A major concern that administrators of human services programs face is that of reconciling the needs of setting and maintaining standards with the needs of the clients for receiving services. When services are provided through a contract with a qualified provider, the recipients of the services are considered to be "indirect" beneficiaries of the contractual relationship between an agency and a qualified provider. If a provider fails to meet the required programmatic, eligibility, fiscal, or other standards, the program administrator must take action. The options open to the administrator usually range from informal consultation with the provider, up to refusal to renew an ongoing contract, or cancellation of an existing agreement. Numerous due process protections for the provider of services are available in the event that a government agency chooses to end its arrangement with a provider. Pre-termination conferences, post-termination administrative proceedings, and, ultimately, court action, are mandated before a government agency's decision becomes final. In the midst of the controversy between agency and provider rest the clients-the beneficiaries of the agency program. What rights, or protections, are they afforded? Obviously, the clients have an interest in the outcome of a decertification proceeding, because they will no longer be able to receive services from that particular provider. A third interest at stake is that of the public. In an era of shrinking tax dollars and increased concern for accountability, taxpayers are demanding tighter agency controls over expenditures. In recent years, courts have been asked to decide whose interests are at stake when a government agency does its duty, and refuses to renew a contract with a provider of services. In reconciling the competing needs of the agency, the provider, the client, and the general public, the client, as recipient of services, has been found to have the least amount of "interest" in the decertification process.