No abstract

PurposeThe UK government argues that the benefits of public private partnership (PPP) in delivering public infrastructure stem from transferring risks to the private sector within a structure in which financiers put their own capital at risk, and the performance‐based payment mechanism, reinforced by the due diligence requirements imposed by the lenders financing the projects. Prior studies of risk in PPPs have investigated “what” risks are allocated and to “whom”, that is to the public or the private sector. The purpose of this study is to examine “how” and “why” PPP risks are diffused by their financiers.Design/methodology/approachThis study focuses on the financial structure of PPPs and on their financiers. Empirical evidence comes from interviews conducted with equity and debt financiers.FindingsThe findings show that the financial structure of the deals generates risk aversion in both debt and equity financiers and that the need to attract affordable finance leads to risk diffusion through a network of companies using various means that include contractual mitigation through insurance, performance support guarantees, interest rate swaps and inflation hedges. Because of the complexity this process generates, both procurers and suppliers need expensive expert advice. The risk aversion and diffusion and the consequent need for advice add cost to the projects, impacting on the government's economic argument for risk transfer.Originality/valueThe expectation inherent in PPP is that the private sector will better manage those risks allocated to it and because private capital is at risk, financiers will perform due diligence with the ultimate outcome that only viable projects will proceed. This paper presents empirical evidence that raises questions about these expectations.

Homeless hostel residents who use drugs and alcohol have various opportunities for building social capital that can in turn foster recovery capital. Therapies that focus on promoting positive social networks amongst people experiencing addiction seem to offer a valuable way of working with homeless hostel residents who use drugs and alcohol. Gains are, however, likely to be maximised where hostel management and staff are supportive of, and actively engage with, therapy delivery.

No abstract

Aims: To explore the use of computer-assisted therapy (CAT) by homeless drug users (HDUs) living in hostels in order to assess the likely acceptability of online treatment for this population. Methods: Repeat semi-structured interviews with 30 HDUs (25 men; 5 women) who agreed to participate in a 12-week mentor-assisted online drug treatment programme: Breaking Free Online (BFO). Interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed using Framework. Findings: Prior to the first BFO session, HDUs' hopes and goals were seldom confined to reducing their drug consumption. Most described broader recovery and wellbeing aims, and many wanted BFO to improve their computing skills. Nearly all participants expressed positive feelings about the programme after both their first and last session, with clients highlighting BFO's accessibility, flexibility, interactive capabilities and user-friendly interface. Negative comments related to structural barriers that prevented the programme from being used as intended. After the last BFO session, only four clients reported reduced substance use, but other personal, psychological, educational and social benefits were identified. Conclusions: There is potential for using CAT programmes, such as BFO, with HDUs living in hostels. However, evaluations might need to assess a range of recovery indicators in order to gauge any evidence of treatment success.