The case for public‐private partnerships in infrastructure

Abstract: Much of the public debate about public‐private partnerships (P3s) has occurred through the lens of those who either oppose or support this increasingly popular method of delivering public infrastructure assets. Despite some scepticism in the academic literature, an analysis of the key arguments for and against P3s concludes that the P3 model can successfully deliver public infrastructure goods and services, provided that certain key thresholds are met. Lessons learned from early experiments in P3s and from the experience of the newer government P3 procurement agencies suggest that P3s can provide value for money if risk is allocated to the party best able to manage it. An appropriate risk allocation requires that governments have the expertise to identify all of the relevant risks before entering into the partnership contract. Governments must also have the contract management skills to ensure that those risks are in fact borne by the private sector. To maintain public confidence in the P3 model, governments must live up to their own obligations of transparency and accountability and not succumb to private‐sector demands for confidentiality. The article recognizes that not all government goods and services can meet the threshold but that, if they do, it argues strongly for the efficiency and effectiveness of the P3 model. Sommaire: Une grande partie du débat public au sujet des partenariats entre le secteur public et le secteur privé (les P3) a eu lieu par l'entremise de ceux qui opposent ou soutiennent cette méthode de plus en plus populaire de livrer de l'infrastructure publique. En dépit d'un certain scepticisme émanant des documents d'universitaires, une analyse des principaux arguments en faveur des P3 et contre ceux‐ci conclut que les P3 peuvent livrer avec succès des produits et services d'infrastructure publique, à condition que certains seuils clés soient atteints. Les enseignements tirés des premières expériences de P3 et de l'expérience des plus récents organismes d'approvisionnement gouvernementaux P3 laissent entendre que les P3 peuvent apporter une optimisation des ressources si le risque est attribuéà la partie la plus apte à le gérer. Une bonne répartition du risque exige que les gouvernements aient l'expertise pour identifier tous les risques pertinents avant de signer le contrat de partenariat. Les gouvernements doivent aussi avoir les compétences en gestion de contrats nécessaires pour veiller à ce que les risques soient en fait assumés par le secteur privé. Pour maintenir la confiance du public dans le modèle de P3, les gouvernements doivent respecter leurs engagements de transparence et de reddition de comptes et ne pas céder aux exigences du secteur privé concernant la protection des renseignements personnels. L'article reconnaît que tous les produits et services gouvernementaux ne peuvent pas tous atteindre le seuil de conformités mais que, lorsqu'ils y parviennent, le modèle de P3 est alors hautement efficace et efficient.     

Detection of bullet residue in bone using proton-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) analysis

External beam proton-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) analysis has been used to verify the presence of lead in the finger bone of a murder victim. The deceased, who had been buried several years, was known to have suffered a bullet wound to his right hand several years before death. X-ray radiographs of the right second proximal phalanx revealed the possible presence of metal fragments below the surface of the bone. To verify the presence of lead in a nondestructive manner, the bone was scanned with a 1.5-MeV proton beam. PIXE analysis showed that lead was present only in the vicinity of the fragments previously detected in the radiographs. A study of gunshot residue in bone shows that the distribution of lead around the bullet hole is independent of the firing distance for distances greater than 0.6 m.     

Apprenticeship and the transfer of technical know-how

This paper is based on a study of apprenticeship, a long renowned institution for transferring technical know-how. Case studies of apprenticeship led us to define know-how as: a commercially viable integration of proficient technique gained by practicing the work process of an expert and contextual knowledge gained by observing and questioning other workers. One implication of this definition is its stress on know-how transfer teams that consist of work process designers, practice tutors, and transfer manager. A second implication calls for explicit planning of know-how adaptation when new technology makes work processes obsolete. A final implication for researchers in technology transfer stresses the integration of individual know-how into community systems that put technology to work.     

Construct validity,reliability and predictive validity of the dynamic risk assessment and management system (DRAMS) in offenders with intellectual disability

Background. There have been a number of developments in the assessment of dynamic risk in the criminological literature. The dynamic risk assessment and management system (DRAMS) has been developed to facilitate the measurement of dynamic factors of risk for offenders with intellectual disability. Method. The study was designed to assess the construct validity, reliability and predictive utility of the DRAMS in 23 male forensic patients in a high secure setting. Predictions were made against independently collected incident data. Concurrent validity was assessed against the Ward Anger Rating Scale (WARS). Results. A reformulation of the individual section variables according to convergent and discriminant correlational analysis revealed Cronbach's alpha levels of >.8 for all sections apart from mood (alpha .750) and items retained to facilitate clinical information (alpha ?.017). Two hundred pairs of WARS and DRAMS assessments revealed orderly sectional correlations. The sections of mood, antisocial behaviour, and intolerance/agreeableness predicted incidents with a medium effect size as did total DRAMS score. There were highly significant differences between assessments taken 1 or 2 days prior to an incident and control assessments conducted at least 7 days from an incident. Conclusions. The reformulated DRAMS has good construct and concurrent validity. It appears to be a reliable assessment tool and informs on risk levels relating to stable and acute proximal factors. It appears as an important addition to the utility of risk assessments for this population.