Dublin Core
Title
Box 5, Folder 1, Document 49
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Enclosure "0"
f
PILOT RESEARCH DESIGN FOR HUD PROJECT
Introduction
The National Academy of Public Administration is undertaking,
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a study intended
to uncover concrete factors and relationships which facilitate or hinder
= a ee a ee
urban program performance. The objective is to identify the critical
7 2
metas aeensnneene —_—_
elements in decision making and action systems by which HUD programs for
ame
local governments are put into effect, and to suggest ways of maximizing
the favorable and minimizing the unfavorable elements. This study is a
reflection of the concern of HUD and others with the difficulties of
implementing national programs which have their impact at the local level.
The links between program origin and program performance have appashéa done
and tortuous. : |
This study design represents one approach for the analysis of
_ program performance from the perspective of the local level. The Academy
will study four HUD programs — non-profit sponsored new housing under
221(d)(3), turnkey housing, basic water and sewer: facilities grants, and
inner-city open space — in six or seven cities.
The Approach
Although substantive questions and information will vary from
city to city, there are certain conceptual items which must be considered
in analyzing the programs in each of the cities studied. The assumption
is that there are multiple forces and factors which impinge on critical -
decision-making in regard to particular programs in particular cities.
What we are viewing is the allocation and mobilization of city and other
resources which are directed toward definite urban programs. The reason
why resources are more successfully mobilized in one city as opposed to
another, or in one program as opposed to another, leads us to investigate
these factors.
In brief, the first assumption is that the basic item to be
viewed is program performance, and the second assumption is that in
analyzing program performance, one must look at the relationships of
certain factors to program performance.
The multiple factors which impinge on the mobilization of resources
for program performance may be best viewed by means of an action (or
inaction) system for each program for each city. The action system can
be viewed as a process which responds to and, in turn, influences other
factors.
The Action System
In brief, the action process includes several critical points:
(1) tne definition of the issue; (2) the identification and gathering of
resources and the involvement of the community; (3) development of a
plan of action and program administration; (4) assignment of management
and operation of programs; (5) coordination with other levels of government;
and (6) evaluation of the program and feedback.
ee
ct
oO
rh
rr
i
@
This brief statemen ‘action system can gain added
meaning by now asking questions which relate to each step in the action
system. These questions will reflect two types of phenomena. The first
ie)
type concerns factors which are reflective of the intergovernmental nature °
of these HUD grant-in-aid programs.
The second type of questions which are incorporated concern
characteristics of the city which may impinge on the action system for
urban program performance. These questions concern the following types
of city characteristics: (1) jurisdictional adequacy; (2) legal authority;
(3) financial resources; (4) trained manpower; (5) public concern; (6)
leadership; (7) bureaucratic rivalries; (8) governmental form (including
pluralism and fragmentation); (9) concurrent problems and programs;
(10) demographic characteristics; and (11) indices of problem areas.
Questions Concerning the Steps in the Action System
1. Identifying and defining the issue and problem:
(a) What critical events led to recognition of the problem?
(b) Who participated?
(c) How much participation in this step was there on the local/
state/federal level?
(d) What was the nature of the federal, state, and/or local initiative? ©
(e) What was the nature of the official interest in and support for the
program in the embryonic phase?
(£) How much involvement was there from the private sector?
(g) What bearing did the favorable, apathetic, or unfavorable attitudes
of identifiable segments of the public have upon initiating action?
Ch) Did ti
he presence or absence of personal leadership affect the
tion of action? .
(i) What type of technical information and general information was
available about the problem and programs?
\
wee Le LY
ANN Z
hm Lo
oN NN
ed
"a ©
(i)
(3)
(kk)
From whom was it available?
How available?
Was it clear or obscure?
How was the problem and the program, perceived by the various parties?
Was there a divergence here? -
id these perceptions change during the various stages of the programs?
Was there an y divergence? \ :
ation and Gathering of Resources and the Involvement
< the Community:
re interested and qualified personnel available to initiate, plan,
nd carry on the action?
litical: or professional and technical personnel — were they available?
In reference to certain programs, were civic, industrial and commercial
groups available?
And other parts of the community?
of particular programs?
Were other segments of the community opposed to the program?
How did this affect the mobilization of resources and the eventual
program performance? ;
How were participants persuaded as to the rightness of the goals
How was a determination made in regard to the technical requirements
for preparing proposals?
How were attention and interest built up to make the problem an
action issue?
Who made this an issue — private citizens, interested organizations,
political parties, public officials, local/state/federal officials?
At what stage, and how, did the Mayor and other executives and
council become involved?
Development of a Plan of Action and Program Administration:
How much federal (including regional administration of HUD), state,
ox local contribution was there in the development of ideas concerning
a plan of action?
Who contributed how much to the decision?
Was it a single individual or a small group within the community?
How much general public discussion and participation was there?
How much were interest groups, private sectors, and political parties
responsible for the decision?
hh
or NS
of 07
Sw NY te
—
-
(4)
(5)
Ox)
(1)
(m) -
(n)
Co)
Cu)
(v)
cernatives were considered?
the choice among alternative policies made?
, in fact, any real alternatives given characteristics of
y and other factors?
Was the decision: viewed the same by all parties to the decision, or was
it viewed as the same program with different goals and allocating
various rates of benefits to different groups?
How clear was the decision made not only within: the city but to other
ls of government?
How difficult was it to gather data concerning the program?
Where does this data come from?
How much did the data influence the development of the program
and the program administration?
iow was it handled?
What were the factors in deciding the significant elements of
on
discretion such as choice of site, timing, schedule, and magnitude
of the program?
How were these decisions made and over what type of time span were
they made? :
Did the city government have the technically qualified personnel to
proceed? ;
Was this a limiting factor?
If so, how was it overcome, or-:was it?
Did the city government have the financial resources to support the
program?
Did the city have the jurisdictional adequacy and the legal authority
to perform the program?
How long did it take to formulate the program?
Assignment of Management and Operation of Program:
What factors were responsible for the decision as to where to place
responsibility for administration and operation of the program?
How was this decision made?
Did the city government have the technically qualified personnel to
proceed?
How long did it take from program approval to first action in project
construction?
How Long did it take to full scale effort?
What accounts for length of time such as fast or slow start?
Were there especially difficult organizational or technical problems?
NE ~ os
Boog Kh ©
Nee NL ee
Loa.
on
>
~~
C1)
(m)
(n)
(0)
(p)
Did the program keep on schedule
What accounts Zo or deviation?
Was the effort large or small as related to the size and seriousness
of the problem?
Was there continuing official and public interest in the program?
Was the change of personnel and elected officials relevant to the,
program?
How available were qualified personnel throughout the program?
Coordination With Other Levels of Government:
What were identifiable difficulties in securing state and/or federal
approval (in the regional office or at headquarters)?
What type of action was initiated to secure approval?
Was it chiefly through administrative channels or was it at pro-
fessional ievels or political executive levels?
Did party officials get involved, such as members of the Senate
or House?
How long did it take to secure approval?
What consideration was given to other related programs in the process
of program building and approval?
Was revision of the program required by state or federal officials?
Was the need for coordination perceived?
By whom?
What steps to coordinate were taken?
Were the stipulated procedures clear, simple, direct and functional,
or were they neutral or dysfunctional?
Did the procedures change during the life of the program?
What was the nature and effect of the change?
Were direct personal interdepartmental and inter governmental lines
of communication open? i
Were they used and how effectively?
When decisions or clearances consumed much time, to what extent was
the time cost attributable to high volume of paperwork, shortage, of
qualified personnel, internal opposition, and/or outside pressures,
indecisiveness or unknown causes?
meee programs were formulated and approved, was there delay in funding?
What were the limiting factors in funding?
What sources were considered?
Evaluating the Program and Feedback:
7
7
. +
(3)
itinized?
c andards devised by which the level of routine
ies could be measured?
ormal reporting procedure developed?
as t dequate feedback from operating experience to program
review and revision?
ra
@
4 e
fo
What had been’the achievements of the program measured by the basic
problem as now perceived? .
Have there been any beneficial or detrimental byproducts of the
pr ogram?
What are the principal judgments about the program by local officials,
state officials, federal officials, and others?
What is the private judgement?
Has opposition to the program continued, increased, or decreased?
Looking back on.the effort, would city officials undertake it again
in the same way or differently?
f
PILOT RESEARCH DESIGN FOR HUD PROJECT
Introduction
The National Academy of Public Administration is undertaking,
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a study intended
to uncover concrete factors and relationships which facilitate or hinder
= a ee a ee
urban program performance. The objective is to identify the critical
7 2
metas aeensnneene —_—_
elements in decision making and action systems by which HUD programs for
ame
local governments are put into effect, and to suggest ways of maximizing
the favorable and minimizing the unfavorable elements. This study is a
reflection of the concern of HUD and others with the difficulties of
implementing national programs which have their impact at the local level.
The links between program origin and program performance have appashéa done
and tortuous. : |
This study design represents one approach for the analysis of
_ program performance from the perspective of the local level. The Academy
will study four HUD programs — non-profit sponsored new housing under
221(d)(3), turnkey housing, basic water and sewer: facilities grants, and
inner-city open space — in six or seven cities.
The Approach
Although substantive questions and information will vary from
city to city, there are certain conceptual items which must be considered
in analyzing the programs in each of the cities studied. The assumption
is that there are multiple forces and factors which impinge on critical -
decision-making in regard to particular programs in particular cities.
What we are viewing is the allocation and mobilization of city and other
resources which are directed toward definite urban programs. The reason
why resources are more successfully mobilized in one city as opposed to
another, or in one program as opposed to another, leads us to investigate
these factors.
In brief, the first assumption is that the basic item to be
viewed is program performance, and the second assumption is that in
analyzing program performance, one must look at the relationships of
certain factors to program performance.
The multiple factors which impinge on the mobilization of resources
for program performance may be best viewed by means of an action (or
inaction) system for each program for each city. The action system can
be viewed as a process which responds to and, in turn, influences other
factors.
The Action System
In brief, the action process includes several critical points:
(1) tne definition of the issue; (2) the identification and gathering of
resources and the involvement of the community; (3) development of a
plan of action and program administration; (4) assignment of management
and operation of programs; (5) coordination with other levels of government;
and (6) evaluation of the program and feedback.
ee
ct
oO
rh
rr
i
@
This brief statemen ‘action system can gain added
meaning by now asking questions which relate to each step in the action
system. These questions will reflect two types of phenomena. The first
ie)
type concerns factors which are reflective of the intergovernmental nature °
of these HUD grant-in-aid programs.
The second type of questions which are incorporated concern
characteristics of the city which may impinge on the action system for
urban program performance. These questions concern the following types
of city characteristics: (1) jurisdictional adequacy; (2) legal authority;
(3) financial resources; (4) trained manpower; (5) public concern; (6)
leadership; (7) bureaucratic rivalries; (8) governmental form (including
pluralism and fragmentation); (9) concurrent problems and programs;
(10) demographic characteristics; and (11) indices of problem areas.
Questions Concerning the Steps in the Action System
1. Identifying and defining the issue and problem:
(a) What critical events led to recognition of the problem?
(b) Who participated?
(c) How much participation in this step was there on the local/
state/federal level?
(d) What was the nature of the federal, state, and/or local initiative? ©
(e) What was the nature of the official interest in and support for the
program in the embryonic phase?
(£) How much involvement was there from the private sector?
(g) What bearing did the favorable, apathetic, or unfavorable attitudes
of identifiable segments of the public have upon initiating action?
Ch) Did ti
he presence or absence of personal leadership affect the
tion of action? .
(i) What type of technical information and general information was
available about the problem and programs?
\
wee Le LY
ANN Z
hm Lo
oN NN
ed
"a ©
(i)
(3)
(kk)
From whom was it available?
How available?
Was it clear or obscure?
How was the problem and the program, perceived by the various parties?
Was there a divergence here? -
id these perceptions change during the various stages of the programs?
Was there an y divergence? \ :
ation and Gathering of Resources and the Involvement
< the Community:
re interested and qualified personnel available to initiate, plan,
nd carry on the action?
litical: or professional and technical personnel — were they available?
In reference to certain programs, were civic, industrial and commercial
groups available?
And other parts of the community?
of particular programs?
Were other segments of the community opposed to the program?
How did this affect the mobilization of resources and the eventual
program performance? ;
How were participants persuaded as to the rightness of the goals
How was a determination made in regard to the technical requirements
for preparing proposals?
How were attention and interest built up to make the problem an
action issue?
Who made this an issue — private citizens, interested organizations,
political parties, public officials, local/state/federal officials?
At what stage, and how, did the Mayor and other executives and
council become involved?
Development of a Plan of Action and Program Administration:
How much federal (including regional administration of HUD), state,
ox local contribution was there in the development of ideas concerning
a plan of action?
Who contributed how much to the decision?
Was it a single individual or a small group within the community?
How much general public discussion and participation was there?
How much were interest groups, private sectors, and political parties
responsible for the decision?
hh
or NS
of 07
Sw NY te
—
-
(4)
(5)
Ox)
(1)
(m) -
(n)
Co)
Cu)
(v)
cernatives were considered?
the choice among alternative policies made?
, in fact, any real alternatives given characteristics of
y and other factors?
Was the decision: viewed the same by all parties to the decision, or was
it viewed as the same program with different goals and allocating
various rates of benefits to different groups?
How clear was the decision made not only within: the city but to other
ls of government?
How difficult was it to gather data concerning the program?
Where does this data come from?
How much did the data influence the development of the program
and the program administration?
iow was it handled?
What were the factors in deciding the significant elements of
on
discretion such as choice of site, timing, schedule, and magnitude
of the program?
How were these decisions made and over what type of time span were
they made? :
Did the city government have the technically qualified personnel to
proceed? ;
Was this a limiting factor?
If so, how was it overcome, or-:was it?
Did the city government have the financial resources to support the
program?
Did the city have the jurisdictional adequacy and the legal authority
to perform the program?
How long did it take to formulate the program?
Assignment of Management and Operation of Program:
What factors were responsible for the decision as to where to place
responsibility for administration and operation of the program?
How was this decision made?
Did the city government have the technically qualified personnel to
proceed?
How long did it take from program approval to first action in project
construction?
How Long did it take to full scale effort?
What accounts for length of time such as fast or slow start?
Were there especially difficult organizational or technical problems?
NE ~ os
Boog Kh ©
Nee NL ee
Loa.
on
>
~~
C1)
(m)
(n)
(0)
(p)
Did the program keep on schedule
What accounts Zo or deviation?
Was the effort large or small as related to the size and seriousness
of the problem?
Was there continuing official and public interest in the program?
Was the change of personnel and elected officials relevant to the,
program?
How available were qualified personnel throughout the program?
Coordination With Other Levels of Government:
What were identifiable difficulties in securing state and/or federal
approval (in the regional office or at headquarters)?
What type of action was initiated to secure approval?
Was it chiefly through administrative channels or was it at pro-
fessional ievels or political executive levels?
Did party officials get involved, such as members of the Senate
or House?
How long did it take to secure approval?
What consideration was given to other related programs in the process
of program building and approval?
Was revision of the program required by state or federal officials?
Was the need for coordination perceived?
By whom?
What steps to coordinate were taken?
Were the stipulated procedures clear, simple, direct and functional,
or were they neutral or dysfunctional?
Did the procedures change during the life of the program?
What was the nature and effect of the change?
Were direct personal interdepartmental and inter governmental lines
of communication open? i
Were they used and how effectively?
When decisions or clearances consumed much time, to what extent was
the time cost attributable to high volume of paperwork, shortage, of
qualified personnel, internal opposition, and/or outside pressures,
indecisiveness or unknown causes?
meee programs were formulated and approved, was there delay in funding?
What were the limiting factors in funding?
What sources were considered?
Evaluating the Program and Feedback:
7
7
. +
(3)
itinized?
c andards devised by which the level of routine
ies could be measured?
ormal reporting procedure developed?
as t dequate feedback from operating experience to program
review and revision?
ra
@
4 e
fo
What had been’the achievements of the program measured by the basic
problem as now perceived? .
Have there been any beneficial or detrimental byproducts of the
pr ogram?
What are the principal judgments about the program by local officials,
state officials, federal officials, and others?
What is the private judgement?
Has opposition to the program continued, increased, or decreased?
Looking back on.the effort, would city officials undertake it again
in the same way or differently?
Comments