Figure 2 above summarizes findings for comparing before-and-after costs of City and County services which
have been shifted from public (in-house) provision to private (contract) provision. Service costs for janitorial
(City), culinary (County), and tree-trimming (City) services were all significantly lower after contracting out.
(This also held true when comparing public and private tree-trimming costs within proximate time periods.)

ASD/PRIVATIZATION:
Extent of Use and Economic Implications

Local governments across the nation are turning to ASD/privatization. Over the approximate 10-year
period, 1973-1982, contracting-out by cities and counties increased dramatically. A 1985 study by the National
Center for Policy Analysis found that the increase in contracting-out (for 17 services) ranged from 43 percent
for refuse collection to 3,644 percent for data processing.

The percentage of cities contracting for some or all of the following services, as reported in the 1982
ICMA survey, are:

Building/Grounds Maintenance.......................... 20%
Emergency Ambulance Service........................... 23%
Hospital Operation and Management................ 50%
Recreation Services............................................. 21%
Residential Solid-Waste Collection .................... 34%
Street Repair....................................................... 27%
Tree Trimming/Maintenance.............................. 32%

Of the cities and counties that responded to the 1987 Touche Ross national survey, the following
percentages of cities and counties reported contracting for some or all of the delivery of these specified services
in the last five years.

Administrative Services...................................... 36%
Building/Grounds Services ................................. 43%
Data Processing.................................................. 31%
Fleet or Vehicle Maintenance............................. 21%
Solid-Waste Collection or Disposal ................... 59%
Street and Road Services .................................... 29%
Traffic Signal or Street Lighting.......................... 32%
Utility Services................................................... 10%

CURRENT USERS:
ASD/Privatization in Large Cities and Counties

With the potential for savings in the magnitudes described above, it is not surprising that a growing
number of large urban governments are employing ASD/privatization to supply major services as shown in
Table 2.

The application of ASD/privatization to a number of main-mission public services and major functions,
particularly services performed by counties, has also been increasing. Table 3 lists such services and indicates
some of the jurisdictions where they are provided using ASD/privatization techniques.
— 8 —