"In this fast-moving, fast-changing global economy -- when the free flow of dollars and data sustains economic and political strength, and whole new industries are born every day -- governments must be lean, nimble, and creative, or they will surely be left behind.... let us learn from one another, and make just, responsive, and responsible government a pillar of global strength and community."

        --Vice President Al Gore, United States of America January 14, 1999⁵

This quote illustrates the seriousness of the efforts to reinvent American government over the past decade. Pressed by budget deficits, spending cuts, and public dissatisfaction with government performance, the US government introduced policies designed to downsize the public administration, make it more accountable, and improve its responsiveness and efficiency. This led to the adoption of policies like the 1993 "Government Performance and Results Act", the 1996 "Information Technology Management Reform Act" and, the "National Performance Review" (now the National Partnership for Reinvention) under the Clinton presidency. States, cities, and other municipalities are also seeking to improve performance through new models of operation, including cooperation across agencies and sectors.

As it sought models capable of higher performance, the American government looked to its relationship with the private sector to explore new approaches. Early efforts focused on procurement reform and led to the introduction of more flexible purchasing and negotiating models that promote greater private-sector involvement in the decision-making process and focus on pay for performance based on result- oriented agreements. In some cases, private contractors are paid solely from the revenue they generate as a result of their work. One well-know example of this method was pioneered by the California Franchise Tax Board. The Department of Defense, which accounts for a huge share of the federal Government's acquisitions, has successfully explored several new procurement approaches, especially partnering, a process that focus on collaboration among suppliers.⁶

Beginning in the 1980s, and increasing throughout the 1990s, federal, state, and local governments began outsourcing non-core functions to private companies. These efforts began with outsourcing of support activities such as package delivery services and printing. They then evolved into much more complex outsourcing arrangements that involved larger administrative and service functions, including the most recent experiment: outsourcing the entire IT operation of the City of San Diego. Additional IT projects are being developed in which the technical expertise and capital investment comes from the private sector, but control over the data resources remains in the hands of the government. State government information portals such as Access Indiana and Virginia's VIPNet are examples. In these case, the private partner derives its income from fees imposed on "premium" services. IT projects like these are increasing in number partly because the expertise is not always available internally, and because the private partner can move more quickly to take advantage of advances in technology.

Occasionally US governments engage in full privatization of more traditional governmental functions. For example, states have privatized prison construction and administration where private firms finance and build correctional facilities and may operate them as self-sustaining, even profitable, enterprises. These operations have met with mixed reaction because they involve the actual ownership of the prison, use of inmate labour and profits associated with it, and use of private employees to administer part of the justice system.

A common form of cooperation exists in the human services sector where government agencies engage nonprofit service organizations to deliver child welfare, day care, senior citizen programs, employment, shelter, and other services to people who are eligible for government-funded assistance. Most commonly, the government agency contracts with the nonprofits for an agreed upon level or volume of services in a particular time period. In some cases, public agencies issue vouchers to eligible individuals which they may use to "purchase" services from the provider of their choice. The oldest US model of this kind is the educational benefit available under the "GI Bill," adopted after WW II, which pays a portion of tuition and fees to any accredited educational institution a veteran wishes to attend. Sometimes the government funds non-governmental service centers that assist particular segments of the community. Small businesses, for example, benefit from collaborations between the government and university-based small business development centers which offer education and advice to entrepreneurs throughout the US. Taxpayers and tax preparers benefit from the Internal Revenue Service e-file program that links private businesses with the federal agency in a quick-turnaround tax return process. Electronic benefits payments for public assistance and Food Stamps operate on a foundation of public-private cooperation involving welfare agencies and the US banking system.

In health care, Medicare and Medicaid, the government programs for the elderly and the poor, have always operated under public-private arrangements. Health services to these two groups are typically delivered by private and nonprofit practioners and institutions, who are paid, at least in part, by these two tax-payer funded programs.

While most new models seek some synergy or cooperation among the sectors, some municipal governments are experimenting with direct competition. Under its Competition and Costing Program, Indianapolis encourages municipal employee unions as well as private sector companies to bid on work for the city. The selection is based on a direct comparison of the offerings on price and other considerations.

As these experiments develop and gain experience, they have generated important public policy questions. Federal, state, and local governments are all seeking to delineate the activity sectors where PPPs and other collaborative models are desirable. Where these models are in development or operation, government officials and members of the public continually question the proper roles and responsibilities of the private partners and the accountability of the public agencies. While the federal government has adopted a bold policy that anything which is not related to the establishment of policies, budgets, or strategy may be considered appropriate for the private sector, there has been no rush to radical change.

In short, public service delivery in the United States is caught up in a wide range of experiments, some based on modest changes in traditional modes of operation and some much more innovative in nature. The magnitude of the changes that are taking place varies from one region to the next and efforts devoted by states like North Carolina, California, and Virginia and federal agencies like the General Services Administration, the Department of Defense, and the Internal Revenue Service are especially notable. They have developed considerable expertise by experimenting with PFI-style collaboration models existing in the United Kingdom as well as with public-public and public-nonprofit collaborations which are meeting a certain degree of resistance in other countries, like Canada.