative's progress. This includes a shift in priorities in the National Ports Authority, a problematic deal for making port infrastructure improvements, and some features of local corporate culture. The case ends with reflections from two of the initiative's biggest advocates, predicting that new political developments and a possible shift in strategic approach will allow the effort better success in the coming years. Case Number 2002.0

When local governments face budget pressures, one approach is to regionalize services-that is, to seek out greater economies of scale by consolidating service delivery with other municipalities. This case describes the effort of two small (though well-heeled) Massachusetts towns to explore a police merger during the financial recession of 2009. The towns of Hamilton and Wenham, located north of Boston in the "North Shore" area, had, in the past, successfully consolidated school systems, libraries, recreation departments, and more. By some calculations, the towns stood to save a significant amount of money by merging police forces. Ultimately, however, they decided against it. The case includes partly conflicting data from several studies that estimate the financial impact of a police merger. Case number 1988.0

In 2004, Boston's preeminent homeless shelter, Pine Street Inn, faced the prospect of steadily dwindling funds for shelter services over the next few years.This stark reality-combined with persistent frustrations at finding permanent homes for homeless clients-persuaded Pine Street's director and board to regroup, gather data, and rethink Pine Street's organizational strategy. The Harvard Kennedy School has designed two cases that look at this juncture in Pine Street's history-this one, intended for a strategic management class, and another case, intended for an introductory statistics class. This case, designed to teach about the important role of organizational culture when changing an organization's mission, begins by introducing Pine Street's history and organizational identity as a place of last resort for many of the "hardest core" homeless in Boston. The case goes on to describe how, in 2004, faced with dwindling funding, Pine Street's director and board decided to commission a study that analyzed how long each incoming homeless client stayed at its shelters over a two-year period. The striking results: a small number of homeless people were "chronic" shelter-stayers, while the vast majority came and went in 10 days or fewer. About 20 per-cent stayed between 10 days and 20 weeks. Over the course of five years, these data, combined with Downie's frustrations at finding housing alternatives for shelter guests, lead Pine Street's director and board chair to propose a controversial new strategy: to shift from an organization that primarily provides the homeless with shelter beds and services to one that primarily provides permanent supportive housing to a subset of the homeless population-the chronically homeless-while providing a smaller pool of shelter beds to short-term stayers and a combination of shelter beds and transitional services to medium-term stayers. The case ends by posing board and staff concerns about the proposal. Case number 1989.0

In 2004, Boston's preeminent homeless shelter, Pine Street Inn, faced the prospect of steadily dwindling funds for shelter services over the next few years. This stark reality-combined with persistent frustrations at finding permanent homes for homeless clients-persuaded Pine Street's director and board to regroup, gather data, and rethink Pine Street's organizational strategy. The Harvard Kennedy School has designed two cases that look at this juncture in Pine Street's history-this one, intended for an introductory statistics class and a second case, intended for a strategic management class. Each case is designed to stand on its own. It is also possible to use the cases in sequence-the statistics case followed by the management case. There is some overlap in the content of the two written cases, as the description of Pine Street's history and organizational identity is included in both. This case, designed to introduce the concept of statistical "outliers," consists of two parts: • Five-page written case introduces the Pine Street Inn, provides a brief description of its origins, history, and mission, in the context of a burgeoning homelessness population between its founding in 1969 and 2004, when the case dilemma is set. The key point is to understand the strong historical commitment of Pine Street (1) to turn no one away (making it the place of last resort for many of the "hardest core" homeless in Boston) and (2) to provide a respectful, non-judgmental, and non-conditional welcome to all. • Data from the length of stay study, presented in spreadsheet form. Students are challenged to interpret the length of stay data, in the context of Pine Street's history and organizational identity, and to consider whether it suggests a new path forward. Case number 1988.0

Set in the fall of 2012, this leadership case gives students the chance to grapple with the difficult challenges confronting Myanmar's opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, after a rapid turn of fortune that took her, over a period of 14 months, from longtime prisoner of conscience to opposition leader in Parliament, openly discussed as the possible future president of Myanmar. The case describes Suu Kyi's political role in Myanmar during her many years of house arrest and in the two years following her release.

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 "