Public Administration ‒ The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

PERSONALACTION IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS

Public administration is concerned with the management of public programs. Public
administrators work at all levels of government, both at home and abroad, and they manage
nonprofit organizations, associations, and interest groups of all kinds. The substantive fields
within which public managers work range across the varied interests of government and
public affairs, from defense and national security to social welfare and environmental
quality, from the design and construction of roads and bridges to the exploration of space,
and from taxation and financial administration to human resources management. Though
public administration varies tremendously in its scope and substance, those who work in
public organizations share certain commitments. Among these, none is more important than
a commitment to public service.

In this book, we examine the work of public administrators in many different kinds of

organizations and define the political and historical context within which public and
nonprofit organizations operate. We examine the commitments that underlie the notion of

public service and the opportunities and constraints they place on public action. We examine

the many technical fields, such as planning, budgeting, personnel, and evaluation, with which

public administrators must be familiar and consider the personal and interpersonal talents

needed by successful public managers. Most importantly, we emphasize the knowledge,

skills, and values that you will need to be both effective and responsible as you act in the

public interest.

Although we introduce many different areas of public administration, we do so from a

particular point of view that provides a unifying theme in our examination of administrative

work in public and nonprofit organizations. This point of view holds that there is something

very special about public administration: your work in public service is distinguished by its
pursuit of democratic values, and this concern affects nearly everything you do as a public

manager. As a public administrator, you are obligated not only to achieve efficiency and

effectiveness, but also to be responsive to the many bodies that help define the public

interest: elected officials, members of the legislature, client or constituent groups, and
citizens generally. This special obligation requires that you be ever mindful of managerial

concerns, political concerns, and ethical concerns and that you develop structures and

processes that take into account all three. The result is a particularly complicated approach
to getting things done, but one that has special rewards. From service to the public, you may

gain a very special sense of accomplishment and personal satisfaction, one that comes from

helping others and from pursuing the public interest.

What Is Public Administration?
We have already described public administration as the management of public programs.

But to elaborate on this definition, it helps to know a little history. Happily, there is only a

little history to learn because public administration, at least in this country, is a relatively

young field of study. Of course, people have been engaged in the management of public

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec1

programs for thousands of years. (For example, imagine the administrative headaches

involved in building the Egyptian pyramids!) However, the self-conscious study of public
administration is a fairly recent development, often dated to the work of French and German

scholars in the late nineteenth century. Public administration as we know it today in the

United States began as the study of government administration, and that study began as part

of late-nineteenth-century efforts to reform governmental operations. Most scholars and
practitioners date the beginnings of the deliberate study of public administration in this

country to an 1887 essay written by Woodrow Wilson (then scholar, later president).

Although some have recently questioned the influence Wilson had on the field, there is no

question that his essay marks the symbolic beginning of American public

administration.

Wilson’s essay was basically reformist in nature, and highly practical. It was designed to

address the inefficiency and open corruption that had become a part of government during

the late 1880s and to suggest certain remedies within the administration of government.

Wilson argued that although scholars and practitioners had focused on political institutions

(such as Congress or the presidency), too little attention had been paid to administrative

questions—the questions of how the government actually operates. The result, according to

Wilson, was that it was becoming “harder to run a constitution than to frame one” (Wilson,
1887, p. 200). Wilson first wanted the work of government agencies to be accomplished

more effectively. He felt that such organizations would operate best if they pursued the

private sector’s commitment to efficient or “businesslike” operations. Wilson, of course,

wrote in a period during which business, industry, and technology were developing in rapid
and surprising new ways. Like others, he admired the managerial philosophies that business

seemed to be developing. Among these notions, Wilson particularly favored the idea of

concentrating power in a single authority atop a highly integrated and centralized
administrative structure. His recommendation of a strong chief executive has been echoed

by writers (and chief executives!) even to the present.

The men and women who followed Wilson in discussions of what came to be called public

administration were very practical people, concerned with reforming governmental

structures and making them more efficient. But they were also quite careful to place these

concerns within the context of democratic government. How might the principles of

democracy, including such lofty ideals as liberty and justice, be extended throughout

government and throughout society? Indeed, Leonard D. White, one of the most thoughtful

of the early writers, commented that “the study of public administration … needs to be

related to the broad generalizations of political theory concerned with such matters as

justice, liberty, obedience, and the role of the state in human affairs” (White, 1948, p. 10). As
we will see, a continued concern for operating efficiently while at the same time operating in

a way consistent with democratic values marks the field of public administration even today.

Values of Democracy

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec1_1

Because their commitment to democratic values so clearly affects the work of those in public

and nonprofit organizations in this country, it may be helpful to briefly review some of the
key commitments we associate with democratic governance. The term democracy well

reflects its roots: the Greek words demos, meaning “people,” and kratis, meaning “authority.”

Generally speaking, democracy refers to a political system in which the interests of the

people at large prevail. However, it is clear that within these broad parameters there are
many different conceptions of democracy. For example, at the end of World War II,

representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia met to consider the

“democratization” of Germany. Yet, it soon became apparent that the Russian idea of

democracy was quite different from the Western view. While Westerners associated
democracy with such ideas as free elections, freedom of the press, freedom of movement,

and the freedom to criticize the government, the Russians had quite a different conception.

For them, democracy did not necessarily mean government by or of the people, but rather

whether government policy is carried out in the interest of the people.

Even today, the term democratic is used in many different ways by many different people.

For example, North Korea, a highly authoritarian state, claims aspects of democracy such as

a multiparty system. In the American experience, however, there is general agreement that
democracy refers to a political system—a way of ordering power and authority in which

decision-making power is widely shared among members of the society. Or to put it in terms

of control, democracy is a system in which many ordinary citizens exercise a high degree of

control over their leaders. (In either case, the opposite would be an oligarchy, government by
the few, or an autocracy, government by one.)

But democracy is defined not only in terms of processes or procedures (for example, rule by

many), but also by several important cultural values that are typically pursued in a
democratic society. Among these, three—individualism, equality, and liberty—have been of

special importance to those who have helped shape the American idea of democracy. The

first is individualism, the idea that the dignity and integrity of the individual is of supreme

importance. Individualism suggests that achieving the fullest potential of each individual is the

best measure of the success of our political system. It is the idea of individualism that is reflected

in the familiar phrasing of the Declaration of Independence—that all persons are endowed by

their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that it is the purpose of government to secure

those rights.

Second is the idea of equality, which does not mean that all persons are equal in their talents

or possessions, but that each individual has an equal claim to life, liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness. In this view, each person should be seen as an end, not as a means; no one should be
a mere tool of another. Moreover, equality in the field of government would suggest that

differences in wealth or position are not sufficient reasons for giving one group preference over

another. In a democracy, each one has an equal claim to the attention of the system and should

be able to expect just outcomes.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-democracy

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-oligarchy

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-autocracy

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-individualism

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-equality

A third central value of a democratic society is liberty, or freedom. This idea suggests that the

individual citizen of a democracy should have a high degree of self-determination. You should
have the maximum opportunity to select your own purposes in life and to choose the means to

accomplish them. Liberty is more than just the absence of constraints; it suggests the freedom

to act positively in pursuit of one’s own ends. Only by allowing individuals the freedom to

choose, it is argued, will social progress occur.

The influence of these themes on the development of public administration is undeniable,

although, as we will see, people differ over the degree to which they influence the day-to-day

operations of public agencies. Similarly, the way in which democracy has been

operationalized in the American political tradition has had important influences on the
operation of public organizations. For example, take the traditional separation of legislative,

executive, and judicial functions. The primary task of the legislative branch is to make policy

through the enactment of legislation, the primary task of the executive branch is the faithful

execution or implementation of policy, and the primary task of the judicial branch is the

interpretation of the law, especially as it relates to constitutional guarantees.

David Rosenbloom of American University has argued that these three functions of

government are related to three views of the role of public administrators in American
society (Rosenbloom, 1993, p. 15):

• The managerial approach to public administration, which Rosenbloom connects to

the executive function, emphasizes the management and organization of public

organizations. As with Wilson, this view sometimes suggests that management in the
public sector is very much like that in the private sector; that is, it is primarily

concerned with efficiency.

• The political approach to public administration, related to the legislative function in
government, is more concerned about ensuring constitutional safeguards, such as those

already mentioned. Efficiency becomes less a concern than effectiveness or

responsiveness.

• Finally, the legal approach to public administration, related to the judicial function,

emphasizes the administrator’s role in applying and enforcing the law in specific

situations. It is also concerned with the adjudicatory role of public organizations.

Although we will examine these various approaches in more detail as we move through the

book, it is important to understand at the outset that all actions of public administrators take

place within an important political context: a commitment to democratic ideals and

practices. Yet, today, that ideal is somewhat tarnished. Americans’ trust in government has

been steadily declining over the last several decades. Questions are being raised not only
about the quality and productivity of government, but also about the responsiveness of

government to the people (see the box “Public Administration in History: The Democratic

Dream”). This tension will be a persistent theme as we examine contemporary approaches

to the study and practice of public administration. Borrowing a phrase from earlier times,
the task of public administrators today is still to “make democracy suitable for modern

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-liberty

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-politicaleconomyapproach

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/008_chapter1.xhtml?create=true#pah_5_1

conditions.” Doing so in a time of confusion and mistrust will be a special challenge to those

in public administration as we move through the twenty-first century. Restoring trust in
government and public service is not merely a responsibility of elected officials; it is a

responsibility of appointed administrators as well. Keep this in mind as we examine the

various approaches and techniques that are appropriate to public administration today.

Public Administration in History

THE DEMOCRATIC DREAM

The predominant American political belief—attained, pretended, or otherwise—from before

the establishment of the republic and throughout the nation’s history has been the
democratic dream, nominally based on some version of popular representation and

governance. Virtually every political structure and reform has been predicated on some

mode of the democratic, egalitarian ethos, even as they oscillated back and forth between its
Jeffersonian and Hamilto-nian poles. Indeed, to imagine a widespread domestic political

movement (and probably foreign policy initiative) that does not in some very visible manner

drape itself in the sacred vestment of democracy is inconceivable.

It is in this ambience that American political philosophies, politics themselves, and even
certain professions (e.g., public administration) were created and nurtured. Not surprisingly,

public service and public administration in the United States have shared a similar

democratic coloration. From the early days of the professional public administrator—when

Woodrow Wilson temporarily partitioned “politics” and “administration” into separate
entities—we find a solid stream of democratic theory underpinning and underlining

contemporary public administration.

But the Constitution cannot serve as a singular political poultice for whatever ails the body
politic. Within the country at large, there is a tangible sense that as often as appeals are made

to the nation’s democratic benchmarks, these are more calls to a fading faith than references

to reality. Americans are apparently disenchanted with their politics, both in terms of

substance and process. Our public life is rife with discontent. Americans do not believe they

have much to say about how they are governed and do not trust government to do the right

thing.

SOURCE: Reprinted by permission from Democracy and the Policy Sciences by Peter deLeon,

State University of New York Press, © 1997, State University of New York. All rights
reserved.

Contrasting Business and Public Administration

One issue, however, deserves further comment up front. Even though work in public and
nonprofit organizations is guided by commitments to democratic ideals, it is also involved

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec1_2

with management, and, for that reason, public administration is often confused with

business management. Indeed, such confusion has occasionally been prominent in the field
of public administration. (As we have already seen, early writers in the field often suggested

that government should become more like business, a sentiment heard even today.)

Certainly, there are some similarities between business and public administration. Managers

across all sectors—public, private, and nonprofit—are involved in questions of
organizational design, the allocation of scarce resources, and the management of people. But

most observers would agree that the primary distinction between business and public

service is that business is primarily concerned with making a profit, while public service is

concerned with delivering services or regulating individual or group behavior in the public
interest. All would agree that the context of public and nonprofit management significantly

alters the work itself. Nonprofit management is characterized by ambiguity, pluralistic

decision making, and visibility (see the box “Exploring Concepts: Public Administration Is

Different from Business”).

Exploring Concepts

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IS DIFFERENT FROM BUSINESS

• The objectives are much more ambiguous.

• There are multiple decision centers.

• Public administrators operate with much greater visibility.

Ambiguity One difference between public administration and business management
lies in the purposes to be served. In most businesses, even those with service

objectives, the bottom-line profit is the basic measure of evaluating how good a job

the organization is doing. In turn, the performance of individual managers can, in

many cases, be directly measured in terms of their unit’s contribution to the overall

profit of the company. This is not true of public or nonprofit agencies, where the

objectives of the organization may be more ambiguous and where making or losing

money is not the main criterion for success or failure.

Often the objectives of public and nonprofit organizations are stated in terms of service; for

example, an agency’s mission may be to protect the quality of the environment or to provide

an adequate level of rehabilitative services to the disabled. Yet, such service objectives are

much harder to specify and to measure. What does “quality” mean with respect to the
environment? What level of service to the disabled is “adequate”? The difficulty of specifying

objectives such as these makes it harder to assess the performance of government agencies

and, in turn, their managers. Moreover, most businesses wouldn’t tolerate a money-losing

operation in a depressed area, but a public or nonprofit organization, though equally
attentive to the money being spent, might well consider meeting human needs more

important than the financial “bottom line.”

Pluralistic Decision Making A second difference between work in public service and

in business is that public service, at least in a democratic society, requires that many

groups and individuals have access to the decision process. As a result, decisions that

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/008_chapter1.xhtml?create=true#ec_6_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec1_2_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec1_2_2

might be made rapidly by one individual or a small group in a business might, in a

public or nonprofit organization, require input from many diverse groups and
organizations. Consequently, it is difficult to speak of specific decision centers in

government. W. Michael Blumenthal, a business executive who became secretary of

the treasury, described the situation this way:

If the President said to me, you develop [an economic policy toward Japan], Mike, the
moment that becomes known there are innumerable interest groups that begin to play a role.

The House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and every member

on them and every staff member has an opinion and seeks to exert influence. Also, the

Foreign Relations Committee, the oversight committees, and then the interest groups,
business, the unions, the State Department, the Commerce Department, OMB, Council of

Economic Advisers, and not only the top people, but all their staff people, not to speak of the

President’s staff and the entire press. (Blumenthal, 1983, p. 30)

The pluralistic nature of public decision making has led many business executives who have

worked in the public or nonprofit sectors to comment that this feature makes public and

nonprofit management much more difficult than management in the private sector. But, as

Blumenthal points out, “the diversity of interests seeking to affect policy is the nature and
essence of democratic government” (Blumenthal, 1983, pp. 30–31). Many have also found

that this aspect of public service is particularly challenging and rewarding.

Visibility Finally, managers in public and nonprofit organizations seem to operate

with much greater visibility than their counterparts in industry. Public service in a
democratic society is subject to constant scrutiny by both the press and the public. The

media seem to cover everything you do, and this may be a mixed blessing. On the one

hand, media coverage enables the leaders of the organization to communicate rapidly
to external and internal audiences. On the other hand, the media’s constant scrutiny

of policy positions and their labeling of inconsistencies and policy differences as

weaknesses can be limiting to free discussion of issues in their formulation stage. And,

of course, the occasional intrusions of the press into even the most mundane personal

matters can be excessive; one local newspaper even reported a problem a new city

manager was having with his refrigerator! Yet, executives in government realize that

it is essential to a democratic society that their work be visible to the public and

subject to the interest and control of the citizenry. Indeed, one of the current concerns
of public executives is how to increase the “transparency” of their work, something we

will explore in more detail later.

What Would You Do?

You have just been appointed city manager of a city of 30,000 in the upper Midwest. While
the economy of the area is generally stable, there is talk of one of the area’s major industrial

firms moving out, taking much-needed jobs from the community. On the other hand, that

firm has been a persistent contributor to pollution in the area. The city council seems evenly

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec1_2_3

divided on whether to make an effort to keep the firm and its jobs or simply let it go. In your

first six months on the job, what would you do?

Thinking about Public Administration Today

With this background, we can now think more carefully about how the field of public

administration has traditionally been described and how we might develop an action

orientation toward the study of public administration suitable to a contemporary world. In
terms of definition, many early writers spoke of administration as a function of government,

something that occurred in many shapes and forms throughout government. There were

obviously administrative activities performed in the executive branch, but there were also
administrative functions performed in the legislative and judicial branches. Some even noted

that from time to time any single official might engage in both legislative and administrative

functions.

Somewhat later, public administration was viewed as merely concerned with the activities
of the executive agencies of government. In the words of an early text, public administration

is concerned with the “operations of the administrative branch only” (Willoughby, 1927, p.

1). By the 1950s, such a perspective was so firmly entrenched that the leading text of that

period stated, “By public administration is meant, in common usage, the activities of the
executive branches of national, state, and local governments; independent boards and

commissions set up by Congress and state legislatures; government corporations; and

certain other agencies of a specialized character” (Simon et al., 1950, p. 7). Modern

definitions of public administration have returned to the traditional view, giving attention to

administrative officials in all branches of government and even focusing on those in

nonprofit organizations.

For our purposes, a formal definition of the field may be less important than trying to
discover how public administration is experienced by those in the “real world.” Our

commitment to an action orientation suggests that we try to determine the kinds of activities

engaged in by public administrators and the environmental factors that help to shape their

work. We have already seen how the ambiguity of service objectives, the pluralistic nature
of governmental decision making, and the visibility of management in the public and

nonprofit sectors create a context in which managerial work is significantly different from

that in other settings. From the standpoint of the real-world administrator, the things that

really make the difference in the way you operate are not whether you are employed by a
government agency, but whether you work under circumstances that feature an ambiguity

of objectives, a multiplicity of decision centers, and high public visibility.

Networking

The leading national organization for those in the field of public administration is the

American Society for Public Administration. See -w-w-w-.-a-s-p-a-n-e-t-.-o-r-g. Other related

organizations with helpful websites include the National Academy of Public Administration

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec1_3

http://www.aspanet.org/

at -w-w-w-.-n-a-p-a-w-a-s-h-.-o-r-g; the Association for Public Policy Analysis and

Management at -w-w-w-.-a-p-p-a-m-.-o-r-g; the International City Management Association
at -w-w-w-.-i-c-m-a-.-o-r-g; the American Political Science Association at

-w-w-w-.-a-p-s-a-n-e-t-.-o-r-g; the Alliance for Nonprofit Management at

-w-w-w-.-a-l-l-i-a-n-c-e-o-n-l-i-n-e-.-o-r-g; the Independent Sector at

-w-w-w-.-i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t-s-e-c-t-o-r-.-o-r-g; and the Academy of Management, Public
and Nonprofit Division at http://-d-i-v-i-s-i-o-n-.-a-o-m-o-n-l-i-n-e-.-o-r-g-/-p-h-p-/.

Publicness These features in turn all derive from the simple fact that the public or

nonprofit manager is pursuing public purposes. In terms of the actions and

experiences of the public administrator, therefore, we may say that it is the
“publicness” of the work of the public or nonprofit manager that distinguishes public

administration from other similar activities. This view of the administrator’s role

suggests that, as a public or nonprofit manager, you must operate with one eye toward

managerial effectiveness and the other toward the desires and demands of the public.

It recognizes that you are likely to experience an inevitable tension between efficiency

and responsiveness as you work in governmental or nongovernmental organizations,

a tension that will be absolutely central to your work.

Let us highlight some of the implications of this orientation. Many commentators point out

that the distinction between public and private management is no longer simply a distinction

between business and government or between profit and service. In fact, more and more

frequently, we encounter situations in which traditionally public organizations are pursuing
enhanced revenues (profits?), and traditionally private organizations are concerned with the

provision of services. What is important is not merely what is being sought, but rather whose

interest is being served. On this basis, a private enterprise is one in which private interests
privately arrived at are paramount. A public organization, on the other hand, is one in which

public interests publicly arrived at are paramount.

There is a trend in our society for greater openness and responsiveness on the part of many

organizations. Most associations and nonprofit organizations would fit this mold, and

managers in those organizations must certainly be attentive to both efficiency and

responsiveness. But many corporations as well are finding it important to open their

decision-making processes to public scrutiny and involvement. The range of organizations

engaged in public service (and the applicability of public and nonprofit management) seems
ever-increasing.

Certainly this trend has become even more important over the last couple of decades as more

and more public problems require building collaborations or networks involving public,
private, and nonprofit organizations (O’Leary & Bingham, 2009). In part this result has come

about as government staffing has been decreased and more and more services are contracted

out to private and nonprofit organizations. In part it has come about because the

complexities of the problems we face require the involvement of many groups. Building
networks of organizations to address public problems obviously makes solutions more

http://www.napawash.org/

http://www.appam.org/

http://www.icma.org/

Home

http://www.allianceonline.org/

http://www.independentsector.org/

http://division.aomonline.org/pnp/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec1_3_1

difficult. “As more public programs are delivered by private and nonprofit actors, and as

many more public programs rely on intricate public-private-nonprofit partnerships, it is
ever harder to make sure the right dots are connected well” (Kettl, 2009, p. 26). Similarly,

these arrangements make issues of responsibility and accountability more difficult as well,

but they do represent the changing face of public administration that you will encounter.

The Global Context We need to also recognize that changing economic conditions have
combined with technological developments to mean that public administration is no

longer bound by national borders, as the traditional definitions of the field implied.

Today the international dimensions of public administration are more important than

ever. Understanding the activities of political and administrative officials in other
countries is important not only for those who will spend part of their careers outside

the United States, but also for those who will work at home. Increasingly, city

managers, even in small communities, find that to be effective in local economic

development activities, they must be experts in international business. But global

interdependencies will affect us in other ways as well; for example, the deforestation

in Brazil, Africa, and the Philippines will directly affect the quality of our own

environment. And, of course, we cannot overlook our obligation to help reduce
poverty and hunger throughout the world.

Several diverse—indeed, competing—views have emerged relating to this globalization

trend. They range from a critical perspective, in which the trend is seen as an attempt by

developed nations to introduce Western values into other regions, to what supporters
believe to be a chance to extend employment opportunities and wealth creation into

impoverished nations. This latter view suggests that, over time, all of us in the global village

will benefit from the forces of globalization and the internationalization of economic
markets.

The impact of globalization on public administration should not be underestimated.

However, relating to the internationalization process is a pattern that carries perhaps even

greater implications: decentralization. Central governments increasingly are handing over

new powers and responsibilities to local and regional authorities. And in many cases, these

jurisdictions lack the capacity and resources to deal effectively with their newfound

authority.

To better understand these trends, and what they mean for public administration, the

development of more globalized, comparative forms of analysis and practice will be critical.

We will require both an understanding of international issues and a way of more effectively

managing with global issues in our own communities. So as we continue to live in our “global
village,” we will be challenged to deal with opportunities and threats that defy national

boundaries. Our systems of governance, consequently, will need to reflect our concern for

the public interest—both at home and abroad.

We now have a notion of the complexity of work in the public and nonprofit sectors—the
complexity inherent in the technical work of governmental and nongovernmental agencies,

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec1_3_2

but, even more important, the complexity of the political and ethical context in which

managers operate. Indeed, as noted before, this complexity will provide a theme that ties
together many aspects of your work as an administrator. The way you set objectives, the way

you develop budgets and hire personnel, the way you interact with other organizations and

with your own clientele, the way you evaluate the success or failure of your programs—all

of these aspects of your work as an administrator, and many more, are directly affected by
the fact that you will be managing in the public interest.

What Do Public Administrators Do?
An action orientation to public administration requires that we focus on what public and

nonprofit managers actually do—how they act in real-world situations. How do they spend
their time? What skills do they require to do their work well? What are the rewards and

frustrations of public service? From the perspective of the administrator, we can ask, what

characterizes the most effective and responsible public or nonprofit management? What are

the demands on administrators? What are the satisfactions that public managers draw from
their work?

We will approach these issues by concentrating on the skills managers need to accomplish

their work. In a classic article in the Harvard Business Review, Robert Katz provided the first
major descriptions of the general skills all managers need: conceptual, technical, and human

(Katz, 1974):

• Conceptual skills include the ability to think abstractly, especially in regard to the

manager’s concept of the organization. This category also involves the ability to see
the organization as a whole, how all the parts or functions work and fit together, and

how making a change in one part will affect other parts. Conceptual skills also include

the ability to see how the organization, or parts of it, relate to the organization’s

environment.
• Technical skills refer to an understanding of, and proficiency in, the methods,

processes, and techniques for accomplishing tasks. These are, for example, the skills

of an accountant who can conduct an audit or develop an income statement or the
skills of a mechanic who can repair an engine.

• Human skills involve the capacity to work effectively as a member of a group or the

ability to get others to work together effectively. (“Others” may include subordinates,

superiors, managers at the same level, or virtually anyone with whom one might work
on a given project or assignment.)

All these skills are important to managers, but they are not equally important to all

managers. Katz makes a strong argument that technical skills are most important to

managers at the supervisory level who manage day-to-day operations but become less and
less important as the level of management increases. On the other hand, conceptual skills are

most important to top-level managers who must deal with the organization as a whole rather

than with just one or a few parts of it. Conceptual skills are less important at the middle-
management level and least important at the supervisory level.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec2

Human skills, however, maintain a constant, high level of importance; they are critical

regardless of one’s level. How managers’ human skills are employed may vary from level to
level (for example, top managers lead more meetings than supervisory managers), but as a

category, human skills remain the one constant for managerial success. In this book, we will

consider the knowledge and values associated with public management (conceptual skills),

the techniques public managers require in such areas as budgeting and personnel (technical
skills), and the personal and interpersonal qualities that help managers work effectively with

others (human skills).

An Inventory of Public Management Skills

One way to elaborate on an action approach is to create an inventory of the skills and

competencies required for successful public and nonprofit management. There are many

ways such an inventory can be constructed. One of the best ways is to talk with public and

nonprofit managers about their work, as we suggest in exercise 1 at the end of the chapter.
Several research studies have sought to answer this question by identifying the skills that

are critical to managerial success. Of these studies, an early study by the federal

government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is particularly helpful (Flanders &

Utterback, 1985). The OPM study was based on information gathered from a large number
of highly effective federal managers and produced a description of the broad elements of

managerial performance at the supervisory, managerial, and executive levels.

Networking

Websites dealing with management issues at the federal level include the Office of Personnel
Management at -w-w-w-.-o-p-m-.-g-o-v and those services listed at -w-w-w-.-u-s-a-.-g-o-v.

You might also be interested in the websites of the following: Governing magazine at

-w-w-w-.-g-o-v-e-r-n-i-n-g-.-c-o-m; the Chronicle of Philanthropy at

-w-w-w-.-p-h-i-l-a-n-t-h-r-o-p-y-.-c-o-m; Government Executive magazine at

-w-w-w-.-g-o-v-e-x-e-c-.-c-o-m; and The Public Manager at

-w-w-w-.-t-h-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-m-a-n-a-g-e-r-.-o-r-g.

According to the OPM study, the competencies of managers include being sensitive to agency

policies and national concerns; representing the organization and acting as a liaison to those
outside the organization; establishing organizational goals and the processes to carry them

out; obtaining and allocating necessary resources to achieve the agency’s purposes;

effectively utilizing human resources; and monitoring, evaluating, and redirecting the work
of the organization. But the OPM researchers recognized that managerial excellence requires

not only doing the job, but doing it well. For this reason, they developed a set of skills,

attitudes, and perspectives that seemed to distinguish the work of highly successful

managers.

Different skills are required at different levels. As managers move up the organizational

ladder, they must accumulate increasingly broader sets of skills. The researchers suggest, for

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec2_1

http://www.opm.gov/

http://www.usa.gov/

http://www.governing.com/

http://www.philanthropy.com/

http://www.govexec.com/

http://www.thepublicmanager.org/

example, that first-line supervisors must apply communication skills, interpersonal

sensitivity, and technical competence to ensure effective performance on their own part and
within the work unit. In addition, their actions must begin to reflect those characteristics in

the next ring: leadership, flexibility, an action orientation, and a focus on results.

Middle managers, on the other hand, must demonstrate all these characteristics of

effectiveness and begin to acquire the skills listed in the outer ring: a broad perspective, a
strategic view, and environmental sensitivity. Executives at the highest levels of public

service who are responsible for the accomplishment of broad agency objectives must

demonstrate the full complement of effectiveness characteristics to be most successful.

Clearly, a wide diversity of skills, regardless of how the job is constructed or of the style in
which it is executed, will be essential to your success as a manager.

A more recent study by the OPM elaborated the core qualifications expected of the highest-

level government executives, in this case focusing on those characterizing the Senior
Executive Service. This study first presented five executive core qualifications: leading

change, leading people, results driven, business acumen, and building coalitions. These

qualifications were complemented by six “competencies”: interpersonal skills, oral

communication skills, integrity or honesty, written communication skills, continual learning,
and public service motivation

(http://-w-w-w-.-o-p-m-.-g-o-v-/-s-e-s-/-r-e-c-r-u-i-t-m-e-n-t-/-q-u-a-l-i-f-y-.-a-s-p).

Voices of Public Administrators

Studies such as that of the OPM are helpful in understanding what you need to know and

what you must be able to do to be successful in public administration. But how does it

actually “feel” to work in a public or nonprofit organization? The best way to answer this

question is to let some public servants speak for themselves. Not long ago, we spoke to two

outstanding professionals in the field of public administration about their views of the field

and their feelings about their work. The following accounts are based on those interviews.

Jan C. Perkins served for many years as city manager of Fremont, California. When asked
about her motivations for entering the field of public administration, this was her reply:

I was interested in improving the quality of life for all people and increasing the access of

women and minorities. I believed that I could have the most impact by being involved in local

government at a management level.

The most rewarding aspects of my work have been being able to articulate the mission of the

city and focus my resources and efforts in effectively meeting that mission, solving the

problems of residents, and seeing employees grow and develop.

http://www.opm.gov/ses/recruitment/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec2_2

Those considering public service careers should understand that managing in the public

arena is different from that in a private corporation. It requires a commitment to values such
as providing quality services for all and dealing with all people on an equal level. It is very

important that people who enter the public service do so with a high standard of ethical

behavior and an ability to deal honestly and directly with all people.

Michael Stahl works for the federal government in the Environmental Protection Agency. He
reflected on his motivations for public service:

I entered public service because I viewed (and still do) government as an instrument to solve

social problems. Democratic government can be a tremendous positive force in society, and

in spite of recent political rhetoric and prevailing political ideology, I am convinced that the
institutions and programs of government are of vital importance to the nation and that

public service is a noble calling.

If you are considering a career in the public service, take the time to reflect on your
motivation for entering the public service, because there are right reasons and wrong

reasons. You are entering for the right reasons if you want to make a contribution to the

solution of social problems, promote democratic values and ethical standards in using the

powers of government, and if the concept of serving the public good is a passion. You are

entering for the wrong reasons if you are looking for public adulation and recognition for

your accomplishments, seeking material or financial rewards as compensation for your hard

work, or expecting to acquire levels of power and change the world according to your own

plan. Those entering for the wrong reasons will be bitterly disappointed. Yet, for those whose
passion is to contribute to the public good, government service can represent the single most

satisfying way of translating your passion into ideas and events for improving the quality of

life for scores of people.

Read “Confessions of
a Public Service
Junkie” and “The
Value of Public
Service.”

What does this
article say about the
passions and

http://www.cengage.com/

commitments that
motivate public
servants? How
important is it to you
to “make a
difference”?

Obviously, these professionals take very seriously their commitment to serving others. In

making such a commitment, they participate in a long and proud tradition. Indeed, public

service has historically been considered one of the highest callings in our society and has

been even more highly regarded in other countries, such as France and Japan.

Without question, the idea of serving others has enormous appeal, in part because of the

great joy and satisfaction it brings. Those working in public organizations experience almost

daily the rewards of public service.

Why Study Public Administration?
Students come to introductory courses in public administration for many different reasons.

Many students recognize the vast array of positions in government (and elsewhere) that

require training in public administration and hope that the course will provide basic

information and skills that will move them toward careers as public or nonprofit managers.

These students seek to understand the field of public administration, but also to sharpen

their own skills as potential administrators. (See the box “Exploring Concepts: Why Study

Public Administration?”)

Exploring Concepts

WHY STUDY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?

• To prepare for administrative positions
• To combine technical and managerial training

• To help business and government interact

• To influence public organizations as a citizen

Other students, whose interests lie in technical fields as wide-ranging as engineering,

teaching, natural resources, social work, and the fine arts, recognize that at some point in

their careers their jobs may involve management in the public sector. The engineer may

become director of a public works department; the teacher may become school principal;
the natural resources expert may be asked to run an environmental quality program; the

social worker may administer a welfare program; or the fine arts major may direct a publicly

supported gallery or museum. In these cases, and others like them, the individual’s technical

expertise may need to be complemented by managerial training.

Networking

The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration is the accrediting

body for programs in public administration and pursues other educational matters. See its

home page at -w-w-w-.-n-a-s-p-a-a-.-o-r-g and see a list of NASPAA-accredited Master of

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/008_chapter1.xhtml?create=true#ec_14_1

http://www.naspaa.org/

Public Administration programs at

http://-w-w-w-.-n-a-s-p-a-a-.-o-r-g-/-a-c-c-r-e-d-i-t-a-t-i-o-n-/-N-S-/-r-o-s-t-e-r-.-a-s-p.

Other students may have no expectations whatsoever of working in a public agency, but they

recognize that as corporate executives, as businesspeople, or merely as citizens, they are

likely to be called upon to interact with those in public organizations. Someone who owns a

small business might wish to sell products or services to a city, a county, or some other
governmental body; partners in an accounting firm might seek auditing contracts with a local

or state government; or a construction firm might bid on the design and construction of a

new public building. In each case, knowledge of the operations of public agencies would be

not only helpful but essential.

A final group of students, a group overlapping any of the previous three, might simply

recognize the importance of public agencies in the governmental process and the impact of

public organizations on their daily lives. They might wish to acquire the knowledge and skills
that would enable them to more effectively analyze and influence public policy. Some will

find the world of public administration a fascinating field of study in its own right and pursue

academic careers in public affairs. Because understanding the motives for studying public

administration will also give us a more complete view of the variety and importance of
managerial work in the public sector, we will examine each in greater detail.

Read “The Public
Sector as a Career
Choice: Antecedents
of an Expressed
Interest in Working
for the Federal
Government,” by
Dennis Doverspike
et al. There are many
reasons that people
choose to work in
public
administration, and
many of these have
to do with their

http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/NS/roster.asp

http://www.cengage.com/

commitment to
public service and
their wanting to
make a difference in
their communities.
Others have to do
with their personal
experiences growing
up.

Consider your own
motivations and
those of your friends.
What has stimulated
your interest in
public
administration?
Might you consider a
career in federal,
state, or local
government or in a
nonprofit
organization? What
might affect your
choice? How
important is it to you
to make a difference
in your community?

Preparing for Administrative Positions

You may be among those who wish to use the introductory public administration course as
a stepping-stone to a career in public service. If so, you will find that these careers take many

forms. We sometimes make distinctions among program managers, staff managers, and

policy analysts. Program managers range from the executive level to the supervisory level and

are in charge of particular governmental or nongovernmental programs, such as those in

environmental quality or transportation safety. Their job is to allocate and monitor human,

material, and financial resources to meet the service objectives of their agency. Staff managers,

on the other hand, support the work of program managers through budgeting and financial

management, personnel and labor relations, and purchasing and procurement. Meanwhile,
policy analysts provide e important information about existing programs through their

research into the operations and impacts of the programs; moreover, analysts help bring

together information about new programs, assess the possible effects of different courses of
action, and suggest new directions for public policy. Managers and analysts may work with

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec3_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-programmanagers

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-staffmanagers

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-policyanalysts

the chief executive, with the legislature, with officials at other levels of government, and with

the public in framing and reframing public programs.

As we will see, the work of public and nonprofit organizations also encompasses a wide

variety of substantive areas. Think for a moment of the range of activities the federal

government engages in. The federal government touches upon nearly every aspect of

American life, from aeronautics, air transportation, and atmospheric sciences; to helping the
homeless, juvenile delinquents, and migrant workers; to working with waste management,

wage standards, and water quality. In each area, skilled managers are called upon to develop,

implement, and evaluate government programs. But the work of managers at the federal

level represents only a part of the work of those trained in public administration.

At the state and local levels of government, and in the nonprofit sector, even more

opportunities exist. As we will see in Chapter 2, although there is only one federal

government in this country, there are almost 89,000 state and local governments (these
include cities, counties, and special districts) and more than 1.5 million nonprofit

organizations. State and local government employment in this country amounts to almost 15

million persons (compared to under 3 million civilians employed at the federal level), and

nearly 15 million people work for nonprofit organizations.

Obviously, the work of government at the state and local levels is different from that at the

federal level. State and local governments, for example, do not directly provide for the

national defense; however, most have police forces, which the federal government does not

have. There are also other positions at the state and local levels that do not have exact
counterparts at the federal level. For example, the president or chancellor of your state

university is a public administrator with significant and unusual responsibilities; the city

manager in a local community is a professional administrator appointed by a city council to
manage the various functions of local government.

And public service is not limited to work in government. Beyond employment in federal,

state, or local government, those trained in public administration will find many other

opportunities. Directors of nonprofit organizations at the state and local levels, as well as
those in similar associations at the national level, often find that the skills required for their

jobs—skills that combine managerial training with an understanding of the political

system—are the skills developed in public administration courses. Again, to demonstrate the

breadth of these activities, we might note that there are large numbers of nonprofit

associations at the national level alone, ranging from well-known groups such as the

American Medical Association or the American Bar Association, to trade groups such as the

American Frozen Food Institute and the National Association of Bedding Manufacturers, to
professional associations such as the American Society for Public Administration and those

representing a particular field of interest, such as the Metropolitan Opera Guild. There is

even an association of association executives: the American Society of Association

Executives. Beyond these groups at the national level, there are numerous nonprofit groups

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/009_chapter2.xhtml#ch2

operating at state and local levels—for example, local United Way organizations, local food

banks, art leagues, or historic preservation groups.

Finally, those with training in public administration may work in a private corporation’s

public affairs division. Because of the increasing interaction across private, public, and

nongovernmental sectors, corporations and nonprofit organizations often need special

assistance in tracking legislation, developing and monitoring government contracts, and
influencing the legislative or regulatory process. Thus, the combination of managerial and

political skills possessed by someone with training in public administration can be highly

valuable. The career possibilities in the field of public administration are seemingly endless.

Combining Technical and Managerial Training

Many students seek positions in public service as a primary career objective, whereas many

others see the possibility of work in public administration as secondary, but nonetheless

important, to their main field of interest. As noted, the work of government spans many
areas; consequently, the people who work for government (one out of every six people in

this country) come from a wide variety of professional backgrounds. There are engineers

who work in the Defense Department and for NASA at the federal level, in state highway

departments, and in local public works departments. People interested in natural resources
may work for the U.S. Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, in state

conservation departments, and in local parks departments. Medical personnel may work for

the Veterans Administration or the National Institute for Mental Health, for state health

departments, and for local hospitals and health offices.

Governments at all levels hire social workers, planners, personnel specialists, accountants,

lawyers, biologists, law enforcement officers, educators, researchers, recreation specialists,

and agricultural specialists, just to mention a few. To illustrate the magnitude of federal
government employment, over 725,000 work in national defense and foreign affairs, over

700,000 people work in the postal service, 340,000 are employed in health care, and 124,000

financial administrators work for the federal government

(http://-w-w-w-2-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-g-o-v-s-/-a-p-e-s-/-0-9-f-e-d-f-u-n-.-p-d-f).

As mentioned earlier, people who have worked for some time within a technical field in a

public organization are often promoted to managerial positions. A surgeon may become chief

of surgery, a water pollution specialist may be asked to direct a pollution control project, or

a teacher may become a school principal. Despite having started out in a technical field, these
individuals find themselves in a managerial position; they are public administrators. Some

people may desire promotion to a managerial position; others may not. (There are some

jurisdictions in which continued advancement practically requires moving into an

administrative position.) But whatever one’s motivation, the new administrator soon

discovers a completely new world of work. Now the most pressing questions are not the

technical ones, but rather those having to do with management, with program planning and

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec3_2

http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/09fedfun

design, with supervision and motivation, and with balancing scarce resources. Often the

situation is quite bewildering; it’s almost as if one has been asked to change professions in
midcareer from technical expert to public manager.

So many people from technical fields find themselves in managerial positions in the public

sector that many of them seek training in public administration. For this reason, it is no

longer unusual for students majoring in technical fields to take courses in public
administration or for students to combine undergraduate training in a technical field with

graduate training in public administration (even at midcareer). This, then, is a second reason

for studying public administration: to prepare for the eventuality that work in a technical

field of interest might lead you to a managerial position in the public sector.

Interaction of Business and Government

Even for students who never work for a public agency of any type, understanding the

processes of policy formulation and implementation can be enormously helpful. One of the
most important trends in American society is the increasing interaction of business and

government. Clearly, the decisions of government affect the environment in which business

operates, but government also specifically regulates many businesses and, of course, serves

as the biggest single customer of business.

Those in business recognize that governmental decisions affect the economic climate. Most

obvious are the effects of governmental decisions at the federal level. Consider, for example,

the impact of government economic pronouncements on the stock market. State and local

governments, however, also affect the business climate. The governors of many states have

begun major campaigns to attract industry to their states, providing not only information

and advice but also specific incentives for plants and industries that might relocate. Similar

activities are being undertaken in more and more local communities, as cities recognize that
they are in competition for economic development. At a minimum, business recognizes that

the political climate of any locality directly affects the area’s economic climate.

But the influence of government on business is more specific. At the federal level, major

regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade
Commission, provide specific guidelines in which certain businesses must operate.

Moreover, requirements of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration restrict the operations of business so as to

ensure the quality of air and water and the safety of working conditions. Similarly, at the
state level, some agencies directly regulate specific businesses, while others act more

generally to prevent unfair or unsafe practices. Even at the local level, through licensing and

zoning practices, public organizations directly regulate business practice.

Government is also important as a consumer of business products and services. At the

federal level, over $550 billion is spent each year on goods and services; in the Department

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec3_3

of Defense alone, the figure is over $354 billion per year

(http://-w-w-w-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-p-r-o-d-/-2-0-1-0-p-u-b-s-/-c-f-f-r—0-9-.-p-d-f).
Business is attentive to its customers, so it is not surprising that business is attentive to

government!

For all these reasons, people in business are becoming increasingly aware of the need to

understand in detail the work of government—how policies are made, how they are
implemented, and how they may be influenced. Not only are more and more businesses

developing public affairs offices to specialize in governmental operations, track policy

developments, and attempt to influence policy, but they are also placing a greater premium

on having executives at all levels who understand how government agencies operate. Even
if you plan a career in business, understanding the work of public organizations is an

essential part of your training.

Influencing Public Organizations

Any of the motives for studying public administration we have discussed so far may bring

you to an introductory course. There is, however, another more general reason you may wish

to study public administration: to understand one important aspect of the governmental

process so you can deal effectively with public issues that directly affect your life. We are all
affected by the work of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, so it is helpful,

and sometimes even essential, to understand the operations of these organizations.

We have become so accustomed to the pervasiveness of public service and the range of its

influence that we sometimes forget just how often our lives are touched by public and

nonprofit organizations. Imagine a typical day: We wake up in the morning to the sounds of

a commercially regulated radio station or National Public Radio coming over a patented and

Federal Communications Commission-registered clock radio operating on power supplied
by either a government-regulated power company or a public utility. We brush our teeth

with toothpaste produced under a government patent and trust that it has been judged safe

(if not effective) by a federal agency. We use municipally operated water and sewer systems

without thinking of the complexity of their operation. We dress in clothes produced under
governmental restrictions and eat food prepared in accordance with government

regulations and inspected by the government. We drive on a public highway, following

government-enforced traffic laws, to a university substantially funded by federal, state, and

sometimes local dollars to study from books copyrighted and catalogued by the Library of
Congress. Though the day has hardly begun, our lives already have been touched by public

organizations in a multitude of ways.

The importance of public administration in daily life is tremendous; consequently, the

decisions made by governmental and nongovernmental officials (and not just elected

officials) can affect us directly. Imagine, for example, that one day you discover that the loan

program that is helping to finance your college education is being reviewed and will likely

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/cffr-09

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec3_4

be revised in such a way that you will no longer be eligible for funding. In this case, you might

well want to take some action to maintain your eligibility. Obviously, knowing something
about the operations of government agencies, especially some of the ways administrative

decisions can be influenced, would be of great help.

As citizens affected by the public service, understanding the operations of public and

nonprofit organizations is helpful; it is even more important if one becomes personally
involved in some aspect of the governmental process. For those reading this book, such

involvement is actually rather likely. Indeed, if you are a college graduate, regardless of your

major or field of interest, chances are quite good that at some point in your life you will

engage in some kind of formal governmental activity. You may be elected to local, state, or
national office; you may be asked to serve on a board or commission; or your advice

concerning government operations in your area may be sought in other ways. You may also

become involved in the work of nonprofit organizations or charities in your local community.

In any of these cases, a thorough knowledge of the structure and processes of public

organizations, both government and nonprofit organizations, will be of great importance.

Finally, those who are interested in understanding the work of public or nonprofit

organizations may indeed find the field of public administration interesting from a more
academic standpoint: studying and commenting on the operations of government and

nonprofit organizations contribute to our understanding of the process of policy

development and support the work of those in public organizations. The opportunities for

academic careers in public administration, positions involving teaching and research, are
many, and you may find yourself drawn to those opportunities. Even here, however, one

begins with a concern for action.

What Would You Do?

You are the executive director of the Parents Anonymous organization in your area. Your
organization is devoted to preventing child abuse and strengthening families. Recently one

of your traditional sources of funding was terminated. You are faced with the prospect of

reducing staff (and services) or coming up with new revenues. What would you do?

Making Things Happen

Of the many reasons to learn about public and nonprofit organizations, one theme seems to

tie together the various interests: an interest in making things happen. Whether you are

preparing for a career in the public sector with the possibility that you might someday
manage a public agency, or simply preparing to influence the course of public policy and its

implementation as it directly affects you or your business, your interest is in taking action

and influencing what goes on in public and nonprofit organizations. It’s one thing to gain

knowledge of the field in the abstract, but most students want to learn those things that will

make them more effective actors in the governmental process. Some of the more prominent

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec3_5

actors are discussed in the box “Public Administration in History: Public Service: A

Distinguished Profession.”

Public Administration in History

PUBLIC SERVICE: A DISTINGUISHED PROFESSION

For my part, when I think of government service, in uniform and out, I think of individual
men and women of genuine distinction who have served this country over the years and also

of the amazing diversity of a service that can range from defending our borders to delivering

our mail, curing disease to exploring outer space. I was looking at a civil service publication

the other day containing an alphabetical list of well-known employees through the years
“and found it began with a career civil servant named Neil Armstrong who went on TDY

(temporary duty) to the moon” and concluded several pages later with Walt Whitman, the

poet, who worked in the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Attorney [General’s office].
How’s that for diversity? Incidentally, the group also included four Nobel Prize winners and

several important inventors, including Alexander Graham Bell, who among his other

associations worked for the Census Bureau. There also were some other familiar names of

people who shared your proud profession: Clara Barton, Washington Irving, Abraham
Lincoln, Charles Lindbergh, Knute Rockne, Harry Truman, and James Whistler, to name but

a few.

In my own experience, as one who served the federal government for some years, I look back

on those periods as among the most exciting, challenging, and thoroughly demanding in life.
I have often said, and still say, that I never worked harder than I did in my years as a public

servant. I worked alongside some of the finest, most competent, thoroughly committed

people I have ever known. I realize this does not comport with everything that you read in

the papers or see on television, but I never miss a chance to point it out. My own experience

in government left me with an abiding respect for the men and women who serve this nation

as public employees.

SOURCE: Norman R. Augustine, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Martin Marietta
Corporation, Address to the Federal Executive Board, Denver, Colorado, April 26, 1989.

Text provided by the Council for Excellence in Government, Washington, D.C.

This book is geared toward action, toward how to make things happen in public service. Our

perspective will be that of the actor, not the scholar, although an understanding of the world
of administrative action is the basis for good scholarship as well. Action first requires a base

of knowledge; there are certain things that you simply need to know about government and

the administrative process to be effective. There are also value questions that must be settled
in the course of making and carrying out public decisions. And, finally, there are both

technical and interpersonal skills you must acquire to be effective in working with others in

your chosen field. Selecting an action orientation, therefore, commits you to emphasizing all

three areas: the knowledge, values, and skills that will help you to become more effective and

responsible in your work with “real-life” public organizations.

Issues in Public Administration Theory and Practice
Throughout the chapters to come, our primary emphasis will be on action—those things that

real-world actors do to be successful in public and nonprofit organizations. But action never

stands alone. Without some degree of reflection, action is sterile and unguided. For this
reason, we will outline two themes that have traditionally characterized work in public

organizations and that continue to be of great importance today. As such, these themes—of

politics and administration and of bureaucracy and democracy—provide a part of the

intellectual and practical context of public administration. Although our purpose is to simply
introduce these two themes, we suggest that they are most often manifest in contemporary

public administration as a tension between efficiency and responsiveness. This tension is

absolutely central to the work of public administrators today, and we will return to it

frequently in our discussions of administrative action.

Politics and Administration

Even though the supposed dichotomy between politics and administration is one of the

oldest issues in public administration, it continues to hold great relevance for administrators
today. You will recall that an early essay by Woodrow Wilson framed the initial study of

public administration in this country. In addition to emphasizing businesslike practices,

Wilson was concerned with isolating the processes of administration from the potentially

corrupting influences of politics. He wrote, “Administration lies outside the proper sphere of
politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks

for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices” (Wilson, 1887, p. 210).

In other words, although policies were to be debated and decided by politicians, they were
to be carried out by a politically neutral, professional bureaucracy. In this way, the everyday

conduct of government would be isolated from the potentially corrupting influence of

politics.

Other early writers joined Wilson in talking, at least analytically, about the distinction
between politics (or policy) and administration. More practical reformers went further,

creating governmental forms, such as the council-manager plan for local government, that

were based on a separation of policy and administration. As we will see later, in this form of

government, the council presumably makes the policy and the city manager carries it out.
The council is engaged in politics (or policy) and the manager in administration.

Over the first few decades of this century, however, the distinction between policy and

administration was increasingly broken down, even in council-manager governments.

Managers found that they had expertise that was needed by policy makers and began to be

drawn into the policy process. By about the middle of the century, Paul Appleby of Syracuse

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec4_1

University would write simply, “Public administration is policy-making” (Appleby, 1949, p.

170).

The increasing involvement of administrators in the policy process was in part attributable

to the fact that the operations of government—and in contemporary society, of nonprofit

organizations—were becoming more complex, and the technical and professional skills

needed to operate public agencies were dramatically increasing. As people with such skills
and expertise became a part of public organizations, they were inevitably called upon to

present their views. At the same time, the legislative branches of government (at all levels)

found it difficult to be knowledgeable about every detail of government and, consequently,

were forced to rely more and more on the expertise of those in public agencies. Additionally,
the complexity of government meant that legislative bodies often found it necessary to state

laws in general terms, leaving those within government agencies with considerable

discretion to interpret those laws as they saw fit and, therefore, make policy daily.

Ensuring Accountability The acknowledgment of the interaction of politics and

administration does not make the question of their relationship any easier. If public

administrators make policy, how can we be sure that the policies they make are

responsible to the people (as we would expect in a democratic society)? Presumably,
legislators must be at least somewhat responsive, or, come the next election, they will

no longer be legislators. But what of administrators?

What Would You Do?

You have served three years as head of your state’s human services agency. In general, your

relationship with the governor has been quite good, and your relationship with the

legislature (which is dominated by the governor’s party) has been congenial as well.

Recently, however, there has been a move in the legislature to reduce funding for a child-

care program you think is essential to finding and maintaining employment for women on
welfare. What would you do?

Traditionally, the answer was that the administrators were accountable to the legislators,

who, in turn, were accountable to the people. But even that argument is somewhat tricky

today. Those in public and nonprofit agencies do indeed both work with and report to
legislatures (or boards), but they also shape public opinion through the information they

provide. They mobilize for support inside and outside government and bargain with a variety

of public and private groups. To a certain extent, they act as independent agents.

For this reason, more contemporary discussions of accountability (which we will elaborate
on in Chapter 4) place an emphasis on measures that would supplement accountability to

the legislature by either seeking a strong subjective sense of responsibility on the part of

administrators or by providing structural controls to ensure responsibility. As we will see,
some people have tried to assert professional standards in public and nonprofit

organizations, while others have developed codes of ethics and standards of professional

practice. Others have sought greater legislative involvement in the administrative process or

more substantial legislative review. Still others have described mechanisms such as public

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec4_1_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#ch4

participation in the administrative process or surveys of public opinion that would bring the

administrator in closer alignment with the sentiments of the citizenry (something we will
discuss further in Chapter 11).

The relationship between politics (or policy) and administration will be a theme that recurs

throughout the remainder of this book. Although the classic dichotomy between politics and

administration has become less distinct as the role of public administrators in the policy
process has become more apparent, the question of the relationship between politics and

administration remains central, simply because it goes to the heart of what public

administration is all about. If public organizations differ from other organizations in our

society, that difference must surely rest in the way public organizations participate in and
respond to the public interest. But that issue merely leads us to another: the relationship

between bureaucracy and democracy.

Bureaucracy and Democracy

A second theme that grew from early discussions of public administration had to do with the

potential for conflict between democracy and bureaucracy. Let’s start once again with

democracy. One writer has defined the moral commitments of a democracy in terms of three

standards. First, democratic principles assume that the individual is the primary measure of
human value and that the development of the individual is the primary goal of a democratic

political system. Second, democratic morality suggests that all persons are created equal—

that differences in wealth, status, or position should not give one person or group an

advantage over another. Third, democratic morality emphasizes widespread participation

among the citizens in the making of major decisions (Redford, 1969, p. 8).

Set against these tenets of democracy are the ideals of bureaucratic management. The early

scholars and practitioners in public administration were, of course, writing at a time when
businesses were growing rapidly and beginning to use more complicated technologies and

new ways of organizing appropriate to those technologies. To some extent the public sector

looked to the field of business for models of organization. It found that the growth of large-

scale business had led to the development of large and complex bureaucratic organizations,
organizations that were built around values quite different from those of democracy.

(Although the term bureaucracy is often used in a pejorative sense, as in “bureaucratic red

tape,” we will use it here in its more neutral and scientific sense: as a way of organizing work.)

Consequently, the bureaucratic model of organizing was brought into the public sector.

The values of bureaucracy included first the need to bring together the work of many

individuals in order to achieve purposes far beyond the capabilities of any single individual.

Second, bureaucratic systems were to be structured hierarchically, with those at the top

having far greater power and discretion than those at the bottom. Third, bureaucratic

organization generally assumes that power and authority flow from the top of the

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/018_chapter11.xhtml#ch11

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec4_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-representativebureaucracy

organization to the bottom rather than the other way around. (We will examine the concept

of bureaucracy in greater detail in Chapter 5.)

In contrast to the democratic value of individuality, there stood the bureaucratic value of the

group or organization; in contrast to the democratic values of equality, there stood the

bureaucratic hierarchy; and in contrast to the democratic values of participation and

involvement, there stood the bureaucratic value of top-down decision making and authority.

How these values were to be reconciled became a difficult issue for early scholars and

practitioners in the field of public administration, as it continues to be today. A variety of

questions are raised. For example, is it proper for a democratic government to carry out its

work through basically authoritarian organizations? The key issue turns out to be an
emphasis on efficiency as the sole measure of agency success.

Efficiency versus Responsiveness

Those in public administration have long wrestled with the issues of politics and
administration and of democracy and bureaucracy. Public and increasingly nonprofit

managers have begun to experience these tensions more frequently in the day-to-day

problems they face in terms of efficiency versus responsiveness. Indeed, in a sense, the two

earlier issues seem to have dissolved into the single issue of efficiency versus
responsiveness. On the one hand, there is the hope that public and nonprofit organizations

will operate in the most efficient way possible, getting things done quickly and at the least

cost to taxpayers and donors. On the other hand, public managers must be constantly

attentive to the demands of the citizenry, whether those demands are expressed through the

chief executive, through the legislature, or directly.

A practical and contemporary expression of this difficulty is presented in case study number

5 at the end of the chapter. (You might want to read it now.) The case relates a dispute that

arose in the course of developing a new housing loan program. Although the case presents

several different issues, most students reviewing the case focus their attention on the

different interpretations that John and Carol have of their work. At first glance, John appears

to be solely interested in doing things efficiently, while Carol appears to be much more
concerned with responding to the needs of the client group. The case appears to be a classic

illustration of the tension between efficiency and responsiveness, and indeed it is. But at a

deeper level, the case also illustrates how complex the issues really are. You might say, for

example, that John was trying to be efficient in response to the demands of those clients who
had been waiting for their loans to be processed. You might also say that Carol, through her

educational efforts, was helping to ensure a more efficient, long-term operation.

The main point, of course, is that in public organizations, you may frequently encounter

difficulties in reconciling efficiency and responsiveness. A key to resolving the ethical

questions raised in situations such as that faced by John and Carol is (1) understanding the

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/012_chapter5.xhtml#ch5

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec4_3

various moral values represented on each side of the equation and then (2) engaging in

ethical deliberation (and perhaps dialogue) to arrive at a proper approach to the problem.
Interestingly enough, in this particular case, the real-life characters represented by John and

Carol got together and talked through the differences in their respective approaches. The

result was a course of action they both agreed on, one they felt met their obligations to be

both efficient and responsive. In the real world, dialogue sometimes works!

To summarize this point, the themes of politics and administration and of bureaucracy and

democracy have marked much of the history of the field of public administration. Today

these themes seem often to manifest in the tension between efficiency and responsiveness.

Are public agencies to concentrate only on creating the desired outcomes in the most
efficient manner possible? Or should such agencies be responsive to the public interest and

the public will, even though the public interest and the public will may not have been

explicitly articulated by elected officials, especially those in the legislature? Time after time,

you’ll find evidence of this tension in discussions on public policy, human resources

management, budgeting and financial management, and so on. The tension between

efficiency and responsiveness remains an “unsolved mystery” of public administration. But

perhaps for that reason, it is a tension that helps make public administration such a
fascinating and dynamic field.

Summary and Action Implications
As noted, our focus in this book is on the individual administrator or the individual citizen

seeking to influence public policy through the agencies of government or through other
public and nongovernmental organizations. We consider in some detail the institutions,

processes, and techniques required for work in the public and nonprofit sectors. But, most

importantly, we examine the “real world” of public administration, the world as experienced

by the administrator.

That world, as we have seen, is one for which you will need to develop certain capabilities to

operate effectively and responsibly. Among these we include an understanding of the

institutions and processes of government; an appreciation of the values underlying public
service; technical skills in such areas as program design, budgeting, and personnel;

interpersonal skills in communications, leadership, and decision making; and a capacity to

“put it all together” to integrate knowledge, skills, and values appropriately.

Ideally, in studying the issues discussed in this book, you will develop a good sense of the

political context of public administration; a sound understanding of your role in both policy

development and policy implementation; a sensitivity to the moral and ethical questions

inherent in the notion of public service; technical competence in areas such as planning and

program development, budgeting, personnel, and performance management; facility with
interpersonal relationships (including leadership, decision making, and communications);

and the self-confidence and self-awareness to act effectively and responsibly in real-life

situations. Though public administration in the abstract sometimes appears lifeless and

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec5

remote, the real world of the practicing public administrator is a quite lively and interesting

place, filled with challenging problems and unique opportunities.

STUDY QUESTIONS
Discuss some of the career opportunities available to those trained in public

administration.

• “One of the most important trends in American society is the increasing interaction

of business and government.” This quotation signals the need for better recognition

and understanding of the interactions between business and government. Discuss the

importance of this interaction and why a clear understanding of the relationship
between the public and private sector is necessary.

• The differences between public administration and business management are

profound. Explain how the two fields are alike and how they differ. Why are the two

terms not interchangeable?
• How did early scholars, such as Woodrow Wilson, view the role of public

administration in a democracy?

• The term democracy can be interpreted in a variety of ways. What significant concepts
helped form the democratic society within which American government operates?

• What is the role of “publicness” in defining the work of public and nonprofit

managers?

CASES AND EXERCISES
• Interview a public administrator. Locate one or more people who work as managers

or analysts in a public or nonprofit organization and interview them. The

interviewees might work for a public university, local government, state or federal
agency, or nonprofit organization. They might be a university administrator, a city

manager or department director (public works or parks and recreation), a county

official (such as a county clerk), a manager in state government (perhaps someone in
a welfare office or a highway department), a federal government manager (in a local

office of a department such as Social Security, Agriculture, or the Federal Aviation

Administration), or someone who works in a local, state, or national nonprofit

association. They might be a program manager, a staff manager, or a policy analyst.

• Ask the people you interview to describe their jobs, including the range of

responsibilities they have and the knowledge, values, and skills that are important to

them in their work. The following are some examples of questions you might want to

ask:

o Describe the work you do and how you came to this position. What is your

educational and work background?

o What impact does the work you do have on the community/state/nation/and

so on?

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec6

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-democracy

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch1-sec7

o What do you find different or unusual about working in a public organization?

How do you think your job compares to other jobs at a comparable level in
business or industry?

o What knowledge, values, and skills are important to your work? For instance,

if you were hiring someone to take your place, what would you look for?

• Consider the following case. As an administrative assistant in the Department of
Finance of a midsize suburban community, you are asked by the director to contract

with an accounting firm to audit the books of the ten major city departments. You

develop a request for bids, advertise in the local newspaper, and send written notices

to all the local accounting firms. In response, you receive five proposals, four from
local firms and one from a Big Eight accounting firm based in a nearby city. The

proposals are essentially the same with respect to cost and expected quality of work.

However, one firm, Jones and Denham, appears to have considerably more

experience, having done similar audits locally in the past. Having gathered all the

information you feel you need to make a decision, you make an appointment to report

to the director early Tuesday morning. At lunch on Monday, however, a friend who

knows you are working on the auditing contract casually mentions that a certain Mr.
Howard of the Firm T. P. Howard and Co. is the brother-in-law of the mayor. T. P.

Howard and Co. is one of the five firms that have submitted bids for the auditing

contract. Later that afternoon, you receive a call from the mayor, asking for a report

on the auditing contract. What do you say to the mayor? What do you recommend be
done about the contract? What does this case say about the relationship between

business and government?

• Consider the following case. There wasn’t much that David Wood couldn’t do. He was

an excellent teacher, a dedicated scholar, and a good department chair. He had been

called to the chancellor’s office to comment on a new curriculum proposal, one his

faculty and he had discussed, and one they firmly opposed. The chancellor began the

meeting by commenting on the excellent administrative work that David had been
doing and on the possibility that he might be considered for a deanship that was

opening up soon. David had always wanted to be a dean. He voiced very mild

objection to the curriculum proposal and then promised to try to convince his faculty

to support it.

• Moving from an academic position into an administrative position or from any

technical position into an administrative position puts you in a different world, one

with greater complexity and different pressures. What are some of the factors that
affect those holding managerial jobs as opposed to technical jobs?

• Consider the following case. Recently fraternities and sororities at a major mid-

western university were informed that the property tax classification for their houses

was being changed from “residential” to “commercial,” a change that would increase

the assessed values of the properties from 19 percent to 32 percent and would cost

the Greek houses thousands of dollars in new taxes. The Greeks felt the change was

inappropriate because, as one member stated, “There’s not a fraternity or sorority on

campus that makes a profit.” On the other hand, a county official pointed out that the
houses contain more than “four dwelling units,” as the law describes it. Moreover,

fraternities and sororities are probably not residential enterprises and are definitely

not agricultural ones (as specified in the law), so they are relegated to the third “catch-

all” category, “commercial and all others.”

• If you were advising the Greek organizations as to how they might seek relief, what

would you recommend? What kind of action should they take? Where should an

appeal originate? How might it proceed?

• As you consider the following case, remember the discussion under “Efficiency versus
Responsiveness” earlier in this chapter. John Taylor and Carol Langley worked for a

local, nonprofit community development agency. Following a rather massive

reorganization of the agency in which a number of new programs were taken on, John
was asked to supervise a new housing loan program and Carol was asked to assist

him. The program was designed to provide low-interest loans to people in

rehabilitating housing in certain parts of the city. Although John and Carol had

experience in related areas, neither was familiar with this particular program. To
make matters worse, seminars to provide help in establishing such programs had

been held some months earlier. John and Carol were simply given a manual and told

to begin.

• The program involved a number of new activities and took considerable time to set
up. For example, it was necessary to train new housing inspectors to coordinate their

inspection activities with those provided by the city government, and relationships

had to be established with the other public and nonprofit agencies that would provide
information about the applicants being processed.

• John soon began receiving considerable pressure to complete the processing of the

first group of applications within a brief period of time. For one thing, the first group

of applicants consisted of some forty people who had originally applied for other
programs but had been turned down. Because their applications had been on file in

the agency for as long as one year, they were quite anxious to have their applications

processed quickly. Initial visits and phone calls from several of the applicants made

John quite aware of their feelings. In addition, however, John knew that this particular

loan program would have a significant impact on the community and that,

consequently, his doing an efficient job under these difficult circumstances would be

important both to the agency and to his own future in public service.

• Carol recognized the necessity to do the work as quickly as possible, but she also felt

a special obligation to the applicants themselves. She took seriously the agency

director’s comment that the agency could use this opportunity to help “educate” the

applicants about the procedures involved in such projects. She felt it was very
important to check periodically on the inspections, cost estimates, loan amounts,

financial information, and terms and conditions of the loans. Unlike John, who spent

most of his time in the office, she talked frequently with the applicants, many of whom
she knew personally from her previous position in the agency.

• For each applicant, John and Carol were to accumulate a complete file of information

about the financial status and rehabilitation project the applicant had in mind. This

file was to be received and signed by the applicant, then forwarded to the federal
regional office of HUD for further action.

• John felt the process could be completed more quickly if Carol would simply get the

applicants to sign a blank set of forms that could be kept at the office. When

information was received regarding a loan, the appropriate items could be entered
on the signed forms, bypassing the time involved reviewing each form with the

applicant. Also, this procedure would eliminate the often lengthy process of

coordinating several office visits to discuss the material.

• When John asked Carol to obtain the signed forms, she refused. Not only was she

concerned that the applicants see and understand the materials before signing, but

she was also afraid that getting people to sign blank forms might be illegal. When she

talked with John’s supervisor about the request, she was told that the procedure was

not illegal and had been used before by people in the regional office. Do you agree

with John or Carol? Why? What should happen next?

PERSONAL ACTION IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS

What Is Public Administration?
Values of Democracy
Public Administration in History
THE DEMOCRATIC DREAM
Contrasting Business and Public Administration
Exploring Concepts
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IS DIFFERENT FROM BUSINESS
What Would You Do?
Thinking about Public Administration Today
Networking

What Do Public Administrators Do?
An Inventory of Public Management Skills
Networking
Voices of Public Administrators
Why Study Public Administration?
Exploring Concepts
WHY STUDY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?
Networking
Preparing for Administrative Positions
Combining Technical and Managerial Training
Interaction of Business and Government
Influencing Public Organizations
What Would You Do?
Making Things Happen
Public Administration in History
PUBLIC SERVICE: A DISTINGUISHED PROFESSION
Issues in Public Administration Theory and Practice
Politics and Administration
What Would You Do?
Bureaucracy and Democracy
Efficiency versus Responsiveness
Summary and Action Implications
STUDY QUESTIONS
CASES AND EXERCISES

THEPOLITICAL CONTEXT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Your involvement in public organizations, whether in your career or as a private citizen, will
inevitably center on the development, implementation, and evaluation of public policies. You
may work for an agency charged with devising new approaches to familiar problems, you
may want to see that a particular policy or proposal is framed in a way that is consistent with
your beliefs, or you may simply want to better understand the implications of a particular
direction in national, state, or local public policy. In any case, it will be helpful for you to know
how public policies are designed and put into practice.

Talk of public policy is, of course, quite familiar. From one day to another, we hear criticisms

of the U.S. policy in the Middle East, proposals for new initiatives in health care, calls for a
more effective drug enforcement policy, challenges to a school district’s approach to violence

in the schools, ideas for changing a city’s policy toward the homeless, or proposals for

altering an organization’s hiring practices. Uses of the term policy are varied, and the process

by which policies are developed is even more complex.

We may think of a a as a statement of goals and intentions with respect to a particular

problem or set of problems, a statement often accompanied by a more detailed set of plans,

programs, or instructions for pursuing those goals. Public policies are authoritative
statements made by legitimate governmental actors (the chief executive, the legislature,

public agencies) or nongovernmental actors (nonprofit organizations, foundations, quasi-

governmental organizations, private corporations) about important, and sometimes not so

important, public problems. We expect decision makers at all levels to spend considerable

time and energy dealing with such topics as foreign affairs, health, education, employment,

the economy, civil rights, the environment, energy, transportation, housing, agriculture, law

enforcement, and myriad other issues. But in each of these areas, public policy is simply what

an agency or an entire network of public, private, and nonprofit organizations decides to do or
not do.

Organizations in all sectors are deeply involved in carrying out public policy—executing or

“implementing.” But these organizations are also involved in developing policy.
Governmental and nongovernmental organizations play an important role in shaping public

policy. Proposals are written and submitted by agency personnel; testimony and other

expert advice are presented; and representatives of various agencies, especially political

appointees who head agencies, often seek to build public support for particular ideas. Those
in government agencies, and increasingly in nonprofit organizations, are often asked to

elaborate on or clarify legislative intentions, and, in doing so, they continue the process of

policy development.

Moreover, public, private, and nonprofit organizations not only develop policies that guide

their own activities, but they also seek to influence the course of public policy on behalf of

their members or other constituencies. Many such groups limit their activities to providing

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-policy

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-publicpolicy

public information and seeking to indirectly affect the formation of policies in their area of

interest. But others are far more direct, employing lobbyists and others whose specific job is
to influence the policy process.

To understand the conduct of specific public and nonprofit organizations in the policy

process, you must have some understanding of the context in which these organizations

operate. That context is not merely physical; it includes the beliefs and values that shape our
expectations of the organizations as well as the structures we have developed to try to

maintain those values. In large part, the complexity of the policy process in this country is

the result of the Founding Fathers’ fear of concentrated power, a fear they sought to allay by

organizing the federal government into three branches—executive, legislative, and
judicial—so that no one branch could exert itself above the others. In this formulation, the

primary task of the legislative branch is to make the laws, the primary task of the executive

branch is to carry out the laws, and the primary task of the judicial branch is to interpret the

laws. As we will see, our political system has evolved in such a way that the relations between

and among the various branches, and between governmental and nongovernmental

institutions, remain a central issue in conducting public programs. This chapter focuses on

the relations between public administrators and the executive, the legislature, and the
judiciary as they work together to seek important policy goals.

Administrative Organizations and Executive Leadership
As we saw in Chapter 1, public administrators work in federal, state, and local governments

and in nonprofit organizations and associations. But, understandably, the federal
government, simply by virtue of its size and the range of its activities, has become the model

against which others are often judged. For that reason, we begin our discussion of the

political context of American public administration by examining the development of the

national administrative system and the role of the chief executive in that system.

Again it is helpful to begin with a brief historical review, primarily because some of the

arguments that characterized discussions of administration in the early days of our nation

are quite similar to those that continue to confront us. Take, for example, the difference
between the Federalist view, expressed most forcefully by Alexander Hamilton, and that of

the Jeffersonians, led by (you guessed it!) Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton and his Federalist

colleagues argued for a strong centralized government, staffed and managed by men of

wealth, class, and education. “The Federalist preference for the executive branch was a
faithful reflection of their distrust of the people. An intelligent perception of sound public

policy, in their view, could come only from well-educated men of affairs, men with trained

minds and broad experience—in short from the upper classes” (White, 1948, p. 410

The Jeffersonians, on the other hand, saw the administration of government as intimately
connected to the problem of extending democracy throughout the nation. They thus

preferred a more decentralized approach to the executive function and sought formal legal

controls on the executive so that executive power would not be abused (Caldwell, 1964).
These democratic views reached their pinnacle in the administration of Andrew Jackson,

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/008_chapter1.xhtml#ch1

known for its openness to the “common man.” But the Jacksonian era was also notable for

extension and formalization of the administrative apparatus of government; the
administration of government began to form “a link between the nation’s political

authorities and its citizens” (Crenson, 1975, p. 10; see also Nelson, 1982).

Despite these developments, the president’s role as chief executive officer, the head of the

federal bureaucracy, was not clearly established until well into the twentieth century, when
Franklin Roosevelt was able to assert his administrative management of the executive

branch and to set a model for all the presidents who have followed him. Some changes were

inevitable: the growing size and scope of governmental activity simply required greater

attention to management and organization. Other changes reflected a greater understanding
of the administrative process and how the work of government might be accomplished more

effectively.

In 1936, President Roosevelt appointed a committee on administrative management,
chaired by Louis Brownlow, that included a number of respected scholars and practitioners

in the emerging field of public administration. The Brownlow committee concluded that “the

president needs help” and recommended a series of possible steps to improve the

president’s management of the executive branch (Karl, 1963). Though initially sidetracked
in the wake of the president’s attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court, the major

recommendations of the Brownlow committee were finally approved in the Reorganization

Act of 1939. This act authorized the president to take the initiative in reshaping and

reorganizing the executive branch, subject only to congressional veto. The Reorganization
Act also allowed President Roosevelt to create the Executive Office of the President,

composed of six assistants, to give the president the help he needed. (The Executive Office of

the President continues today, but now it employs about 2,000 people.)

All presidents since Roosevelt have continued to assert their executive power in various

ways. President Nixon sought to further centralize managerial power in the White House;

President Carter sought greater managerial responsiveness through the Civil Service Reform

Act. President Reagan and the first President Bush pursued the same ends by extending

political control further into the bureaucracy while also developing programs to reduce costs

and increase productivity.

President Clinton acted on his promises to streamline government and improve quality and

productivity through implementation of the National Performance Review (NPR), an

initiative aimed at increasing trust in government through a broad range of improvements

in government quality and productivity as well as through reductions in the size of

government. First presented in 1993 and implemented over several years, the NPR made
hundreds of recommendations aimed at cutting red tape and regulations, empowering

federal employees to make decisions while holding them accountable for results, and

emphasizing service to “customers.” Although the NPR ended in January 2001, the larger

“Reinventing Government” movement of which it was a part has become a central theme in

discussions of public and nonprofit reform, which will be discussed in more detail in later

chapters.

President George W. Bush introduced substantial changes in management practices through

the President’s Management Agenda (PMA), an initiative aimed at improving management

and performance through strategic management of human capital, budget and performance

integration, improved financial performance, expanded e-government, and competitive
sourcing. However, his reforms did not stop with management practices. Bush’s decisions on

national intelligence, including the establishment of the new Department of Homeland

Security and his initiatives in international affairs (primarily the Iraq and Afghanistan

interventions), constituted “the most far-reaching reorganization of the executive branch
since the National Security Act of 1947” (Pfiffner, 2007, pp. 14–15) and gave him a great deal

of success in extending presidential powers.

Whereas his predecessors came into office with high-profile plans for reforming
government, President Obama’s approach has been much more subdued. The global

economic problems and contentious political environment that marked the beginning of the

Obama administration may have led the new president toward a more pragmatic approach

to management changes (Vlk, 2011). Early efforts focused on reforms in government
contracting and outsourcing, the creation of a performance management initiative, the

increased use of technology to connect with citizens, and a drive toward increasing

transparency by making huge amounts of government data available online. One strategy

that President Obama has employed is that of “setting broad principles on big issues—the
stimulus, climate change, health care reform—and then tossing the debate back to Congress

to resolve” (Kettl, 2010, p. 287). And while this strategy has drawn a great deal of criticism,

it resulted in a stimulus package, the adoption of health-care reform, and “some movement
on climate change” (Kettl, 2010, p. 287).

Neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney said very much during their 2012 presidential

campaigns about management reform in the federal government, but both face the difficult

problem of reducing the deficit and curbing spending. Obama is seeking a balanced tax plan

that involves spending cuts and making sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share

of taxes.

One important tool that presidents have employed is the executive order, a presidential

mandate directed to and governing, with the effect of law, the actions of government officials

and government agencies. Over time, the executive order has become a chief instrument of

presidential power. President Obama, for example, used one of his early executive orders (no.

13507, April 8, 2009) to create the White House Office of Health Reform to coordinate his
administration’s efforts to reform the nation’s health-care system. In this case and many others

like it, the president essentially makes law by decree, occasionally in direct opposition to the

wishes of Congress and constituent groups.

Another way in which presidents increasingly have sought to expand their authority is
through the use of high-level appointees, termed “czars,” who are assigned responsibility for

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-executiveorder

specific policy issues. These appointees “have the president’s trust as well as his ear, and

thus the ability to effect significant change on the important policy task to which they have
been assigned” (Villalobos & Vaughn, 2010, p. 5). However, because they are not subject to

Senate approval and report only to the president, critics charge that these czars hold too

much power (Buss, Balutis, & Ink, 2011). President Obama in particular came under fire from

Congress and the media for the number of czars he appointed, although some observers
argue that Obama’s use of czars did not differ dramatically from that of his immediate

predecessor.

In fact, czars have been used by nearly every president since Franklin Roosevelt, when the

creation of the Executive Office of the President in 1939 opened the door for such
appointments, although the use of czars in the ensuing decades was limited until the Clinton

administration. The number of czars grew exponentially under George W. Bush, a practice

that has been continued in the Obama administration. Villalobos and Vaughn (2010) note

that, together, Bush and Obama represent a significant shift in the use of these appointees,

and they argue that this “rise of presidential policy czars has not occurred in isolation, but

rather is part of a comprehensive pattern that includes centralization/politicization, signing

statements, executive orders, secrecy, etc., that reflects the increasing untenability of the role
and responsibility of the American presidency” (p. 31).

The president, as chief executive officer of the federal government, exercises power over an

enormous and wide-ranging set of public organizations. In 2010, there were some 2.8 million

civilians employed by the federal government and another 1.6 million uniformed military
personnel

(http://-w-w-w-.-o-p-m-.-g-o-v-/-f-e-d-d-a-t-a-/-H-i-s-t-o-r-i-c-a-l-T-a-b-l-e-s-/-T-o-t-a-l-G-

o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t-S-i-n-c-e-1-9-6-2-.-a-s-p). In addition, the federal government supports
and pays for a wide variety of activities in which the actual work is performed by someone

other than a federal civil servant. The Department of Defense, for example, supervises almost

2 million persons in private industry who are involved, directly or indirectly, in defense-

related work.

Administrative Organizations

You are probably already familiar with many of the agencies of government at the federal

level; however, several types are particularly important: (1) the Executive Office of the

President; (2) the cabinet-level executive departments; (3) a variety of independent
agencies, regulatory commissions, and public corporations; and (4) administrative agencies

that support the work of the legislature and the judiciary.

The Executive Office of the President The various administrative bodies located in the

Executive Office of the President both advise the president and assist in formulating

and implementing national policy. Several offices have come to play especially

important policy roles. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for example,

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_1_1

assists the president in preparing the budget, submitting it to Congress, and

administering it. OMB is also involved in reviewing the management of various
agencies, suggesting changes in structures and procedures, and searching out capable

executives for service in government. The National Security Council is charged with

integrating domestic, military, and foreign policy; it is made up of the president, vice

president, and secretaries of state and defense and is directed by the national security
adviser. Finally, the Council of Economic Advisers consists of three economists who

develop proposals to “maintain employment, production, and purchasing power.” The

council also develops a variety of economic reports.

Obviously, all of these groups, and others in the Executive Office of the President, are used in
different ways by different presidents according to the personality of the president and the

particular issues that are most pressing at that time. Some presidents, such as Reagan and

Bush, have relied very heavily on their staffs, whereas others, such as Carter, have been much

more personally involved in management and policy development.

Networking

To locate information about the executive branch of the federal government, check out the

following websites: -w-w-w-.-w-h-i-t-e-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v and

http://-w-w-w-.-u-s-a-.-g-o-v-/-A-g-e-n-c-i-e-s-/-F-e-d-e-r-a-l-/-E-x-e-c-u-t-i-v-e-.-s-h-t-m-l.

For access to executive orders, go to

http://-w-w-w-.-w-h-i-t-e-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v-/-b-r-i-e-f-i-n-g–

-r-o-o-m-/-p-r-e-s-i-d-e-n-t-i-a-l—a-c-t-i-o-n-s-/-e-x-e-c-u-t-i-v-e—o-r-d-e-r-s.

Cabinet-Level Executive Departments These agencies are among the most visible, if

not always the largest, of the federal executive agencies. There are currently fifteen

cabinet-level departments. They are the Departments of Defense, Health and Human

Services, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, Justice, Commerce, State,
Labor, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Veterans Affairs, and—

the newest—Homeland Security, established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Several departments, such as Treasury and State, date back to the nation’s founding;

others were created by Congress as needed.

Each cabinet-level department is headed by a secretary, who, along with a group of top-level

staff people, is appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate. Each cabinet-level

department is organized into smaller units, such as offices, services, administrations,

branches, and sections. The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, includes
the Public Health Service, which in turn includes the Food and Drug Administration, the

National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In early

2012, President Obama elevated the head of the Small Business Administration to cabinet-
level status. Obama also announced plans to merge the Department of Commerce, the Small

Business Administration, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Export-

Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the United States Trade and

Development Agency (Harrison & Khazan, 2012). President Obama can be expected to

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_1_2

continue this plan into his second term, although there are likely to be few other

reorganizations. In any case, we should note that though each department is headquartered
in Washington, D.C., their offices are, of course, spread across the country. Indeed, just over

10 percent of the federal workforce lives in or around the District of Columbia.

The cabinet-level secretaries, along with a few others, such as the director of the Office of

Management and Budget and the ambassador to the United Nations, constitute the
president’s cabinet, a group that some presidents have used sparingly and primarily for

formal matters and others have employed extensively for help and advice. Inevitably, a

president will come to rely informally on certain advisers, cabinet members, or others

outside the formal inner circle for advice and consultation. Historically, for example,
President Kennedy relied heavily on the advice of his brother, Robert, during the Cuban

Missile Crisis, even though as attorney general his brother held no formal position that would

involve him in foreign affairs.

Independent Agencies, Regulatory Commissions, and Public Corporations A variety of

independent agencies have been created intentionally outside the normal cabinet organization.

Some are engaged in staff functions in support of other agencies. The Office of Personnel

Management, for example, oversees the federal personnel function, and the General Services
Administration oversees the government’s property. Other agencies have simply not been

viewed as appropriate to include in cabinet-level departments; among these are the

Environmental Protection Agency and the Small Business Administration. With rare exceptions,

these independent agencies are directed by persons appointed by the president with the
confirmation of

the Senate.

What Would You Do?

You are in charge of the federal government’s effort to assess the scientific, technical, and

socioeconomic impact of greenhouse gas emissions and to understand the potential for
climate change caused by these emissions. Your agency has recently been accused of

“sugarcoating” the data to protect the administration from potential political damage. What

would you do?

Regulatory commissions, examples of which would be the Federal Communications Commission
and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are formed to regulate a particular area of the

economy and are structured quite differently. But typically, they are headed by a group of

individuals (variously called directors, commissioners, or governors) appointed by the

president and confirmed by the Senate. These persons are protected in various ways from
removal by the president; in some cases, their terms of appointment overlap presidential terms.

Presumably, the regulatory commissions are to perform their tasks independently and

objectively, free from undue influence either by the political incumbent or by the affected
clientele. As we will see later, however, the nature of regulatory work makes this task

exceedingly difficult. (Note that not all regulatory bodies are located outside the cabinet

departments; for instance, the Food and Drug Administration is part of the Department of

Health and Human Services.)

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_1_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-independentagencies

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-regulatorycommission

Public corporations are employed where the objective of the agency is essentially commercial,

where the work of the agency requires greater latitude than would be typical, and where the
agency will acquire at least a portion of its funding in the marketplace (Moe, 2001; Walsh,

1978). The Tennessee Valley Authority, which has provided power in the Tennessee Valley for

well over fifty years, is a classic example of a public corporation. Somewhat more recent

additions to the growing list of government corporations include the U.S. Postal Service and the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), both established in 1970.

Agencies Supporting the Legislature and the Judiciary Both the legislative and judicial

branches require considerable direct administrative support for their members

(legislative staff, committee staff, and court administrators). There are also several
specific agencies attached to the legislative branch that are of special significance. You

are probably already familiar with the Government Printing Office and the Library of

Congress. But, although less is known about the Government Accountability Office

(GAO), its duties have become increasingly important. Established in 1921 and headed

by the comptroller general, the GAO is responsible for auditing funds to see that they

are properly spent. In recent years, however, the agency’s mission has broadened to

include formal program evaluations within various agencies. The GAO studies the way
federal money is spent and advises Congress and executive agencies on ways to

improve the efficiency and responsiveness of government. Finally, Congress is

supported by the Congressional Budget Office, an agency that supports the budget

process and whose operations we will examine more carefully in Chapter 7.

The State Level

The organization of state governments varies considerably, according to each state’s policy

interests and political development; however, there is little question that state government
in this country is “big business.” In fact, if you compare the revenues of state governments

with those of the largest private companies in America, the results are striking. California

would rank thirteenth just above Bank of America, and New York would be fortieth just

behind Boeing. Even Hawaii, a small state, would still rank in the top 500
(http://-m-o-n-e-y-.-c-n-n-.-c-o-m-/-m-a-g-a-z-i-n-e-s-/-f-o-r-t-u-n-e-/-f-o-r-t-u-n-e-5-0-0-/

-2-0-1-2-/-f-u-l-l_-l-i-s-t-/;

http://-w-w-w-2-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-g-o-v-s-/-s-t-a-t-e-t-a-x-/-1-1-s-t-a-x-r-a-n-k-.-p-d-f

Recent efforts to decrease federal involvement in domestic policy have combined with a

general growth in the range of activities undertaken at the state level to support a vast

increase in state activity. Between 1980 and 2008, state government employment rose from
3.7 million to 5.2 million, with an even more dramatic rise in state expenditures, from $4.3

billion in 2008 to $18.7 billion in 2008

(http://-w-w-w-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-c-o-m-p-e-n-d-i-a-/-s-t-a-t-a-b-/-c-a-t-s-/-s-t-a-t-e-_-l

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-publiccorporation

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_1_4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/014_chapter7.xhtml#ch7

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_2

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/full_list/

http://www2.census.gov/govs/statetax/11staxrank

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/state_local_govt_finances_employment.xhtml

-o-c-a-l-_-g-o-v-t-_-f-i-n-a-n-c-e-s-_-e-m-p-l-o-y-m-e-n-t-.-h-t-m-l). From time to time, states

in fact play an important role in the redistribution of governmental power. For example, in
the mid-1990s, states were central to the federal government’s move to reform the nation’s

welfare system, a reform agenda that led to the devolution of many public assistance

programs and a further expansion in the role of state government. Similarly, the states have

been important actors in the most recent debates concerning health care, especially
concerning the role of states in funding and executing various proposals.

The organization and structure of state governments in many ways mirror the organization

and structure of the national government, but there are some distinctive features. You should

note, for example, the large number of elected administrative officials in most state
governments. In most states, the people elect not only the governor and lieutenant governor,

but also the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the state treasurer. Many states still

elect the head of the Department of Agriculture by popular vote, and it is not uncommon to

have members of various boards and commissions (for instance, the Public Service

Commission) elected by the public. Obviously, the corresponding offices at the federal level

are filled by presidential appointment. (The large number of elected officials at the state and

local level is a carryover from a period in which democratic tendencies in this country were
especially strong and it was felt that nearly all major officials of government should be

elected directly by the people.)

In addition, many state departments do not report directly to the governor, but rather to

boards or commissions isolated from executive control in the same way as regulatory
commissions at the federal level. For example, a Department of Conservation may report to

a commission appointed by the governor for periods exceeding those of the governor and,

indeed, may have dedicated sources of revenue essentially outside the governor’s budgetary
control. Obviously, under such circumstances, the governor’s power as chief executive is

severely limited.

Networking

For information about state governments, start with

http://-w-w-w-.-u-s-a-.-g-o-v-/-A-g-e-n-c-i-e-s-.-s-h-t-m-l. Also see the Council of State
Governments at -w-w-w-.-c-s-g-.-o-r-g.

Despite structural limitations on gubernatorial powers, contemporary governors exercise a

broad range of political and executive influence that enable them to play a major, even

central role in the operations of state government. In recent years, these powers have even
had an impact on national policy making, particularly in the welfare and health-care reform

agendas mentioned previously. For example, the Massachusetts health-care system enacted

when Mitt Romney was governor of that state became a model for similar federal legislation,
even though Romney later became an opponent of the Obama health-care plan. Most

important, governors play a key symbolic role, helping to set the political agenda and to focus

the attention of other political and administrative actors on a limited number of special

topics. Many governors have accumulated special powers with respect to the budget process

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/state_local_govt_finances_employment.xhtml

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies.shtml

Homepage 2022

through which they are able to dramatically affect the allocation of state resources and to

mediate policy disputes among executive agencies (Bowman & Kearney, 1986, p. 54).

Beyond these somewhat informal powers, the strength of the governor’s formal executive

powers is often gauged by three measures: the presence or absence of the item veto, the

ability of the governor to reorganize state agencies, and the number of other elected officials.

All state governors have the power to veto legislation. Most states also give the governor the
power of an item veto (also called “line-item veto“), the capacity to veto specific items within

an appropriations bill (as opposed to accepting all or nothing), which is a helpful tool in

shaping legislation according to the governor’s preferences. (During his final term, President

Clinton, himself a former governor, supported passage of the line-item veto at the federal
level. The federal provision, however, was ultimately invalidated by the Supreme Court in

Clinton v. City of New York [1998].) The gubernatorial power to reorganize is more limited.

Roughly half the states require either statutory or even constitutional action to reorganize.

Finally, as we have seen, nearly all states have a variety of statewide elected officials in

addition to the governor and lieutenant governor. Indeed, most states have between four

and eight agencies that are controlled by individuals elected statewide rather than

appointed.

The growing importance of state government suggests that governors will likely continue to

assert their executive leadership role and will seek greater control by reorganizing the

executive branch. So far, however, relatively few structural moves have been made.

However, some procedural changes have occurred; for example, many states have moved in
the direction of more clearly establishing the governor’s leading role in the budgetary

process and establishing centralized management improvement

programs.

Although the organization of government varies considerably from state to state, most states
have a variety of substantive agencies concerned with state and local needs (Natural

Resources, Highways and Transportation, and so on), as well as several agencies, such as the

Department of Social Services, that largely administer programs funded by the federal

government. These agencies are likely to be assisted by a central management support unit,

called an Office of Administration or a similar title, that provides budget, personnel, and

other general services. As mentioned, if there is one trend in the reorganization of state

agencies, that trend would seem to be the creation of a greater number of state departments

devoted to economic development. In some cases, these departments seek to coordinate
many economic development activities; in others, there is a more specific focus on small

business or on providing incentives for industrial location or relocation.

The Local Level

According to the most recent data available, there are over 89,000 local governments (see

Table 2.1). Many of these are municipalities, cities, and towns of varying sizes offering a full

range of services; others are counties, typically more limited in their role but still embracing

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/009_chapter2.xhtml#tab2-1

a variety of governmental functions. But most are special districts, created to serve one

particular function, such as education, fire protection, or parks and recreation. (Only special
districts have substantially increased in numbers over the past several years.)

Cities American cities are organized in three ways. The mayor-council form is used by

about 47 percent of all municipalities, about 57 percent of those with a population over

250,000, and two-thirds of those with a population over 1 million (ICMA, 2010). In all cases,
both the council and mayor are elected, the latter either by direct popular vote or a council

election. One variation of the mayor-council form features a strong mayor with almost total

administrative authority, including for preparation and administration of the budget. Policy

making in this form is a joint endeavor of the mayor and council. The weak mayor type places
primary administrative control, including for most appointments and development of the

budget, in the hands of the council.

TABLE 2.1

Number of Governmental Units, by Type of
Government, 2007

Federal

1
State 50

Local 89,476

County 3,033

Municipal 19,492
Township and town 16,519

School district 13,051

Special district 37,381

Total 89,527
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2011

(http://-w-w-w-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-c-o-m-p-e-n-d-i-a-/-s-t-a-t-a-b-/-c-a-t-s-/-s-t-a-t-e-_-l-o-c-a-l-_-g-o

-v-t-_-f-i-n-a-n-c-e-s-_-e-m-p-l-o-y-m-e-n-t-.-h-t-m-l).

The power of the mayor as chief executive is obviously greater in the strong mayor system,

and, consequently, that system is used in most large, industrial cities. At least in a formal
sense, however, several large cities, including Chicago, still maintain a weak mayor system,

although even under such circumstances, a particular mayor may assert considerable

strength. The legendary Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, for example, was able to utilize a

well-oiled political machine to assert substantial administrative power. Though he operated

in a weak mayor system, Daley was unquestionably a strong mayor.

A recent variation on the mayor-council form is the use of a professionally trained chief

administrative officer (sometimes called a “deputy mayor“) to oversee the administrative
operations of city government (as in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Washington, D.C.). We find

this administrative arrangement in many big cities, where mayors are often more interested

in campaigning and in working with external constituencies and like to have someone else

oversee the internal management of the city. But city administrators are also being hired in

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-specialdistricts

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_3_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-mayor-council

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/state_local_govt_finances_employment.xhtml

an increasing number of smaller mayor-council communities as well, mostly in an effort to

bring professional expertise to local government.

The council-manager form of local government is of special interest. It represents a structural

effort to solve the classic question of the relationship between politics (or policy) and

administration. In this form, the city council, usually five to seven people, has responsibility for

making policy, including passing appropriations and supervising in a general way the
administration of city government. The primary executive responsibility, however, lies with a

full-time professionally trained city manager; the mayor has no involvement in the

administration of the city and performs primarily ceremonial duties and legislation. In its

classic formulation, therefore, the council-manager form is designed so that the council makes
policy and the city manager carries it out.

The council-manager plan was first tried in Staunton, Virginia, in 1908, and a few years later

it was adopted in Dayton, Ohio, with great success. Several reform organizations, such as the
National Municipal League, felt the council-manager plan would be a good way to insulate

the management of city government from the vagaries of local politics and consequently

added their endorsement.

Networking

For information about local and tribal governments, see
http://-w-w-w-.-u-s-a-.-g-ov-/-A-g-e-n-c-i-e-s-.-s-h-t-m-l. See also the National League of

Cities at -w-w-w-.-n-l-c-.-o-r-g-; the National Civic League at -w-w-w-.-n-c-l-.-o-r-g-; the U.S.

Conference of Mayors at w-w-w-.-u-s-m-a-y-o-r-s-.-o-r-g-; and the International City

Management Association at http://-i-c-m-a-.-o-r-g.

The number of council-manager governments has grown steadily throughout this century

and continues to increase. Today, some 52 percent of American communities employ the

plan. Whereas the mayor-council system is associated with larger, industrialized, and
heterogeneous cities, the council-manager plan is most frequently found in medium-sized

cities. Over 60 percent of American cities with populations between 25,000 and 250,000

operate with the plan, and 32 percent of the cities with a population below 5,000 have

adopted it. Although a number of large cities, such as Phoenix, San Antonio, and Kansas City,
use the plan, it is more rare among cities over 1 million in population. The council-manager

form continues to grow, however, with the number of council-manager adoptions

outrunning those of the mayor-council form by three to one over the past

twenty years.

Those favoring the council-manager plan usually argue that it emphasizes professional
expertise and administrative accountability; those favoring the mayor-council plan

emphasize its adaptability and its responsiveness to community needs. As a result, more

than 89 million Americans now live in communities with council-manager governments
(Council-Manager System, 2006).

A small number of American cities use the commission form of government. Under this form,

the people elect a set of commissioners. Each acts as a council member but also as director of a

particular city department; for example, one commissioner might head the Parks Department

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-council-manager

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies.shtml

http://www.nlc.org/

http://www.ncl.org/

Home Page

http://icma.org/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-commission

and another the Public Works Department. The commission form is fading; we find it today

primarily in smaller rural communities, although it is still found in places such as Portland,
Oregon, the last remaining large city using the form.

Counties Counties (or variations, such as parishes in Louisiana) are found in nearly

every state and range in population from very small to huge. Once considered an

unexplored area of local government, counties are emerging as important actors in
the modern governmental system. Counties have traditionally provided a range of

services in behalf of state government, a role that has expanded considerably in the

last decades. In addition, counties have recently assumed a wide range of new services

(such as mass transit, mental health, waste disposal, and police services) that, for one
reason or another, cannot be offered by individual municipalities.

The traditional form of county government has been a combination of a county commission

and a series of elected administrative officials, such as sheriff, auditor, treasurer, and

so on.

An emerging trend in county government, however, is the use of appointed county

administrators, similar in many ways to the city manager at the municipal level. Still another

type of county government, also increasing in use, involves the combination of a city council

and an elected executive. In this system, a chief executive is elected by the people and holds
powers similar to that of a governor in a state system. For example, the elected executive

often has veto power over council actions. Trends toward a greater range of activities,

especially in the social services, combined with the increasing professionalism of county

government make this often overlooked area one of the most interesting arenas for public
service today.

Native American Tribes Native American tribes have a special relationship with the

U.S. government. This relationship was first articulated by Supreme Court Justice
Marshall in three decisions between 1827 and 1832 known as the Marshall Trilogy. In

these decisions, Marshall acknowledged that American Indians had inherent rights to

possess and use their land and that they had sovereignty to run their own affairs. But

even though they were seen as nations, the tribes were not foreign nations. They could

not sell their land without the consent of the federal government. And the federal

government had responsibilities to protect Indian land from incursions from the

states and others. Marshall described this relationship as similar to guardianship.

This relationship has evolved over the last 150 years. Influenced greatly by European

settlers’ desire to move westward, Congress made treaties, fought wars, and otherwise

moved Indians out of the way of western expansion. Despite efforts to assimilate Indians into

the dominant culture, many Indians have clung to their heritage and maintained their tribal
governance systems. Today, the Department of the Interior recognizes more than 500 tribes

who have sovereignty over their internal affairs, and tribal management is emerging as a

growing and significant field in public administration. Not only do those engaged in tribal

administration need to understand the special circumstances surrounding tribal

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_3_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_3_3

governance, but also public administrators who work near or with tribes need to be aware

of the legal history that has led to Native American rights that are unique in America.

Special Purpose Governments Finally, we should note again the large number of

special districts, or special purpose governments, that operate in the United States.

Some exist at the local level: limited-purpose districts, which may operate in the areas

of natural resources, fire protection, libraries, schools, housing and community
development, and so forth, are typically governed by an appointed part-time

governing board and a full-time general manager or executive director who plays the

most significant role in the operation of the district. Critics claim that the proliferation

of special districts causes fragmentation and lack of coordination, but others argue
that such districts remain important because they are “close to the people.”

The largest group of special districts are school districts. There are roughly 14,000 local

school districts in the United States, serving over 79 million students—62 million
kindergarten, elementary, and secondary students and 17 million postsecondary students

(http://-n-c-e-s-.-e-d-.-g-o-v-/-p-r-o-g-r-a-m-s-/-d-i-g-e-s-t-/-d-1-0-/-t-a-b-l-e-s-/-d-t-1-0-_

-0-0-1-.-a-s-p-?-r-e-f-e-r-r-e-r-=-r-e-p-o-r-t). School districts employ over 8 million teachers,

administrators, and other staff to provide elementary and secondary education to the
nation’s school children, making educators the largest single category of public employees

in the nation.

School districts vary in their size, organizational structure, governance, and mix of federal,

state, and local funding sources. One significant trend, however, is the takeover of local
school systems by local governments. About a dozen of the largest school districts in the

country are now under the control of local governments. Boston’s mayor was given control

of the schools in 1992, Chicago’s in 1995, and New York’s in 2002. Washington, D.C.’s mayor
has been successful in taking over the school system, and mayors in other major cities are

now considering such a move. The Los Angeles mayor, however, suffered a setback in his

efforts to control the schools when a California court declared unconstitutional a law giving

the mayor substantial control over schools. The mayor has nonetheless been active in the

school quality issue.

Other major types of special purpose governments include public nonprofit corporations

such as economic development corporations and housing finance corporations at the local

and state levels. For example, the City of Baltimore Development Corporation is a nonprofit

corporation chartered by the city to promote economic development by attracting new

business and assisting new and growing companies. Similarly, the City of Houston recently

handed management of its convention and arts venues to a government corporation.
Housing finance corporations may, for example, issue housing bonds, offer tax-exempt

financing, or extend other assistance to facilitate the development of low-income housing

and address other housing needs.

Nonprofit Organizations and Associations Increasing numbers of institutions in the
American system of public policy fall between what we think of as the “public sector”

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_3_4

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_001.asp?referrer=report

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec1_3_5

and the “private sector.” These institutions may be described as belonging to an

independent or third sector of our economy. For the most part, independent-sector
organizations do not have the distribution of profits to shareholders as one of their

major objectives. They exist instead to meet the needs of the public at large, a

particular portion of the public, or the needs and interests of their own members

(Boris, 1999; Salamon, 1999). Technically, nonprofit organizations are defined as those
prohibited by law from distributing surplus revenues (profits) to individuals (typically,

members). Such organizations may in fact make a profit; however, the profit must be used for

the purposes of the organization.

Nonprofit organizations may include churches, educational institutions, civic organizations,
schools and colleges, charitable organizations, social and recreational groups, health and

human service organizations, membership organizations (including labor unions and

fraternal organizations), conservation and environmental groups, mutual organizations

(including farmers’ cooperatives), trade associations, community chests, youth activities

(such as Boy Scouts), community betterment organizations, advocacy groups of all kinds, and

many others. In 2009, the total number of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, including

public charities, private foundations, and other nonprofits such as fraternal organizations
and civic leagues, exceeded 1.5 million.

While private nonprofit organizations account for about 9 percent of employment in the

United States (depending again on how you count), the voluntary effort that is expended in

support of these groups makes their impact far greater. Nearly 27 percent of American adults
devote volunteer time to such organizations, an investment of time that has been estimated

as the equivalent of over $200 billion a year

(http://-n-c-c-s-.-u-r-b-a-n-.-o-r-g-/-s-t-a-t-i-s-t-i-c-s-/-q-u-i-c-k-f-a-c-t-s-.-c-f-m). Over the
last twenty-five years, the third sector has been the fastest-growing segment of our economy.

During the past decade, nonprofit organizations have taken a leading role in the delivery of

public services. As mentioned previously, change in the federal welfare system has led to the

devolution of services to the state and local levels (a trend we will explore later), where

networks of agencies, many of which are nonprofits, manage the implementation of public

programs (Light, 2000). The current system has been characterized as “an extended chain of

implementation,” in which recipients of public support in some cases will “not even

encounter a government employee—federal, state, or local” (Kettl, 2000, pp. 492–493).
Moreover, nonprofits have become active in other areas of service delivery, including

hospitals, museums, colleges and universities, the performing arts, religion, advocacy, and

research (Boris, 1999).

Nonprofit organizations can be categorized in many ways, but perhaps most easily according

to their purposes and sources of financial support. Some nonprofits are charitable or public

benefit organizations, which provide services to the public at large or to some segment of the

public. These organizations, such as social service organizations or art museums, may
receive some funding from government and some from private contributions; they are

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-nonprofitorganizations

http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/quickfacts.cfm

generally tax-exempt under federal statutes. Other nonprofits are advocacy organizations,

groups that espouse a particular cause and seek to lobby for that cause, or mutual benefit
organizations, which produce benefits primarily for their members. The former would

include groups like Common Cause and the Sierra Club; the latter would include trade

associations, professional organizations, labor unions, and others that directly promote the

interests of their own members. Obviously, however, from these examples, the line between
the two is not completely clear. Finally, churches are obviously charitable organizations, but

are they are difficult to classify in the categories mentioned.

Networking

For information on nonprofit organizations, see the Alliance for Nonprofit Management at

-w-w-w-.-a-l-l-i-a-n-c-e-o-n-l-i-n-e-.-o-r-g and CompassPoint Nonprofit Services at
http://-w-w-w-.-c-o-m-p-a-s-s-p-o-i-n-t-.-o-r-g-/. See also the following sites for information

on foundations: -w-w-w-.-c-o-f-.-o-r-g and -w-w-w-.-f-o-u-n-d-a-t-i-o-n-s-.-o-r-g.

Indeed, the entire “independent sector” is sometimes difficult to categorize. For one thing,
the distinctions among the three sectors are not clear, even to the point that a particular

individual might find the same service provided by one or more sectors. For example, you

can play golf at a municipal course (public sector), a private driving range (private sector),

or a country club (independent sector). Furthermore, the sources of funding are often

intermixed. For example, both governments (public sector) and private corporations

(private sector) often contribute financial support to local chambers of commerce.

The fact that nonprofit organizations are required to pursue a public interest is reflected in

their legal structure (and tax-exempt status). Typically, so that government can feel that a

public purpose is being carried out, the organization must be governed by a board of trustees

(or directors or commissioners), whose purpose, at least in legal terms, is to promote and

protect the public interest (Boris, 1999; Salamon, 1999). Such persons will also likely
establish the mission and operating policies, hire an executive director, and generally

oversee fiscal and programmatic operations. The executive director is responsible for day-

to-day operations and often becomes the organization’s chief spokesperson. Most nonprofit

associations are highly dependent on their executive director’s leadership. More and more,
such persons (and other major staff persons in nonprofit organizations) are coming from a

background in public administration.

Relationships with the Legislative Body
In examining the political context of public organizations, we have thus far emphasized the
importance of executive leadership. For example, we noted the emergence of the president

as the chief executive officer of our national government and the pivotal role of the chief

executive in state and local governments and in nonprofit organizations and associations.

But although we tend to associate public agencies with the executive branch of government,
there are numerous administrative bodies associated with the legislative and judicial

branches. More importantly, wherever agencies are located, their role in the policy process

will be especially clear in their relationship with the legislature. In discussing the

http://www.allianceonline.org/

http://www.compasspoint.org/

http://www.cof.org/

http://www.foundations.org/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2

relationship between public agencies and legislative bodies, we will focus much more

directly on the policy process.

The Policy Process

Before we examine the role of public and nonprofit organizations in developing public policy,

we should review the process by which public policies are developed. We may think of the

policy process as involving five stages: agenda setting, policy formulation, policy
legitimation, policy implementation, and policy evaluation and change. (See the box

“Exploring Concepts: Stages in the Policy Process.”) Whereas public and nonprofit

organizations are the primary actors in implementing public policy (indeed, most of this
book focuses on ways to effectively carry out public policy), they are also significant players

in the first two phases.

Exploring Concepts

STAGES IN THE POLICY PROCESS

1. Agenda setting

2. Policy formulation

3. Policy legitimation
4. Policy implementation

5. Policy evaluation and change

SOURCE: Michael E. Kraft and Scott R. Furlong, Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and
Alternatives, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007), pp. 80–85.

Agenda Setting Obviously, before policies are acted upon, they must get the attention

of major decision makers. From among all the many and competing claims on their

time and interests, decision makers must select issues that will be given priority and
those that will be filtered out. Through the agenda-setting phase, certain problems come

to be viewed as needing action, whereas others are postponed. Naturally, there is a great deal

of ebb and flow in what is considered most important. In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. foreign

policy was dominated by concerns for Soviet movement into such areas as the Middle East;

in the 1990s attention shifted to a variety of “flash points” such as Somalia and Bosnia. More

recently, foreign policy has focused on Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Similarly,

any particular issue area can gain or decline in prominence over time, as has the attention to
energy policy over the last twenty years.

Many people contribute to setting the public policy agenda. The president, for example, has

a special claim on the attention of the American people and their elected representatives; a

presidential speech or press conference can significantly affect what decision makers see as
important. But there are many others whose actions can give certain topics greater or lesser

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/009_chapter2.xhtml#si

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_1_1

visibility. Members of Congress, executive branch officials, political parties, interest groups,

the media, and the general public can all significantly shape the question of what will be
considered important. Think, for example, how concern for teen pregnancy has been recently

brought to public awareness. Who have been the leaders in shaping public opinion on this

issue?

The agenda-setting process may be viewed as the confluence of three streams of events:
policy recognition, policy generation, and political action (Kingdon, 1995). The first, policy

recognition, has to do with the way certain topics emerge as significant issues that demand

action. As you can well imagine, decision makers are subject to many influences in choosing

what items are significant. They may respond to particular indicators that come to public
view, such as an increase in air traffic problems or a rise in unemployment. Or they may get

feedback on current programs that indicates some need to reassess the status of a particular

issue. Finally, some items are brought to the policy agenda by events that simply demand

attention, such as AIDS in Africa or the damage brought about by hurricanes, tsunamis, or

other natural disasters.

Networking

See the home pages of various “think tanks” such as the Brookings Institution at
-w-w-w-.-b-r-o-o-k-i-n-g-s-.-e-d-u and the American Enterprise Institute at

-w-w-w-.-a-e-i-.-o-r-g. Especially interesting is the site for the Urban Institute at

-w-w-w-.-u-r-b-a-n-.-o-r-g.

There are many ways people try to affect the degree of attention given to particular items.

Sometimes called policy entrepreneurs, those who are willing to invest personal time, energy,

and often money in pursuit of particular policy changes can use a variety of personal tactics,

such as publicity campaigns, direct contacts with decision makers (letters, phone calls), petition
drives, and many others. Or they can involve themselves in major institutions, such as the media,

political parties, or interest groups, that provide access to decision makers. Election campaigns,

for example, often help clarify or focus the policy agenda.

A second phase of the agenda-setting process may occur almost simultaneously. At the same
time that attention is focusing on a particular issue, it is likely that many will be involved in

trying to generate solutions to the problem. Ideas may come from decision makers

themselves, members of their staffs, experts in the bureaucracy, members of the scientific

community, policy think tanks (such as the Brookings Institution or the American Enterprise
Institute), or from the public generally. Typically, proposed solutions swirl around through

speeches and articles, papers, and conversations until a few ideas begin to gain special

currency. Most often these will be the ideas that not only seem to correctly address the
problem, but also seem to be politically acceptable.

A third stream of events affecting the policy agenda is concerned with political action. For a

proposal to reach the top of the policy agenda, it must be consistent with emerging political

Home

http://www.urban.org/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-policyentrepreneur

realities. Items that are consistent with the prevailing political climate, those that are favored

by the incumbent administration and legislative majority, and those that have interest group
support (or at least lack organized opposition) are more likely to reach the top of the agenda.

These political realities, the proposed ideas or solutions, and the recognition of particular

topics represent streams that must come together at just the right moment for action to

occur. The windows of opportunity for policy action are narrow, and it takes great skill in
managing the various streams so that one’s interests are best served.

Policy Formulation Formulation of public policy involves the development of formal

policy statements (legislation, executive orders, administrative rules, and so on) that

are viewed as legitimate. Again, we will focus here on policy making by the legislature
and on the role of public administrators in the legislative process. The basics of how a

bill becomes law are well known. At the federal level and in most state governments,

a bill is introduced and referred to a committee (and perhaps a subcommittee),

hearings are held, the committee reports to the larger body, a vote is taken in both

houses, a conference committee works out any differences in the two versions, and

the bill is sent to the chief executive for signature. In most other jurisdictions, a

similar, though often simplified, approach is used. In any case, the complexity of the
legislative process, and the fact that many different decision points must be passed

before anything is final, mean there are many occasions when those seeking to shape

legislative outcomes can seek to exert their

influence.

The president, of course, has both formal and informal means of influencing legislation, most
notably through program initiatives and budget proposals. Others in the government,

including many agency personnel, interact with Congress on a regular basis and may also

affect policy outcomes. At the same time, those outside the government—from individual
citizens to well-organized interest groups—also seek access and influence. Agency

personnel become involved in the legislative process in several ways. In many cases,

agencies actually send program proposals to the legislature for its consideration. Such

proposals are usually submitted to the legislative leadership and then passed on to the

appropriate committee chairs. Though a member of Congress will actually be the one to

introduce the proposed legislation, that person may depend on those in the agency for

background information and other support. Whether or not legislation has been submitted

by an agency, agency personnel will often be called upon to provide testimony regarding

particular proposals. As you might imagine, those who staff major public agencies constitute

an important source of expertise concerning public issues. For example, it’s hard to imagine

a group of people better able to understand the tax laws of a particular state than those who
work in the state revenue department.

Over time, the relationship between agency personnel and representatives of Congress

(either members or staff) can become quite strong. After all, the two groups share common

interests and concerns, along with representatives of certain interest groups. A
subcommittee on aging, a senior citizen’s lobbying organization, and the Social Security

Administration, for example, are likely to agree on the need to protect Social Security

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_1_2

benefits. When the interactions among such interest groups, agency personnel, and members

of Congress become especially frequent and intense, the resulting alliances are sometimes
called iron triangles. These coalitions can often exert great, possibly even unwarranted,

influence.

You should be aware of some of the special considerations facing public administrators at

the local level and in nonprofit organizations as they are called upon for advice and help
during the process of policy development. As noted, the council-manager form of

government was actually founded on a separation of policy and administration—the council

made policy and the city manager carried it out. Over time, however, many city managers

have become valued by their councils for their expertise in local government and frequently
find themselves commenting on or even proposing particular policies. While this situation is

quite at odds with the theory underlying council-manager government, it is the reality in

most council-manager cities. The same is true of executives in nonprofit organizations and

associations. Such situations are not without risk, however, for a delicate balance must be

maintained between the executive and legislative functions. Council or board members who

feel that their policy-making territory has been intruded upon may exercise another of their

council prerogatives: firing the manager or executive!

Policy Legitimation Kraft and Furlong (2007) define policy legitimation as “giving

legal force to decisions or justifying policy action” (p. 86). Legitimation, as the authors

point out, may be seen as both simple and complex. When a policy is approved by a

recognized authority (such as when a bill is passed), then we may talk about a simple
process of legitimation. But the authors suggest that legitimation is more about

acceptance of a new policy by the broader public. The process of policy acceptance

should, therefore, be considered from the legal aspect, political culture and values,
and the level of popular support. Many times, the authors suggest, politicians bring in

actors or other celebrities to testify in front of congressional committees. Frequent

public meetings and public hearings as well as participation of citizen advisory bodies

are other ways to legitimize policies.

The authors give the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1992 as an example of adopting a law that

was not embraced by the public or interest groups. Since lawmakers were “rushing” to adopt

the new law, they underestimated public unwillingness to accept the new piece of legislation.

The act was revised when “Congress voted to study only one possible site in the nation, at
Yucca Mountain in Nevada” (p. 87). But this revision again was not embraced by the public

or interest groups, and it was especially opposed by prominent politicians from Nevada. As

a result, almost twenty years later, President Obama stopped funding for Yucca Mountain
and initiated an alternative process for identifying repositories for nuclear waste.

The whole process of legitimation, according to Kraft and Furlong (2007, pp. 87–88), is

mostly political. They suggest that lawmakers ask questions before they decide to adopt a

policy. Referring to public opinion poll data, considering the views of interes t groups,

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-irontriangle

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_1_3

initiating a broad political debate, and developing an ethical analysis of the issue are only

some of the many ways to achieve policy legitimation.

Policy Implementation Members of public and nonprofit organizations play

important roles in building the policy agenda and shaping legislative policy, but they

are also involved in policy making as part of the implementation process. By its very

nature, legislation is general and lacking in detail. Legislators cannot foresee all the
individual questions that might come up in implementing a program. Moreover,

legislators don’t want to tie the hands of program managers by being too restrictive.

Consequently, legislation typically leaves a great deal of discretion to public managers

in working out the details of a particular program. The Federal Trade Commission, for
example, is instructed to prevent deceptive advertising, but it has to decide what is

deceptive; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is asked to define and

set safety standards for the workplace, but it must define more clearly what that

means (Meier, 1987, p. 52). In these and many other cases, managers develop

administrative rules or policies to give detail to the legislation or to fill in the gaps,

and, in effect, they make policy.

Policy implementation is the “set of activities directed toward putting a program into effect”
(Jones, cited in Kraft & Furlong, 2007, pp. 82–83). According to Kraft and Furlong, policy

implementation includes organization, interpretation, and application. Organization refers

to the use of resources and methods to administer a particular program. Interpretation

involves translating the language of regulation (or law) into language understandable to the
affected parties. Application is the “routine provision of services, payments, or other agreed

upon program objectives or instruments” (pp. 82–83). Policy implementation is the stage of

policy process in which the public sees concrete governmental actions or interventions.
Implementation involves following the rules imposed in the law (or the regulation),

developing program details, and then putting them into effect.

A classic case involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) illustrates the latitude

administrators are often given by Congress (and other legislative bodies) and the difficulties

it can cause (Reich, 1985). The EPA was required by law to develop national standards

limiting the emission of hazardous air pollutants so as to provide an “ample margin of safety”

to protect the public health. But there was no definition in the legislation of “ample.” The EPA

was left with the task of identifying standards. This question was especially problematic in
the case of a copper smelter in Tacoma, Washington. The EPA determined that, in the

absence of any controls on emissions of arsenic from the plant, four new cases of cancer each

year could be expected. Even with the very best control equipment, there would still be one
new case each year. On the other hand, requiring actions to eliminate the threat would cost

the company so much money that it could not afford to continue operations and its annual

$23 million payroll would be lost to the Tacoma community. Obviously, then EPA

administrator William Ruckelshaus faced a difficult exercise of discretion. (We’ll see in
Chapter 7 what he did.)

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_1_4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/014_chapter7.xhtml#ch7

There have been several recent debates concerning the amount of discretion given to

administrative agencies. Some analysts argue that broad grants of discretion amount to an
abdication of legislative power; others point to the advantages of depending on the expertise

and flexibility residing in the agencies or with the executive. Currently, the trend appears to

be in the direction of greater detail in federal legislation, though occasionally less so at other

levels. In any case, there inevitably remain many opportunities for the exercise of
administrative discretion.

Policy Evaluation and Change Policy evaluation “is an assessment of whether policies

are working well” (Kraft & Furlong, 2007, p. 84). Policy evaluation asks whether the

policy that is implemented has met the goals and the objectives of the legislation. Cost-
benefit analysis is one of the most frequently used methods for evaluating policies, but

there are many others. Evaluation may involve more than technical considerations;

many times, it may involve “political judgments about a program’s worth, decisions

that are likely to be of great interest to all policy actors involved. In this sense,

programs are continually, if often informally, evaluated by members of Congress,

interest groups, think tanks, and others” (p. 85).

The purpose of policy evaluation is to determine whether a certain program is effective, that
is, whether it produces the intended results. After the evaluation stage, changes in the policy

may be introduced that can expand, reduce, or eliminate the program. But most programs

undergo continuous incremental changes in an effort to make the policy more effective and

more responsive. In this sense, the policy process actually never ends.

Types of Policy

The government develops and carries out several different types of policies, and the

involvement of public and nonprofit organizations in the policy process varies somewhat
according to type. We will examine four types: regulatory, distributive, redistributive, and

constituent policy (Meier, 1987). (See the box “Exploring Concepts: Types of Public Policy”)

These classifications are not precise, however, and indeed, many agencies work in several

different areas at the same time.

Exploring Concepts

TYPES OF PUBLIC POLICY

6. Regulatory
7. Distributive

8. Redistributive

9. Constituent

Regulatory Policy Regulatory policy is designed to limit the actions of persons or groups so

as to protect the general public or a substantial portion of the public. For example, people are

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_1_5

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/009_chapter2.xhtml#tp

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_2_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-regulatorypolicy

prohibited from selling certain drugs, polluting the air and water, and engaging in monopolistic

business practices. One form of regulation simply focuses on illegal criminal activity; it is a
crime to do certain things. State and local governments have special responsibilities in this

area, and certain federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, are active

here as well. Another form of regulation focuses on American business and seeks to ensure fair

and competitive practices. Indeed, the first major regulatory effort in this country came in 1887,
when the federal government created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate the

railroads. Similar regulatory agencies today monitor securities (Securities and Exchange

Commission), commodity exchanges (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), and labor

relations (National Labor Relations Board), among others.

A modern regulatory area is concerned with access to certain goods available to the public

generally, such as the airwaves (regulated by the Federal Communications Commission) or

clean air and water (regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency). Other regulatory

bodies focus on protecting health and safety in such areas as consumer protection

(Consumer Product Safety Commission), air travel (Federal Aviation Administration), food

(Food and Drug Administration), and workplace safety (the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration).

Although federal regulation of economic activities has seen several waves of growth through

the past century (Ripley & Franklin, 1987), the last two decades have seen somewhat of a

movement in the opposite direction. Late in the Carter administration and extending through

the Reagan administration, there were several efforts to deregulate certain industries. The
Civil Aviation Board was disbanded in 1984, and over the following decade significant areas

of transportation, telecommunications, and banking were deregulated. Moreover,

regulations were eliminated or enforcement slowed down in areas such as workplace, auto,
and consumer products safety.

During the 1990s, however, as many federal agencies relaxed their regulatory grip, a few

attempted to expand their authority. The Environmental Protection Agency sought to set

standards for pesticide and cancer risk, while the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration created guidelines for reducing violent crime in retail locations open at night

(Niskanen, 2001). The Food and Drug Administration attempted to expand its jurisdiction to

the tobacco industry by establishing nicotine as a drug, which would have given federal

regulators the power to control tobacco products. This move, however, was challenged by
the tobacco companies, and in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled against the federal

government, calling the FDA’s attempt to assert jurisdiction in this area “impermissible”

(Kessler, 2001, p. 384). These actions took place during the Clinton administration, which
focused its efforts on regulatory changes in several areas, including the environment,

corporate tax shelters, civil rights, trade, transportation, the securities market, banking, food,

drugs, and health-care insurance. The administration used its National Performance Review

to eliminate or rework a number of federal regulations.

Many of the regulatory activities undertaken by the George W. Bush administration were in

response to crises, resulting in rules related to financial institutions, homeland security
procedures, corporate governance, and energy. Two other Bush initiatives—No Child Left

Behind and the addition of a drug benefit to Medicare—also involved new regulatory

programs (DeMuth, 2011). The Bush administration also established two sets of guidelines:

one for scientific peer review and the other related to conducting regulatory analysis, which
imposed additional obligations for regulatory agencies but at the same time “reinvigorated

the regulatory review process, exhibiting a willingness to return regulations that do not meet

analytical requirements” (Dudley, 2004–2005, p. 9).

The Obama administration approved slightly fewer rules than did the Bush administration
in its first years, although the number of “significant” rules—those costing $100 million or

more—increased. The Obama White House has focused on regulations related to health-care

and financial reforms, deep-water oil drilling, the environment, and food recalls. It also has

stepped up enforcement of existing rules (Drajem & Dodge, 2011; The Economist, 2011). As

the administration proceeded, however, there were signs that it was working toward

balancing its regulatory activities with concerns for potential impacts on a weakened

economy (Meckler & Lee, 2011).

Distributive Policy Distributive policy, perhaps the most common form of government policy,

uses general tax revenues to provide benefits to individuals or groups, often by means of grants

or subsidies. If the country faces a large agricultural surplus, for example, the federal

government may provide incentive payments to farmers to not produce crops that would add
to the surplus. Similarly, the federal government provides direct grants to state and local

governments for a variety of purposes. Finally, governments often create “public goods” that all

citizens can enjoy. In some cases, such as national defense, the good is provided for all; in others,
such as city, state, or national parks, it is anticipated that some citizens will use the benefit and

others will not. (In Chapter 3, we will examine the growing trend toward employing user fees

for certain of these traditionally public goods.) Unlike regulatory agencies, which are often

at odds with the clientele group they are seeking to regulate, agencies that carry out

distributive policies often develop close relationships with their constituencies and, in turn,

with interested members of Congress. The growth of veterans’ benefits over the past several

decades is an almost classic example of the operation of such a subgovernment. The

Department of Veterans Affairs is now one of the largest federal agencies and provides a

broad range of health benefits, educational assistance, pensions, and insurance for veterans.

Such a development would not have been possible without its close relationship with

veterans’ groups (such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars) and with
the veterans’ committees in Congress.

Redistributive Policy Redistributive policies take taxes from certain groups and give them to

another group. On rare occasions, redistribution is from the less-well-off to the better-off; many

charge that capital gains proposals are of this type. Redistribution is, however, generally
thought of as benefiting less advantaged groups at the perceived expense of the advantaged.

Among major redistributive policies are those that deal with (1) income stabilization, helping

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_2_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-distributivepolicy

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/010_chapter3.xhtml#ch3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_2_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-redistributivepolicy

to support those who are unemployed or retired; (2) social welfare, providing either direct

payments to individuals or supporting state and local efforts for the indigent; and (3) health-
care programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare. Most federal agencies active in the

redistributive area are located in the Department of Health and Human Services, which claims

its mission to be “the United States government’s principal agency for protecting the health of

all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to
help themselves” (http://-w-w-w-.h-h-s-.-g-o-v-/-a-b-o-u-t-/).

Since redistributive policies are often (though sometimes incorrectly) viewed in win-lose

terms—that is, if one group benefits, another will surely lose—they generate perhaps more

intense discussion than any other area of public policy. Despite this controversy, every
American president since Roosevelt and prior to Reagan has supported some major

redistributive effort. Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, however, took the opposite

position, seeking to limit and even reduce redistributive programs. The reform agenda also

influenced President Clinton, whose pledge to “end welfare as we know it” resulted in

legislation placing a five-year cap on public assistance and tying welfare benefits to a work

requirement. President George W. Bush continued this trend by advancing a $1.3 trillion tax

cut and encouraging Congress to trim federal spending. In addition, President Bush
implemented a faith-based initiative designed to employ private and nonprofit organizations

in the delivery of social services, under which federal, state, and local governments sought

to recruit, train, and assist religious groups to provide a broad array of social services. The

Obama administration did an about-face, taking on the issue of economic inequality through
its efforts to pass the health-care bill—the first major social legislation in decades—and a

push for increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. These moves signaled the Obama

administration’s commitment to moving the country away from the “hands-off” legacy of the
Reagan years (Leonhardt, 2010). Clearly President Obama’s tax plan for rolling back the

Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will continue this trend.

Constituent Policy Constituent policies (Lowi, 1972, p. 300) are intended to benefit the public

generally or to serve the government. Foreign and defense policies are good examples of the

first set of constituent policies, as well as good examples of the operations of a significant

subgovernment. The Air Force had lobbied since the 1960s to build the B-1 bomber as a

mainstay of our air defense. In 1978, President Carter was able to “kill” the B-1; however, only

three years later, a combination of Department of Defense officials, representatives from the

defense industry (especially contractors), and congressional supporters of increased military

capabilities helped President Reagan resurrect the B-1. Incidentally, although more than a

hundred B-1 bombers were built and were in service at one time, even today the B-1 remains
controversial, with some proposals to retire the final sixty-six bombers facing opposition from

military analysts and politicians, especially those with bombers based in their home states

(http://-w-w-w-.-t-i-m-e-.-c-o-m-/-t-i-m-e-/-n-a-t-i-o-n-/-a-r-t-i-c-l-e-/-0-,-8-5-9-9-,-2-0-0-

0-0-2-0-,-0-0-.-h-t-m-l).

The other set of constituent policies are those directed toward the agencies of government

itself. Legislation affecting the structure and function of government agencies, as well as

http://www.hhs.gov/about/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_2_4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-constituentpolicy

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2000020,00.xhtml

policies governing their operations, falls in this area. President Carter was especially

interested in policies impacting government agencies and was instrumental in such changes
as a reorganization of the federal personnel system and a reemphasis on affirmative action

in hiring practices. Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush were more interested in

matters of technical efficiency and problems of waste in government. President Clinton, early

in his term, expressed an interest in managerial issues, pledging to implement some version
of Total Quality Management in the federal government, as he had done in Arkansas, and

later developed the National Performance Review to make government work better and cost

less (a topic we will examine in detail later). More recently, President George W. Bush placed

an emphasis on developing more efficient, businesslike practices of government through a
top-down performance system tied to the budget. President Obama has engaged in what has

been called a “stealth revolution” in the way government works, quietly emphasizing new

technology, the use of White House czars for different policy areas, and new levels of

openness and transparency (Kettl, 2011).

Sources of Bureaucratic Power

There are several reasons governmental agencies have become so influential in the policy

process. First, those who staff the agencies constitute an enormous source of expertise with
respect to their areas of interest. No president, governor, mayor, or legislator could ever be

expected to gain comparable expertise in all areas. Consequently, to make informed

decisions, elected officials must often rely on those in the various agencies. It is often said
that information is power; the information that is stored in government agencies is a distinct

source of power.

What Would You Do?

You are testifying before a congressional committee in support of an increase in your

agency’s budget so that you can better investigate intellectual property claims involving

software development. It is clear that one member of the committee, who is very supportive

of the increase, really doesn’t understand what’s going on, and if he did, he might not support

the budget increase.

What would you do?

Second, as noted earlier, legislation is often both inevitably and intentionally vague, leaving
considerable discretion to the administrator. In some cases, legislators simply wish to defer

to the expertise of those in the agencies to provide detailed rules and interpretations. In

others, they are recognizing the necessity of some flexibility in administering public
programs. In still others, they are responding to the pressures of the legislative process itself,

where specificity leads to disputes and vagueness can often promote agreement.

Administrative discretion is also necessary because changing conditions necessitate

changing policies, and it is not always possible to wait for new laws to be passed.

Third, flexibility is also needed as new information is discovered. For example, a few years

ago, the surgeon general sent a brochure to all households in the country outlining the latest

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_3

information about AIDS, an action not mandated by Congress but, in the judgment of the

surgeon general, required by emerging events.

Through their expertise and discretionary power, those in public agencies help shape public

policy. But there are more active and more political ways in which certain agencies become

involved in the policy process. Whereas all agencies participate in making policy at some

level, some agencies clearly are more politically adept than others. The Department of
Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, both wield considerable

power, whereas the Government Printing Office has little.

The power, influence, and, in turn, the resources an agency is able to generate depend on

several factors, some external to the agency, some internal. Obviously, shifts in public
opinion concerning the agency’s tasks are likely to affect the support the agency receives.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has experienced wide variations in

public support over the years, riding a crest of popularity with the first lunar landing but
later coming under special scrutiny in the wake of the Challenger disaster. More recently, the

agency has been fighting for a new identity following the end of the shuttle program. Not

surprisingly, there seems to be a close correlation between favorable public opinion

concerning an agency’s area of interest and the support it receives from Congress.

More specific support comes from clientele groups, members of the legislature, and others

in the executive branch. We have already noted the support certain agencies receive from

clientele groups who benefit from the agencies’ actions. Obviously, the larger and more

powerful the supporters of the agency are, the more powerful the agency is likely to be. But
agencies also develop opposition, which can be damaging to their programs. The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, interacts with many different groups,

including businesses, state environmental agencies, members of the scientific community,
and groups like the Sierra Club or the National Wildlife Federation; the EPA is likely to

receive support from some groups and opposition from others.

Special support can also come from individual members of the legislature who decide, for

whatever reason, to champion an agency’s cause. But, as we have seen, the combination of
congressional and clientele support can lead to the development of “subgovernments” within

particular policy areas. These subgovernments come about, in part, because each group has

something to give and something to gain from the relationship. The agency can provide quick

and favorable responses to congressional requests for help as well as rulings favorable to

clientele groups. In return, the agency might receive support for expansion of its budget and

programs.

Support may also come from other members of the executive branch. Presidential support is
obviously important, whether it is diffuse support of an agency’s general work or more

specific, such as in a president’s support for stem cell research, increased drug enforcement,

or a particular new weapons system. But agencies are also attentive to their relationships

with other agencies. The development of a new state park may raise environmental issues,

economic development issues, and health issues. The parks department will clearly fare

better if all the relevant groups and agencies are “on board.”

For nonprofit organizations, the capacity to influence public policy tends to be limited as

much by informal as formal mandates. Although federal law does set guidelines for the use

of public and charitable resources for lobbying purposes, some nonprofit leaders assume

that these limitations prevent them from representing their constituents’ interests in policy
decision making. Or they refrain from taking a stand on issues so as not to isolate themselves

from opposing parties. Philanthropy groups, such as the Independent Sector with its Charity

Lobbying in the Public Interest initiative, have launched campaigns to encourage nonprofit

leaders to be more proactive in their lobbying and to expand the advocacy role of nonprofits
in the public policy process. The Internal Revenue Service has assisted in this effort by

making available a simplified set of guidelines from the federal tax code that nonprofits can

use to map their lobbying strategies.

In addition to the external sources of bureaucratic power, there are several internal sources

of power. We have already noted the importance of the information and expertise of agency

personnel. Especially in highly technical areas, such as medicine or agricultural economics,

agency personnel are likely to be far more knowledgeable than many others involved in
setting policies and priorities. If they can employ their expertise credibly, demonstrating

effective performance over time, the agency will surely benefit.

Networking

For information on the advocacy role of nonprofit organizations, see Center for Lobbying in

the Public Interest at -w-w-w-.-c-l-p-i-.-o-r-g-. A copy of the Nonprofit Lobbying Guide can be

downloaded at

http://-w-w-w-.-i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t-s-e-c-t-o-r-.-o-r-g-/-l-o-b-b-y-_-g-u-i-d-e.

Agencies are also likely to benefit by their cohesion—the degree to which members are
uniformly committed to the organization and its goals. An agency that is seen as divided over

major issues will suffer a loss of credibility. Conversely, a sense of unity within an agency is

likely to make the agency more effective, both internally and externally.

Finally, agencies benefit from strong and effective leadership. For example, as secretary of
state in the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton played a strong leadership role in U.S.

policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, while using her political experience and skills in

dealing effectively with Congress. Similarly, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates enjoyed

widespread respect from members of both political parties.

The power of particular agencies, therefore, is the result of interaction between the agency

and its environment, a process to which the agency brings certain strengths, but it must also

exercise considerable skill to reach its goals. The external support an agency can generate
and the internal combination of its knowledge, cohesion, and leadership affect the amount

of power and influence it can command.

http://www.clpi.org/

http://www.independentsector.org/lobby_guide

Legislative Supervision: Structural Controls

Whatever an agency’s degree of power and influence, however, that power and influence
must be exercised judiciously. The agency is a creation of the legislature, and its programs

are always subject to the legislature’s review, alteration, and even termination. Obviously,

most governmental programs (and the agencies that administer them) first take shape in the

legislative process. In response to public demands, and perhaps also executive leadership,

Congress or a state legislature or a city council or a board of directors passes legislation or

policies to correct a particular problem. The problems vary widely, from federal

environmental policy to state education requirements to local trash collection practices to
the establishment of local health centers, but in most cases legislation authorizes the

program. Typically, especially in larger jurisdictions, money to operate the program is

authorized separately through an appropriations process. With a program authorized and

money appropriated, the building (or expansion) of a public organization can commence.

Networking

For information on Congress, see -w-w-w-.-l-o-c-.-g-o-v-/-i-n-d-e-x-.-h-t-m-l for the Library

of Congress; -w-w-w-.-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v for the House; and -w-w-w-.-s-e-n-a-t-e-.-g-o-v for

the Senate.

Legislation is, however, somewhat limited as a device for controlling the day-to-day activities
of public organizations, especially at the federal and state levels. Remember that legislation

is usually intentionally vague at some points, but legislation can be used as a control device.

After a program is under way, legislation may be passed to prevent members of the executive
branch from taking certain actions (Meier, 1987, pp. 140–141). For example, the Boland

Amendment sought to prevent covert action in support of the Contras in Nicaragua in the

mid-1980s. Whereas legislation authorizing programs must inevitably be somewhat general,

legislative prohibitions on administrative actions can be quite specific. In 2007, the Congress

sought legislative means to stop the Bush “surge” of troops being sent to Iran. However, as

both these cases demonstrated, members of an administration may go to great lengths to

reinterpret legislation to avoid even fairly specific prohibitions.

Legislative Veto One specific device legislatures employ to control public agencies is
the legislative veto, a statutory provision that essentially says that any action proposed by the

executive (or administrative agency) under provisions of a particular piece of legislation is

subject to the approval or disapproval of Congress (or some portion of Congress), usually within
thirty to ninety days. For example, legislation might authorize a new highway program but

require legislative consent to undertake specific projects. The legislative veto was first used in

the 1930s to permit the president to reorganize, subject to review by Congress. In the 1970s and

early 1980s, however, the legislative veto began to be used in many other areas.

In one case, Congress gave the Immigration and Naturalization Service the power to regulate

immigration but retained the power to reverse its decisions. In this case that found its way

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_4

http://www.loc.gov/index.xhtml

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.senate.gov/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_4_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-legislativeveto

to the Supreme Court as Immigration and Naturalization Services v. Chadha (1983), the Court

ruled the legislative veto unconstitutional. The Court argued that the constitutional process
for passing legislation requires the involvement of the president and that actions under a

legislative veto provision violate the separation of powers by failing to involve the executive.

Despite the unconstitutionality of the legislative veto, the interest of Congress in controlling

the work of administrative agencies has not diminished. Indeed, Congress has found a variety
of ways to get around the Chadha ruling, either informally, by adding detailed rules to

legislative authorizations, or by simply continuing to include veto provisions in legislation

despite the Court’s ruling. In the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress approved a

legislative review process that, although providing a veto alternative, would not be open to
the types of legal challenges that limited previous procedures (Cooper, 2000, p. 172).

It should be noted that the question of legislative control over administrative agencies is not

limited to the federal government. At the state level, the use of the legislative veto has been
growing rapidly, and many states have adopted the veto either in the form of legislation or

as part of state administrative procedures. Moreover, while state courts have reinforced the

principles of Chadha (the Chadha ruling in a federal case does not itself limit the use of the

legislative veto at the state level), state lawmakers continue to employ vetolike actions in
their processes of legislative review (Cooper, 2000, p. 172).

Sunset Laws Another control device that legislatures employ to assess the

performance of agencies and to eliminate those that are not successful is the sunset

law. Sunset laws are based on the assumption that certain governmental programs should
periodically terminate, to continue only after an evaluation of the program’s effectiveness and

a specific vote by the legislature. A classic case on the problem of program continuation is the

military commissary system, which was created to provide foodstuffs to the cavalry on the
Western Plains in the 1800s. The program continues today, although nearly all military

commissaries are within ten miles of two or more supermarkets!

Sunset laws became popular in the late 1970s and early 1980s, after the state of Colorado, at

the urging of Common Cause, passed a set of laws requiring that certain regulatory agencies
be terminated at a given point unless given new life by the legislature. Soon dozens of other

states and many municipalities passed general sunset laws, applying termination dates to a

set of programs, or included sunset provisions in legislation creating new programs.

Proposals containing sunset provisions were also presented at the federal level.

The purpose of specifying a particular life span for a program is to force careful evaluation

of the program at some future point. Critics of automatic terminations point out several

problems, not the least of which is the cost of evaluations and the burden to the legislature
and legislative staff if all programs were periodically evaluated in great detail. Questions also

arise about whether sunset legislation actually changes our assumptions about continuing

most programs; for example, no one would seriously anticipate that a police or fire

department would be eliminated. Finally, critics point out that most programs are reviewed

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_4_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-sunsetlaw

periodically anyway and that highly ineffective programs are often eliminated even without

“sunset” provisions.

A recent example of a sunset provision occurred when a sunset deadline for the Bush tax cuts

was reached. In 2001, Congress acted to phase in key elements of the Bush administration’s

$1.3 trillion tax cut over a ten-year period, but it established a sunset deadline for the end of

the tenth year. When that deadline arrived in 2011, Congress, as part of the debt ceiling
debate, had to act positively to maintain the cuts, though they still remained a significant

political issue.

Sunshine Laws These examples of constraints on the operation of government

agencies are closely related to sunshine laws, which require various agencies, especially
regulatory agencies, to conduct business in public view (except under specific conditions). For

example, Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law provides the public the right of access to

governmental proceedings at the state, county, and municipal levels, as well as in other political
subdivisions, such as authorities and special districts. This law requires that any gathering of

two or more members of any board or commission be subject to the requirements of the

Sunshine Law if they discuss any matter that will, in the foreseeable future, come before that

board for action. The three basic requirements of the law are that (1) meetings must be open
to the public, (2) reasonable notice of such meetings must be given, and (3) minutes of the

meetings must be taken. In effect, the law prohibits members of any board or commission from

having informal or casual discussions of board business outside an open public meeting for

which reasonable notice was given.

All fifty states now have “sunshine” provisions for their own legislative bodies,

administrative agencies, and local governments. In all these cases, the legislative body, in

expressing its concern for the public’s right to be informed about the public’s business, has
exercised control over a broad range of administrative agencies.

Agency Conduct A final mechanism through which legislative bodies formally exert

control over administrative agencies is passage of broad legislation to govern agency

conduct. Such legislation, applicable to all agencies, might affect administrative
procedures, contracting or purchasing arrangements, human resources management,

or other areas. A good example is the continuing congressional interest in access to

governmental information. Following World War II, governmental agencies, probably

in keeping with the military mentality of the war years, could legally classify as

“confidential” all records for which there was “good cause” to hold them secret. As you

can imagine, it was not difficult to come up with all kinds of “good causes” or reasons

to withhold records. The practice of keeping secrets became so widespread that one
congressional investigating group found that the Pentagon had classified as secret the

construction of the bow and arrow and the fact that water runs downhill! Similarly,

the General Services Administration had decided that photographs could not be taken

in federal buildings without permission of the janitor (Archibald, 1979, p. 314).

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_4_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-sunshinelaw

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_4_4

What Would You Do?

You are the superintendent of schools in an urban school district. The mayor has approached

you about using two of your high school gyms to house a nighttime recreational basketball

league for inner-city youth. You are concerned that there could be serious damage to the

gyms themselves and that the school buildings nearby would become a target for graffiti.

What would you do?

As a result of findings such as these, and in the belief that the public has the right to
information gathered by the government, Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) in 1966. The law was based on the assumption that the public has the right to know,

except in clearly defined and exceptional cases; in other words, it tried to prevent those in

the executive branch from classifying documents for ill-defined purposes. Implementation
of the new law was hindered by confusion about certain parts and by some agency officials

who still tried to maintain as much secrecy as possible. These problems were addressed in a

series of amendments in 1974, 1986, and 1996. The amendments required agencies to
respond to inquiries quickly and even sought to penalize government officials who hid

government records from the public.

Although problems with the act have persisted, nearly all federal agencies have now

implemented the FOIA provisions. In fact, processing and responding to FOIA requests have

become a substantial activity in federal agencies. The importance of doing so has been

reinforced by the Obama administration in a memo to federal agencies stating: “The

Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of

doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely
because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures

might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears”

(http://w-w-w-.-w-h-i-t-e-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v-/-t-h-e-_-p-r-e-s-s-_-o-f-f-i-c-e-/-F-r-e-e-d-o-m-
o-f-I-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n-A-c-t-/).

Legislative Supervision: Oversight

In addition to the “structural” mechanisms for legislative control, the legislature also

exercises continuing supervision of administrative agencies through what is called the
oversight function. Each house of Congress has a government operations committee charged

with overseeing the activities of all government agencies, including their relationships with

other levels of government. In addition, each of the other congressional committees
exercises oversight responsibility with respect to its particular area of interest and expertise

(such as defense, welfare, the post office). Oversight is especially connected to the legislative

and appropriations processes, but it may occur at any time. For this reason, it is not unusual

to see a cabinet secretary, complete with charts and documents, testifying before a

congressional committee that is interested in his or her programs.

http://whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FreedomofInformationAct/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_5

Holding hearings is probably the most visible oversight activity of Congress, at times

assuming a circuslike atmosphere. The Iran-Contra hearings, for example, were essentially
an investigation of the activities of the National Security Council, an executive agency, but

they became the arena for considerable political infighting concerning the Reagan

administration’s conduct of foreign policy. The exposure that hearings provide members of

Congress is obvious. Politicians from Harry Truman to Fred Thompson have built national
reputations through their involvement in congressional hearings. But hearings can also

provide excellent opportunities for administrative officials at the federal, state, and local

levels, and in nonprofit organizations, to tell their side of the story, to help educate members

of the legislature and the public generally, and to build support for their programs.
Consequently, most agencies devote considerable time and attention to legislative relations,

often—at the federal level—working through a legislative liaison office or—at the state and

local levels—on a more individual basis.

Perhaps the most extraordinary example of legislative oversight of the executive occurred in

1998–1999, when Congress impeached, and then acquitted, President Clinton on charges

stemming from an adulterous affair with a White House intern. The House of

Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against the president, claiming that
he perjured himself in his testimony before a federal grand jury and that he obstructed

justice by interfering with the investigation of the independent council, Ken Starr. However,

the Senate voted to acquit the president on both articles of impeachment, a decision that in

many ways brought to a close eight years of allegations and investigations.

Nationally, Congress can also exercise oversight through its staff agencies, most of which

were significantly enhanced by legislation in the early 1970s that created the Congressional

Budget Office (CBO). The CBO was charged with furnishing certain program information to
Congress. At about the same time, Congress shifted the focus of the GAO from its traditional

financial auditing to program evaluations. Now, in addition to holding hearings, Congress can

exercise oversight responsibility through staff evaluations of agency operations by

requesting information from the Congressional Budget Office or by initiating audits or

program evaluations by the GAO. Although legislative staff capabilities at the state and local

levels are considerably less and often focused more on policy development than oversight,

all levels of government have witnessed a general increase in legislative staff over the last

twenty years.

Finally, there are myriad informal relationships between legislators and those in executive

agencies. In fact, such nonstatutory controls may be the most common form of congressional

oversight.

Despite the array of oversight activities available to members of Congress and despite the

increased staff resources committed to oversight, questions remain concerning the

effectiveness of legislative oversight of executive branch operations. Part of the problem is

simply that many legislators have relatively little interest in oversight activities. Instead, they
tend to focus on policy issues, recognizing that they are much more likely to build their

reputations in the policy arena than in oversight. Moreover, interest in oversight activities is

likely to vary from time to time, increasing in times of crisis or public outcry, when new and
different program requests are forthcoming from an agency or when a member feels a

particular agency has not been responsive to constituent groups. Generally, when a member

has high confidence in a set of leaders and tends to agree with policies, the motivation for

oversight decreases; conversely, when trust is low or when the member’s favored programs
are being ignored, the incentive for oversight is greater.

Legislative Supervision: Casework

Legislators also interact with those in public agencies on an individual basis, usually on
behalf of their constituents. Obviously, legislators who wish to be reelected must be attentive

to requests for information or influence from those in their districts. On the other side of the

coin, individual citizens have come to expect that they can and should receive help from their

senator or representative in dealings with government. Thus, members of the legislature
receive a multitude of requests for assistance, from someone who needs help to collect Social

Security benefits to someone who hopes to influence the award of a particular governmental

contract. Intervention on behalf of individuals or groups that need assistance with or access

to government agencies is called legislative casework.

At the federal level, providing services for constituents has become one of the most time-

consuming and important activities for Congress members. Requests for assistance are

typically handled by congressional staff members who specialize in casework. If the request

requires an inquiry into an agency activity, the staffer will likely approach the agency’s

congressional liaison office or perhaps go directly to the agency head or a regional office. In

most instances, inquiries are responded to promptly, and information about the case and any

necessary explanations of the agency’s action are returned quickly to the member of
Congress.

Federal officials, in both the legislature and the agencies, feel the process is useful not only

in providing a mechanism for review, but also in clarifying agency policies and procedures

and assessing agency performance. Occasionally, however, there is pressure to “bend the
rules” or to use political favoritism. Several years ago, for example, Congressman Daniel

Flood of Pennsylvania was charged with conspiracy, bribery, and perjury in connection with

his efforts to obtain certain federal grants and loans for a hospital in his district.

Casework activities seem less routine and institutionalized at the state and local levels. Here
there appear to be both benefits and costs. On the one hand, casework activities serve to

“humanize” the bureaucracy; on the other, there are disadvantages in the disruption of

administrative processes and in the possibility of political influence. Certainly in the more

highly professionalized governmental agencies, agency heads view legislators’ involvement

positively.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec2_6

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-legislativecasework

In many European countries and in some American states and localities, the legislature’s

casework function has been paralleled or even turned over to the office of the ombudsman,
a permanent office that receives complaints and acts on behalf of citizens in securing

information, requesting services, or pursuing grievances. Many other jurisdictions have created

similar, though less formal, structures, such as public advocates, citizens’ assistance offices, and

so on.

Relationships with the Judiciary
The doctrine of separation of powers underlies the relationship between administrative

agencies and the judiciary, a relationship that derives from the legal foundations of
administrative actions. Agencies are created through legislative acts that define an agency’s

structure and scope of authority. Although the authority invested in agencies is primarily

administrative, or executive, in nature, legislative bodies also delegate quasi-legislative and

quasi-judicial responsibilities to agencies, giving them the unique ability to perform
functions of all three branches of government. As we saw in previous sections, the executive

and legislative branches employ various devices to serve as a check on agency conduct. The

judiciary also plays an important role in this process by interpreting legislative mandates
and delegation to agencies and reviewing the appropriateness of agency actions (Hall, 2006).

Actions that are quasi-legislative elaborate the details of legislation (rule making) while

those that are quasi-judicial involve proceedings that produce some type of order

(adjudication). Another area in which the courts may become involved concerns agency
discretion. Because informal actions constitute the vast majority of what agencies do, they

often require a substantial amount of discretion. Judicial review may be used to ensure that

this discretion is used appropriately, although such review is limited.

Quasi-Legislative Action

As we have noted, most legislation is necessarily and intentionally general, leaving

considerable room for interpretation or discretion on the part of the administrator. For

example, an agency might be required by law to set safety standards for nuclear-powered
electric utilities but receive little guidance about which specific standards should be

employed. The agency would seek to determine appropriate standards and then develop

rules to govern implementation of the legislation. Rule making is concerned with establishing

general guidelines that would apply to a class of people or a class of actions in the future.

At the federal level, rule making by administrative agencies, as well as many other aspects of

administrative law, is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). (Similar statutes

exist in each state to provide the legal framework for administrative actions.) Adopted in

1946, the act seeks to ensure that agencies keep the public informed about their

organization, procedures, and rules; that there is public participation in rule making; that

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-ombudsman

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec3_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-rulemaking

there are uniform standards for formal rule making and adjudication; and that the extent of

judicial review is defined (Funk, Lubbers, & Pou, 2008, p. 2).

Challenges to the APA have centered on issues of regulatory reform, including efforts by

Congress to curb the powers of administrative agencies. The courts, however, remain

favorable to the APA and in recent years have sustained the act’s administrative framework.

So while the legislative debate goes on, the APA continues to be the primary guide for the
practice of administration.

In most cases, rule making is fairly straightforward, involving notice, comment, and steps to

ensure an adequate record; in others, legislation requires greater detail and great formality

in the rule-making process. Food and Drug Administration regulations and others that
involve high risks require a formal rule-making process. Formal rule-making procedures

require that the agency issue its rule only after trial-type hearing procedures are completed.

Networking

For the Supreme Court, go to -w-w-w-.-s-u-p-r-e-m-e-c-o-u-r-t-.-g-o-v-/. For legal research
on issues of administrative law, go to

http://-p-u-b-l-i-c-.-f-i-n-d-l-a-w-.-c-o-m-/-l-i-b-r-a-r-y-/-p-a—a-d-m-i-n-i-s-t-r-a-t-i-v-e–

-l-a-w-.-h-t-m-l.

Several important provisions have been added to the APA, including measures that reduced
regulatory demands in some circumstances involving smaller for-profit, nonprofit, and

public-sector organizations. The first of these changes appeared in the APA as part of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in 1980. Under the RFA, administrative agencies not only

must take into account the impact of new regulations on smaller agencies but also must

ensure a requisite level of flexibility in the rules to accommodate agency compliance and

reporting without adding to administrative costs. In 1996, Congress expanded the RFA by

adding three statutes and approving a legislative review process for proposed regulations.
With the review process, lawmakers would now have a window of opportunity to adopt a

“resolution of disapproval” prior to final decision making (Cooper, 2000, p. 139).

The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 created mechanisms for resolving disputes that

would not require formal legal processes. Essentially, negotiated rule making brings
together various parties involved in a particular issue to discuss potential rules and to try to

arrive at a consensus in advance of the structure and content of those rules. Like other forms

of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration, no agency is forced to use these

techniques; however, many public agencies find it helpful to do so (Funk, Lubbers, & Pou,
2008).

Quasi-Judicial Action

In addition to rule making, agencies can make policy through the use of adjudication, or
proceedings that produce orders relating to individual cases. For example, following the

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

http://public.findlaw.com/library/pa-administrative-law.xhtml

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec3_2

issuance of safety standards for nuclear power plants, an administrator might have to decide

if a particular plant has met those standards. Similarly, an administrator might have to decide
if a specific individual is eligible for workers’ compensation. In such cases, the administrator

is making decisions that determine one’s status under the law. The substantive decisions are

obviously important, but so are the procedures under which they are resolved. For example,

a woman denied welfare support might request a hearing to argue her case before a final
decision is made. The administrator’s decision to grant or refuse the hearing represents a

type of adjudication.

In quasi-judicial administrative actions, there is a desire that citizens be treated fairly and

not subjected to arbitrary decisions. This issue involves questions about who has the right
to a hearing, at what stage in the process is a hearing appropriate, and what procedural rules

should apply (Barry & Whitcomb, 2005, p. 8). Consequently, where standards of due process

are applied, notice of the proposed action must be given, there must be a chance for the

affected party to respond, and there must be an independent decision maker and an

opportunity for appeal.

Read “Judicial
Review of
Administrative
Action,” by Logan E.
Sawyer III. We have
examined the
relationship
between
administrative
agencies and the
judiciary, a
relationship that is
quite complex but
very important. One
aspect of that
relationship is
judicial review of
administrative
actions.

http://www.cengage.com/

How do you
understand the role
of discretion and
regulation on behalf
of administrative
agencies? What is the
role of the courts in
reviewing discretion
and regulation?
What position with
respect to the courts’
review of
administrative
action would you
take if you were a
member of the
Supreme Court?
What position would
you take if you were
head of an
administrative
agency?

Agency Discretion

Most observers agree that in order to do their jobs effectively, public administrators need a

certain amount of discretion, or “the authority to choose between two or more alternatives”

(Hall, 2006, p. 34). However, excessive discretion can lead to arbitrariness and the violation

of individual rights, while too little discretion can result in inflexibility. Informal agency

action carries few procedural restrictions in terms of protecting individuals, which, in turn,

places little restraint on discretion, and in certain areas discretion is accorded to

administrators by law. Consequently, administrators often have considerable latitude in
making judgments.

Judicial Review

The courts may review administrative actions (in rule making, adjudication, or other areas)

through judicial review. Such review typically occurs when a party “suffering legal wrong
because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action” seeks judicial

remedy (5 U.S.C., Section 702). The court reviews the case in light of constitutional, statutory,

and executive provisions and determines the appropriateness of the administrative action.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec3_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec3_4

Courts may find unlawful and set aside agency actions that are unconstitutional, that extend

beyond the limits of statutory authority, that are “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of
discretion,” or that are procedurally unfair or without substantive justification (5 U.S.C.,

Section 706).

The authority of the court to review administrative action is derived from both statute and

common law. The APA stipulates that judicial review can be denied when statutory
provisions prohibit review and when “agency action is committed to agency discretion by

law” (5 U.S.C., Section 701), although the latter has been interpreted narrowly by the courts

(Hall, 2006). One of the key aspects of the relationship between the courts and agencies is

the amount of deference the courts should give agencies in their interpretation of statutes.
This question applies to an agency’s interpretation of both the “scope of its jurisdiction” and

the “substantive provisions” under its originating statute (Heinzerling & Tushnet, 2006, p.

378). This is a particularly thorny issue when Congress is unclear in its intent with regard to

an agency’s jurisdiction. However, following the Supreme Court’s finding in Chevron v.

National Resources Defense Council (1984), if a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to

the issue at hand, the agency’s interpretation of the statute must be upheld if its

interpretation is a reasonable one.

The deference to administrators underlying Chevron stems from the Court’s belief that an

administrative agency responsible for implementing a piece of legislation has the most

knowledge of the policy and of existing legislation concerning the issue. The courts may

ultimately disagree with the agency interpretation, but they start with a heavy presumption
that the agency was correct. Although Chevron has been called into question, subsequent

Supreme Court decisions have reinforced the doctrine of judicial deference to administrative

agencies. On the other hand, the courts have established parameters for Chevron, limiting the
standard to regulatory measures and to circumstances in which the administering agency

clearly acts within the confines of the statute. The courts have maintained that petitions

regarding administrative issues, but whose primary concerns relate to legal matters such as

contracts, should be viewed as “a question of law clearly within the competence of the

courts” (Cooper, 2000 p. 254). Despite these limitations, the courts have been consistent in

reinforcing the Chevron doctrine.

That is not to say that courts always rule in favor of the administrative agency. Of particular

interest are those cases in which the court determines that the agency has misinterpreted
(or gone beyond) the intent of the legislation. For example, the statute creating the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) charged the agency with developing

a standard for toxic substances in the workplace “which assures, to the extent feasible, that
no employee will suffer material impairment even if such employee has regular exposure to

the hazard for the period of his working life” (Cooper, 1983, p. 192). After extensive studies,

OSHA determined that exposure to the toxic substance benzene created a risk of cancer and

other health hazards and set a standard accordingly.

In response, the American Petroleum Institute sought judicial review that led the courts to a

discussion of two issues. A lower court focused on legislative intent, finding that the phrase
“to the extent feasible” in the legislation meant that a standard had to be both technologically

and economically feasible. For this reason, the court set aside the OSHA standard. The

Supreme Court concentrated on the health aspects of the case, with the majority concluding

that existing standards were not dangerous and the new standard was not necessary. The
justices who dissented argued that the Court should not substitute its own judgment on the

technical merits of the case for that of experts within the agency. The case illustrates several

of the most important difficulties that face the courts in reviewing administrative actions

(Cooper, 2000).

The courts have acted not only to review agency actions but also to compel agency action

“unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” (5 U.S.C., Section 706). In one example, the

Food and Drug Administration received a petition from a group of death row inmates to

determine whether the materials used for lethal injections were safe and painless or whether

they might leave the prisoner conscious but paralyzed, a witness to his or her own slow

death. The FDA argued that it did not have jurisdiction to review the practices of state

corrections systems in cases such as this; however, on review, the circuit court in 1983
concluded that the FDA did indeed have jurisdiction. The court wrote, “In this case FDA is

clearly refusing to exercise enforcement discretion because it does not wish to become

embroiled in an issue so morally and emotionally troubling as the death penalty. As a result

of the FDA’s inaction, appellants face the risk of cruel execution” (Cooper, 1985, p. 649).
However, in a 2004 case involving an attempt to force the Bureau of Land Management to

take action to protect wilderness lands in Utah from damage by off-road vehicles, the

Supreme Court ruled that such attempts are limited to cases in which an agency fails to take
a discrete action that is required by law.

Closely related to the FDA’s failure to undertake an investigation are cases in which the

agency refuses to make rules or delays the issuance of rules required by statute. But there

also have been several cases in which agencies have been found to have exceeded their

authority in rescinding previously established rules.

Concerns for Due Process

At the heart of our system of jurisprudence is the assurance that people will be treated fairly,

that they have a right to present arguments and evidence in their own behalf, and that those
who make the decisions will be unbiased and impartial. With regard to issues of due process

in administrative adjudication—whether a hearing is required, at what point, and the format

of the hearing—some patterns have emerged in the Supreme Court’s evaluation of
administrative matters. During the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, the Court sought to

protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary action on the part of administrative agencies by

requiring that a person be allowed an opportunity to challenge a proposed action before

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec3_5

being made to suffer serious harm. The Court would not allow cost or inconvenience to the

agency as an excuse for causing harm to an individual.

Through the 1970s and 1980s, however, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief

Justice Warren Burger, began to alter its approach to administrative due process, treating

administrative hearings not as a means of protection, but as devices for fact-finding. Most

frequently, the Court has employed a “balancing test,” weighing the interests of the
individual (rather narrowly defined), the value of additional safeguards, and the

government’s interest (including the fiscal and administrative burdens that additional

procedural safeguards might impose). (See the box “Public Administration in History: The

Spotted Owl and Agency Interpretation of the Law.”) As a result, it has become much more
difficult for someone who feels that adequate protections have not been provided to prevail

in the courts (Cooper, 2000).

The flexibility in administrative law for due process has contributed to a variety of
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) strategies, namely, mediation and arbitration. The

adoption of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 helped remove many of the

barriers administrators face to such alternative approaches. For the most part, ADR

strategies are easier to employ in less complex cases. Yet ADR should not be used to obtain
settlements that fail to protect the public interest. The spirit and letter of the agreement must

be clear or else face considerable challenge, and potential failure, during the implementation

stage.

The Courts and Agency Administration

Over the last twenty years, one of the most dramatic developments in the relationship

between administrative agencies and the judiciary is the direct involvement of federal

district courts (and some state courts) in agency administration, including decisions on
spending, personnel, organization, and management. This involvement has come about

through court rulings in administrative equity cases, wherein individual rights, such as the

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, have been violated by state and local

administrative organizations.

Two landmark cases in the early 1970s set precedents for such rulings. In the first, prisoners

in the Arkansas penitentiary system alleged a large number of abuses, including dangerous

and unhealthy conditions in the prisons. The cou rt ruled that confinement in the Arkansas

system amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and ordered corrections officials to
devise a plan to remedy the problems. Similarly, in Alabama a federal district court judge

found “intolerable and deplorable” conditions in that state’s largest mental health facility

and ordered corrective actions. The court also established a constitutional right to treatment,

detailing actions required to meet that constitutional standard (Gilmour, 1982, pp. 26 –29).

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/009_chapter2.xhtml#pa

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec3_6

Public Administration in History

THE SPOTTED OWL AND AGENCY INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW

When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute it administers, it is confronted

with two questions.

First, always, is the question of whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question
at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well

as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.

If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question

at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction of the statute, as would be
necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent

or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the

agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

Given the ubiquity of ambiguity in regulatory statutes, Chevron looked like a recipe for

judicial acquiescence to agency interpretations. It hasn’t worked out that way.

Sometimes, to be sure, the Court gives full scope to the doctrine announced in Chevron. Other

times, however, the Court virtually ignores the Chevron test. Most importantly, only three

years after Chevron, the Court opened up further opportunities for exceptions to the doctrine

of deference to agency interpretation.

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon—the celebrated Spotted

Owl case—illustrates the indeterminacy of the Chevron doctrine. At issue was the meaning
of the term harm in the Endangered Species Act. The act prohibits the “taking” of endangered

animals and defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,

capture, or collect.” According to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, “harm” includes
destruction of habitat that has the effect—although not the purpose—of harming

endangered wildlife. Oregon business interests challenged this interpretation as contrary to

the statute.

The fundamental problem in administrative law is that a congressional majority typically
favors some federal response to a problem, but no congressional majority favors any

particular response. Rather than do nothing, Congress adopts general language and leaves it

to the agencies—and the courts—to make the controversial choices. The Endangered

Species Act is a good illustration of this. Congress knew quite well that habitat destruction

poses the biggest threat to endangered species. Congress also knew, however, that regulating

habitat destruction would conflict with economic development. So Congress waffled.

The only clear intention Congress had regarding habitat destruction is a clear intention to

have no clear intention. The problem calls less for lawyerly interpretations of authoritative
language than for a policy decision made by an institution that is familiar with the problem

and is held politically accountable. The agency has the advantage (over) the courts on both

counts.

SOURCE: Donald A. Dripps, Trial 32, no. 2 (February 1996): 70–71. Reprinted with

permission of the author.

The involvement of courts in the management of public agencies is especially well illustrated

in a federal judge’s order demanding reform of the New Orleans Parish Prison. In addition to

ordering adequate medical services, improved security, and development of recreational

facilities, the judge directed that “the management and operation of the prison be improved
immediately,” that a professional penologist be hired to manage the prison, and that

personnel practices (filling vacancies, raising wages, etc.) be improved in specific ways.

Although court actions such as this have obviously corrected constitutional inequities, there
are questions as to whether the courts are well suited for involvement in the details of

administration. Moreover, many states and localities argue that court-ordered expenditures

of funds on projects such as desegregation or prison reform take money away from other

needed services, such as education, social welfare, or mental health. For these reasons, the
Supreme Court has taken steps to limit the involvement of courts in the work of

administrative agencies, requiring carefully tailored plans of limited duration based on

specific constitutional violations.

Summary and Action Implications
This chapter has explored the political context of public administration, including things you

will simply need to know to operate effectively in or with public or nonprofit organizations.

The material in this chapter (and in Chapters 3 and 4) constitutes a knowledge base on which

to build your action skills. Understanding the political context of work in the public sector
will enhance the effectiveness of your actions.

Public managers, and their counterparts in nonprofit organizations, work in many different

institutional settings, but those institutions all reflect important political values that lie at
the heart of a democratic system. Whether at the federal, state, or local level, in the

governmental or nongovernmental sector, a democracy’s values, especially a concern for

operating in the public interest, affect the structure of public and nonprofit organizations.

For example, the division of powers at the federal level expresses a fear of concentrated
power; similarly, the council-manager plan expresses one way to view the relationship

between politics and administration. Finally, the structure of nonprofit organizations reflects

their operation in the public interest. Knowing something about how democratic values are

reflected in the structure of the various organizations and knowing something about the role
of executive leadership in administrative organizations will enable you to act with greater

confidence and authority.

As a manager or analyst, you may have important interactions with a legislative body, either

the national Congress, a state legislature, a local city council, or a nonprofit organization’s

board of directors. Those serving in the public interest participate in one way or another in

nearly all policy areas—a situation that our political system encourages. The distinction

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/010_chapter3.xhtml#ch3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#ch4

Woodrow Wilson suggested between politics (or policy) and administration no longer

accurately describes the relationship between the legislative and the executive branches.
Today, the legislature and the various agencies of government share in the policy process,

either working together in developing policy or making separate decisions in different

realms.

As a manager or analyst, you will also deal with the legislature in many other ways. Most
importantly, the legislature will establish the tasks your agency or association will undertake

and provide human and financial resources to carry them out. Moreover, the legislative body

will exercise continuing, although sometimes intermittent, supervision over your work.

Thus, you may spend a great deal of time developing effective working relationships with
those in the legislature.

The involvement of the courts in the work of administration is both intense and inevitable.

For this reason, your understanding of the legal system and your ability to interact with legal
and judicial officials will improve your effectiveness as a public manager. Whether you are

dealing with the legislative body or the courts, your relationship with either need not be

adversarial. Indeed, in many cases, the legislature and the courts can help to substantially

improve administrative practices.

By now you should be coming to realize that your behavior as a public or nonprofit manager

is bounded by a vast and complicated network of relationships in which you are but one of

many players. Within this network, you must be attentive to questions of executive

leadership, legislative intent and oversight, and judicial interpretation. The world of the
public administrator is indeed complex!

STUDY QUESTIONS
10. What do we mean by the term public policies?
11. Describe how the president’s role in the administration of government has changed

since the framing of the Constitution.

12. Describe the administrative system at the federal level.

13. State and local governments have been designed to operate similarly to the national

level; however, both have distinct structures for administering government

initiatives. Explain each level’s structure and the different approaches to operating

the government bureaucracy.
14. Describe the policy process and the actors who play significant roles in shaping

administrative issues.

15. What are the four types of policy? Define and give examples.

16. How do agencies maintain a power base within the government?
17. Describe some of the structural controls on bureaucratic power and how government,

as a whole, benefits from these controls.

18. Discuss several ways the legislative and judicial branches interact with the

bureaucracy. Explain why these interventions are necessary and useful.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec5

CASES AND EXERCISES
19. We have discussed the various powers, both formal and informal, that affect the

governor’s ability to exercise executive power in the administration of state

government. Among the informal powers that governors exercise are political powers

(including agenda setting), budgetary powers, and executive leadership.

20. Among the formal powers are the presence or absence of an item veto and the ability

of the governor to reorganize state agencies. Another indicator of gubernatorial

power is the number of other elected statewide officials. Analyze the power of the

governor in your state, giving special attention to the governor’s power to exercise
executive leadership over the agencies of state government. How do your governor’s

executive powers compare to those of the president of the United States? How do they

compare to those of your local mayor?

21. Attend a meeting of a congressional or state legislative committee, your local city
council, or the board of directors of a local nonprofit organization. Watch the pattern

of interaction between elected members of the legislative body and full-time

administrators. (The latter may be agency staff called to testify, legislative support
staff, a city manager or executive director, or many others.) What strengths does each

side bring to the exchange? What is the level of cooperation or competition? If

possible, try to follow up with the administrator to see how he or she felt about the

interchange. To what extent did the legislative body set a clear direction for the
administrator’s ensuing actions? What discretion did the administrator have (or

claim to have) following the meeting?

22. Consider the following case: Billie Jackson was the leader of a nonprofit, economic

development corporation in a small community in Colorado. For six years, Billie had
been trying to interest members of the city council in purchasing an abandoned

downtown hotel for conversion to a city-owned long-term care facility. Billie felt

strongly that the community needed such a facility and that the city had a golden
opportunity to meet that need through purchase of the hotel. The problem was that

several extremely conservative members of the council felt differently. In their view,

the city shouldn’t get into providing social services, especially where the need might

be met by a private firm at some point in the future. Moreover, they felt the cost of the
purchase and renovations would be more than the community could bear.

23. The hotel issue was once again on the council agenda, and Billie was determined to

make the strongest appeal possible. With the help of a nearby university, she had

prepared a lengthy report documenting the need for the facility and the desirability
of purchasing the hotel. Just as she was beginning her presentation, one of the

conservative council members said, “Mrs. Jackson, we have heard more on this topic

than we care to. I just don’t want to go through all this again. I move to table the issue

indefinitely.” The motion to table carried by a quick and somewhat confused voice

vote.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec6

24. Assume the role of Billie Jackson. What is your immediate response? What would you

do in the days and weeks that followed? Would you continue to pursue the issue? Why
or why not?

FOR ADDITIONAL READING

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch2-sec7

THE POLITICAL CONTEXT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Administrative Organizations and Executive Leadership
Administrative Organizations
Networking
What Would You Do?
The State Level
Networking
The Local Level
Networking
Networking

Relationships with the Legislative Body
The Policy Process
Exploring Concepts
STAGES IN THE POLICY PROCESS
Networking
Types of Policy
Exploring Concepts
TYPES OF PUBLIC POLICY
Sources of Bureaucratic Power
What Would You Do?
Networking
Legislative Supervision: Structural Controls
Networking
What Would You Do?
Legislative Supervision: Oversight
Legislative Supervision: Casework
Relationships with the Judiciary
Quasi-Legislative Action
Networking
Quasi-Judicial Action
Agency Discretion
Judicial Review
Concerns for Due Process
The Courts and Agency Administration
Public Administration in History
THE SPOTTED OWL AND AGENCY INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW
Summary and Action Implications
STUDY QUESTIONS
CASES AND EXERCISES
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

THEINTERORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT OF PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION

As a manager, you will interact not only with many others at your level of government or the
independent sector, but also with those throughout our system of governance at the federal,
state, and local levels. More and more, public administrators recognize that managing an
agency requires paying attention to what happens in other organizations and that relations
with those outside the agency are just as important as relations with those inside. This
chapter examines the interorganizational context in which public administrators operate.

The traditional focus in public administration has been the agency, and that is the focus we

have largely taken so far. However, given the “transformation of governance” that has

occurred during the past couple of decades, it may be more helpful to focus not on the

individual agency, but on the relationships among many different groups: public, private, and

nonprofit (Kettl, 2009). Indeed, today more than ever, the effectiveness of public programs

depends on the ability of various agencies to cooperate in processes of service delivery. This
development is explored further in the box “Exploring Concepts: Transformation of

Governance” later in this chapter.

Government resources, from federal grants for public assistance to local funding for health
and human services, go to a variety of actors, and although the funding usually contains

guidelines and performance objectives, the implementing agencies often have a certain

amount of leeway for running the program or for forging relationships with other groups to

deliver the services.

For example, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the federal welfare program

that replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) under the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, provides funding to the

states for public assistance and welfare-to-work initiatives (Plotnick et al., 2011). The states

in turn rely on a variety of local government, for-profit, and nonprofit organizations for

service delivery. These organizations may provide the services themselves, or they may

contract with other organizations (again, public, private, or nonprofit) for carrying out the
programs. In many cases, an individual or family may receive an array of public assistance

without ever coming into contact with a government employee (Kettl, 2000, 2009).

Another example of intergovernmental and interorganizational cooperation is in the area of

emergency management and disaster relief. Hurricane Katrina was the single most
destructive and costly natural catastrophe in U.S. history. In August 2005, the hurricane

struck the Gulf Coast, affecting four states: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Immediately after the disaster, forty-two states and the District of Columbia received

presidential emergency declarations to shelter the evacuees. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA, which became part of the Department of Homeland Security in

March 2003), in coordination with the American Red Cross, state and local governments,

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3

nongovernmental organizations, local communities, and businesses, worked (and still

works) on relief and recovery of the regions hit by the hurricane. FEMA provided $6 billion
to the direct victims for housing and other assistance. An additional $4.8 billion in federal

funds was reimbursed to the states for “mission assignments.” According to FEMA, “The U.S.

Small Business Administration has approved more than $10.4 billion in disaster loans to

homeowners, renters and businesses as a result of damages caused by the hurricane. More
than $15.3 billion has been paid out to National Flood Insurance Program policyholders”

(Pittman, 2009, p. 149). What was most striking, however, was the failure of various public

and private agencies to effectively coordinate services to the victims of the hurricane. Katrina

made policy makers reevaluate the emergency management programs on national and state
levels, but it also provides a significant example of the importance of interorganizational

cooperation and coordination (Liu et al., 2011).

These examples illustrate the complexity of the interactions triggered by federal policies and

natural disasters. But equally complex relationships can develop as a result of a local

initiative. A local community that wants to attract new industry might develop a coalition of

government, business, labor, and education groups to promote the city’s image and to work

with groups at other levels of government. These groups might include a state department
of economic development to help contact prospective employers wishing to relocate. Or the

city might request that the state or federal government designate a particular area in the city

as an enterprise zone, thus permitting special tax incentives and other benefits for businesses

willing to locate there. Again, a variety of government and nongovernment entities are involved
in the task of economic development.

Read “Public
Management in
Intergovernmental
Networks: Matching
Structural Networks
and Managerial
Networking,” by
Kenneth J. Meier and
Lawrence J. O’Toole,
Jr. As we have seen,
public
administrators

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-enterprisezone

http://www.cengage.com/

interact with a wide
variety of other
groups and
organizations both
inside and outside
government. We
have pointed out
that networks of
organizations—
public, private, and
nonprofit—are
increasingly
involved in the
development and
implementation of
public policy. This
trend amounts to a
change from
intergovernmental
relations to
interorganizational
relations.

What are some of the
factors that
contribute to an
increase in network
governance? What
are some of the
advantages to
working through
networks? What are
some of the
disadvantages? Can
you think of examples
of public policies in
your own area that
are being carried out
by such networks?

One can easily understand why the effectiveness of many public programs depends on the

quality of the relationships among various organizations (Bevir, 2011; Goldsmith & Eggers,

2004). Some analysts for this reason emphasize the importance of the interorganizational

networks that develop in various policy areas. Obviously, the various groups and organizations

involved in any policy arena do not report to a single director, nor are they structured in a

typically hierarchical fashion. Rather, they are loosely joined systems that often have

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-interorganizationalnetworks

overlapping areas of interest, duplication of effort, and lack of coordination (see the box

“Exploring Concepts: Networks and Network Management”). Hult and Walcott (1990) wrote,
“Governance networks link structures both within and across organizational boundaries.

Like governance structures, networks may be permanent or temporary, formal or informal.

They may be consciously designed, emerge unplanned from the decisions of several actors,

or simply evolve. A given governance structure may be part of one or several networks” (p.
97).

Whether the growing dependence on such systems is a helpful development is a matter of

some debate. Many experts have suggested that the use of intermediaries in the delivery of

services is a major reason for the difficulties many programs encounter. On the other hand,
many such networks have proven enormously stable over time, and others have capitalized

on the inherent flexibility and adaptability of such systems. In any case, because

interorganizational networks are such an important part of the management of public

programs, they deserve our attention.

Exploring Concepts

NETWORKS AND NETWORK MANAGEMENT

The first type is a service implementation network that governments fund to deliver services

to clients. Collaboration is critical because these networks are based on joint production of

services, often for vulnerable citizens like the elderly, families on welfare, or the mentally ill.

Integration of services is critical so clients will not fall through the cracks. The second type
of network is an information diffusion network, whose central purpose is to share

information across governmental boundaries to anticipate and prepare for problems that

involve a great deal of uncertainty, such as earthquakes, wildfires, and hurricanes.

The third type of network (which often grows out of an information diffusion network) is a

problem solving network. The purpose of this network is to solve a proximate problem like

the response to the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11. The

problem that the managers confront demands immediate attention and shapes the nature of

the response and the set of interorganizational relations that emerge. Past cooperative

relationships prove useful in managing a problem solving network.

The fourth type of network is a community capacity building network, whose purpose is to

build social capital in a community so that it is better able to deal with a variety of ongoing
and future problems, such as substance abuse among youth. An effective community capacity

building network allows a town or city to be more resilient and responsive when new

problems emerge, as when methamphetamine emerged from drug labs to ravage certain

communities.

Managing networks that do not have a hierarchical chain of command but which rely on trust

and reciprocity as the levers of collaboration makes the tasks of managers much different

from those in organizations. These tasks must be performed by network managers, like Coast

Guard Vice Admiral Thad Allen, who led the recovery of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/010_chapter3.xhtml#ec1

the wake of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. But the tasks must also be performed by

the managers of organizations who are part of a network, for example, the local police chief
with a DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in district schools that is part of a

substance abuse prevention network but also manages a police department.

…The first task [that leads to effective network management] is the management of

accountability. With no chain of command, this is a critical issue that both network managers
and managers of organizations in a network must successfully negotiate. Key issues are

determining who is responsible for what and how to respond to free riders who don’t

contribute their fair share but continually demand more resources.

The second task is the management of legitimacy, which is more critical for networks than
for organizations. A public organization is created by law to serve a particular purpose. A

network is usually a cooperative venture that must continually negotiate its legitimacy,

particularly if, as is often the case, its boundaries cross the public, private, and nonprofit
sectors. Managers of organizations in networks must continually work to convince their

stakeholders that their work with other organizations in the larger network continues to be

valuable and worthwhile.

Management of conflict is the third task of network managers. Conflict can develop from

differing goals among the organizations in the network, and the result cannot be resolved by

commands issued from on high. It is important that network managers listen to the voices of

their members and provide mechanisms for conflict resolution. These devices help to create

dispute resolution mechanisms for conflicts that arise between managers of network
organizations and network managers.

SOURCE: H. Brinton Milward and Keith G. Provan, “A Manager’s Guide to Choosing and

Using Collaborative Networks,” Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of

Government, 2006

(-w-w-w-.-b-u-s-i-n-e-s-s-o-f-g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t-.-o-r-g-/-p-d-f-s-/-P-r-o-v-a-n-R-e-p-o-r-t-.

-p-d-f).

The Development of Intergovernmental Relations
To operate public programs effectively and responsibly, you must understand the

relationships among levels of government. There are various ways to define the relationship

between a larger comprehensive unit of government and its constituent parts. A

confederation, for example, is a system in which the constituent units grant powers to the
central government but do not allow it to act independently. A unitary system is one in which

all powers reside with the central government and various units derive their powers from that

unit. France and Sweden, for instance, are characterized by unitary systems, as is the

relationship between states and localities in the United States; localities hold only those powers

specified or permitted by the state.

http://www.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/ProvanReport

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-confederation

The relationship between our national government and the states, however, is federal. It

involves a division of powers between the two levels of government, federal and state. (Local
governments exist under the legal framework of the states.) As you know, some powers are

granted specifically to the central government (to conduct foreign relations, to regulate

interstate commerce, and so on); some are reserved by the states (to conduct elections, to

establish local governments, and so on); and some are held by both levels (to tax, to borrow
money, to make laws, and so on). (This system of governance is also referred to as federalism.)

A federal structure has many advantages. It allows for diversity and experimentation, but it can

also lead to the development of a highly complex intergovernmental system, a fact of life with

important implications for the management of public programs.

The term intergovernmental relations is often used to encompass all the complex and

interdependent relationships among those at various levels of government as they seek to

develop and implement public programs. The importance of intergovernmental relations has

been recognized in several structural developments. At the federal level, a permanent Advisory

Commission on Intergovernmental Relations was established in 1959 and continued to operate

until the mid-1990s. All states and nearly all major cities have a coordinator for

intergovernmental relations (though the specific titles vary). Finally, many scholars and
practitioners have begun to emphasize the managerial processes involved in

intergovernmental relations by employing the term intergovernmental management.

A key to understanding intergovernmental relations in this country involves understanding

the changing patterns used to fund public programs. Although intergovernmental relations
consist of much more than money, financial questions are inevitably at the core of the

process. Thus, definitions of various types of grants, or transfers of money (and property)

from one government to another, are a helpful starting place.

Some grants give more discretion to the recipient than do others. Categorical grants or

project grants are spent for only a limited purpose, such as building a new sewage treatment

plant. Categorical grants have historically been the predominant form of grants in this country;

however, in recent years, many categorical grants have been consolidated into block grants,

which are used for nearly any purpose within a specific functional field, such as housing,

community development, education, or law enforcement. For example, the recipient

government might spend a law enforcement grant on police training, new equipment, or crime

prevention programs. Finally, revenue sharing makes funds available for use by the recipient
government in any way its leaders choose (within the law).

Grants may also be classified in terms of how they are made available. A formula grant

employs a specific decision rule indicating how much money any given jurisdiction will receive.
Typically, the decision rule is related to the purpose of the grant (for example, money for

housing might be distributed to qualified governments based on the age and density of

residential housing). A project grant, on the other hand, makes funds available on a competitive

basis. Those seeking aid must submit an application for assistance for review and approval by
the granting agency.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-federal

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-intergovernmentalrelations

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-grants

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-categoricalorprojectgrants

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-blockgrants

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-revenuesharing

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-formulagrants

Grants may also be categorized as to the purposes they serve. Entitlement grants provide

assistance to persons meeting certain criteria, such as age or income—for example, TANF or
Medicaid. Operating grants are used in the development and operation of specific programs,

such as those in education or employment and job training. Capital grants are used in

construction or renovation, as in the development of the interstate highway system.

Networking

Some basic information on federal-state-local interactions can be found at
-w-w-w-.-u-s-a-.-g-o-v or -w-w-w-.-w-h-i-t-e-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v. For coverage of the changing

roles of state and local government, go to Governing magazine at

-w-w-w-.-g-o-v-e-r-n-i-n-g-.-c-o-m.

Finally, grants may vary according to whether they require matching funds from the
recipient agency. Some federal grants require the state or locality to put up a certain

percentage of the money for the project; in the case of the interstate highway system, states

contribute one dollar for every nine dollars of federal money. Other grants require different
matching amounts, and some require no matching at all. Different types may be combined in

different ways to create quite a variety of grant possibilities. A specific grant might be made

available on a competitive basis strictly for use in programs for job training and may require

local matching funds.

What Would You Do?

You are a member of a task force that has been asked to consider ways your local parks and

recreation service could be delivered at less cost to the city. You have been considering

alternatives such as special charges, citizen involvement in service delivery, and limitations

on services. But you strongly feel that parks and recreation are essential functions of local

government and should be protected from cuts. What would you do?

Dual Federalism

Historically, the various grant types have been employed in different ways and in different
times. The earliest period in our country’s intergovernmental history, a period that lasted

well into the twentieth century, was characterized by what has been called dual federalism.

Both federal and state governments sought to carve out their own spheres of power and

influence, and there was relatively little intergovernmental cooperation—indeed, there was

substantial conflict.

However, some programs cut across the strict divisions of federal, state, and local

responsibility associated with dual federalism. A notable example is the Morrill Act of 1862,
which granted land to universities to establish agricultural programs and was the basis for

the eventual development of “land-grant” colleges. It was important in the development of

higher education, but it also set a precedent in the structure of its grants (Nathan et al., 1987).

No longer were grants made in a fairly open-ended fashion; specific instructions were

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-entitlementgrants

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-operatinggrants

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-capitalgrants

http://www.usa.gov/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

http://www.governing.com/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec1_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-dualfederalism

attached, requiring that they be used for “agriculture and the mechanical arts.” In addition,

new reporting and accounting requirements were added as a condition of receiving the
grants.

FIGURE 3.1

Images of American Federalism

The adoption of grant programs such as the Morrill Act was accompanied by considerable
anguish, because some saw such programs as a drastic departure from the dual federalism

they preferred. The Morrill Act itself, signed by President Lincoln, had previously been

vetoed by President Buchanan, who commented: “Should the time arrive when the State

governments shall look to the Federal Treasury for the means of supporting themselves and
maintaining their systems of education and internal policy, the character of both

Governments will be greatly deteriorated” (Nathan et al., 1987, p. 25).

In any case, the period of dual federalism was marked by considerable conflict among the
various levels of government. The federal government sought to deal effect ively with the

increasingly broad issues being raised in a more complex, urbanized society by developing

new grant programs in such areas as highway construction and vocational education. The

states, though they appreciated federal money, were cautious of federal interference in their
spheres of responsibility. The localities, though creatures of the state and dependent on state

grants of authority or money, sought to build their own political base. The resulting pattern

of federalism resembled a layer cake, with three levels of government working parallel to

one another but rarely together (see Figure 3.1).

Cooperative Federalism

If the layer cake was the prevailing image associated with dual federalism, the marble cake

was the image for the period that followed, notable for its increasing complexity and
interdependence. As opposed to the conflict and division of the earlier period, the emerging

era of cooperative federalism was characterized by greater sharing of responsibilities. The

marble cake image implied a system in which roles and responsibilities were intermixed in a

variety of patterns—vertical, horizontal, and even diagonal (see Figure 3.1).

The great impetus for the development of cooperative federalism was the Roosevelt program

for economic recovery following the Great Depression. Although the majority of President

Roosevelt’s programs were national in scope and could have been national in execution, a

political choice was made to operate many of the programs through the states and their

localities. The pattern of intergovernmental relations that emerged revealed a dramatically

increased federal role, accompanied almost paradoxically by greater federal, state, and local

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/010_chapter3.xhtml#fig3-1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec1_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-cooperativefederalism

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/010_chapter3.xhtml#fig3-1

sharing of responsibilities. In addition, there was greater attention to vertical relationships

within functional areas such as social welfare or transportation.

The pattern of federal, state, and local relations that emerged from the New Deal is illustrated

by several key programs. The first was the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which

provided grants to states for both direct and work relief. It also revitalized many weak state

relief agencies. A variety of public works and employment security programs also
supplemented relief efforts. The best known was the Works Progress Administration (WPA),

a program that used federal money to hire state-certified workers for locally initiated

construction projects. Finally, the Social Security Act of 1935 brought the federal

government into direct relief for the poor, disabled, and unemployed, an area that had
previously been reserved for states and cities.

Through the middle part of the twentieth century, the structure of the various grant

programs initiated at the federal level featured the following:

1. A federal definition of the problem

2. A transfer of funds, primarily to the states (rather than localities)

3. A requirement that plans for use of funds be submitted to the federal government

4. A requirement for state matching funds

5. A requirement for federal review and audit of the programs (Nathan et al., 1987)

For the most part, these grant programs were categorical—that is, directed to a particular

category of activity, such as public works. Indeed, the use of categorical grants as the primary

mechanisms for federal-to-state transfers continued until the 1970s. Throughout this period,
various groups appointed to review the state of intergovernmental relations returned the

same verdict: the federal government and the states should begin “cooperating with or

complementing each other in meeting the growing demands on both” (cited in Nathan et al.,
1987, p. 33). Today, the principle of cooperative federalism is well established.

Picket-Fence Federalism

Through the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, there were dramatic shifts in the pattern of

intergovernmental relations. Nowhere were these shifts more striking than in the contrast
between the activism of the Kennedy and Johnson years and the cutbacks of the Reagan and

Bush years. President Johnson used the phrase “creative federalism” to describe his

approach to intergovernmental relations, which included a huge increase in the number and

amount of federal grants available to states, localities, and other groups. The new federal
programs focused mainly on urban problems and problems of the disadvantaged. Medicaid,

for example, the largest of the new grant programs, provided funds to states to assist in

medical care for low-income people. (Medicaid is largely administered by the states

[eligibility requirements vary from state to state], but it also requires state matching funds,

which became a fiscal problem for many states.) But there were also new programs in

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec1_3

education aimed directly at school districts, new programs in employment and training run

by cities and other independent providers, and new programs in housing and urban
development in major metropolitan areas.

Probably the most publicized domestic program of the Johnson years was the “War on

Poverty,” launched with the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The War on

Poverty and other Johnson programs were significant for both their size and shape.
Substantially more aid was aimed directly at local governments, school districts, and various

nonprofit groups, as opposed to the previous pattern of aid primarily to states. In addition,

there were requirements for detailed planning and for streamlined budgeting systems, as

well as demands for public participation in management of the programs. Finally, and most
importantly, the majority of new programs involved project grants, requiring grant

applications for specific purposes. States and localities began to spend enormous amounts

of time playing the federal grant game trying to obtain grants, searching for matching funds,

and trying to meet planning and reporting requirements. As a result, intergovernmental

relations took on an increasingly competitive tone (Wright, 1988, pp. 81–90).

Throughout this period, the intergovernmental system was becoming increasingly

dominated by the relationships among professionals within various substantive areas at
various levels of government. For example, the relationship among mayor, governor, and

president might be less important than that involving a local health department official,

someone from a state department of health, and the manager of a federal program in health

care. A new image emerged, replacing the “cakes” of earlier periods—that of picket-fence
federalism. The horizontal bars of the fence represented the levels of government, and the

vertical slats represented various substantive fields, such as health, welfare, education,

employment, and training (see Figure 3.2).

President Nixon’s administration brought about a reaction against many of the

developments we have just described. Claiming that programs of the Great Society were too

detailed to administer effectively at the local level and that subgovernments were coming to

dominate the intergovernmental system, Nixon proposed what he termed a “New

Federalism” that would reestablish greater local autonomy in the use of federal funds.

Although a part of his program involved administrative changes, lessening certain

requirements, the most notable changes President Nixon proposed involved changes in the

structure of grant programs.

One way to return power to state and local leaders—especially elected leaders as opposed

to program professionals—was through general revenue sharing. The Nixon plan for general

revenue sharing involved transfers of money from the federal government to states and
localities to use for any purpose they wished. The funds were distributed based on a complex

formula, but once in the hands of the state or local political leadership, they could be used

for tax reduction, transportation, community development, law enforcement, or any other

area. First passed in 1972, the Nixon revenue-sharing program provided approximately $6

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-picket-fencefederalism

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/010_chapter3.xhtml#fig3-2

billion a year for five years and was continued through the Nixon, Ford, Carter, and early

Reagan years before being eliminated in 1986.

The Nixon administration also sought to consolidate large numbers of categorical grants into

block grants, two of which were passed. The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act

(CETA) provided funds to local “prime sponsors,” usually a local government or group of

governments, for manpower training. Which specific programs would be developed was up
to the prime sponsor at the local level. Similarly, two weeks after President Nixon resigned,

President Ford signed the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG)

consolidating several categorical grant programs, including urban renewal and the model

cities program. Despite these successes in altering the pattern of federal grants, the Nixon
and Ford years actually increased the total amount of aid available to states and localities.

FIGURE 3.2

Picket-Fence Federalism

SOURCE: From Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, 4th edition, by D. Wright ©

2003. Reprinted with permission of the author.

The dependency of state and especially local governments on federal aid became more

apparent during the administration of President Carter. The Carter years saw few dramatic

departures in intergovernmental relations, continuing the general revenue sharing and

block grants of the Nixon administration, though there was a greater tendency to target

funds through categorical grants. Among the more important initiatives were expansion of

public service employment under CETA, so that local government jobs would be filled by the

unemployed, and passage of the Urban Development Action Grant program to stimulate
economic development in distressed cities.

As a former governor, President Carter was attentive to the needs of state and local

governments to more effectively operate intergovernmental programs, so he proposed a

series of administrative steps for improving intergovernmental management. In this effort,
he worked closely with a group of seven major public interest groups, known as the PIGs,

that were active in the intergovernmental system. These included such groups as the Council

of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the National Governors Association, and
others. Later in the Carter years, however, a new mood of fiscal restraint, combined with

Carter’s own fiscal conservatism, was something states and localities found difficult to

handle. From the standpoint of state and local governments, the reductions of the late Carter

years were just the beginning.

The Reagan and First Bush Years

The Reagan and the first Bush administrations brought major structural changes in the
pattern of fiscal federalism, including the elimination of general revenue sharing and a

reworking of the block grant system. However, these years were more significant primarily

because of both administrations’ efforts to reduce the size of the federal government through

a variety of tax and spending cuts and to return responsibility for major areas, especially

social welfare, to the states.

An ideological commitment to decrease the size and influence of the federal government and

to recognize the distinction between the powers granted to federal and state governments
undergirded President Reagan’s efforts to eliminate federal funding and federal regulation

of state and local activity wherever possible. One way he proposed to do this was by turning

back responsibility for a variety of federal programs, and the resources to pay for them, to

the states. President Bush employed the same ideology, using the term turnovers rather than
turnbacks. These kinds of proposals became intertwined with President Reagan’s 1981

efforts to reduce taxes through supply-side economics, an approach based on the idea that

decreased taxes and spending will stimulate capital investment and, in turn, economic growth

(Stone & Sawhill, 1984). Because the Reagan administration protected the defense budget, it
sought the majority of the cuts in federal grant programs and general government operations.

State and local officials decried the depth of the Reagan administration’s cuts and its failure

to make available any revenue sources to pick up the slack, especially since the tax cuts failed

to produce the expected economic growth. Concerns were increasingly voiced that efforts to

balance the budget were especially damaging to the poor—for example, by reducing

eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (Nathan et al., 1987, pp. 52 –

57). Although the public was concerned about excessive spending, it became clear that
neither Congress nor the public considered spending for social welfare, environmental

protection, and infrastructure maintenance excessive. Consequently, by the middle of the

second Reagan term, eligibility requirements for AFDC were restored; Congress funded the

environmental Superfund to clean up toxic wastes and repair leaking underground tanks at
a significantly higher level than the president requested; and the Highway Trust Fund for

highway improvement was passed despite Reagan’s veto. On the other hand, reductions

continued in specific areas, particularly in general revenue sharing. Revenue sharing for the

states had been eliminated early in the Reagan administration; in 1986 revenue sharing for
local governments was ended as well.

President Bush continued the Reagan approach to federalism, including the strategy of

turning various programs over to the states. Bush made important but largely symbolic
gestures to the states and localities, partly because he could do little else. The budget deficit

continued unabated, which led to the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990. Under the BEA,

any legislation that exceeds the budget ceiling in its category will trigger an across-the-board

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec1_4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-supply-sideeconomics

cut in that category. When this legislation was combined with the savings and loan bailout,

there was little enthusiasm left for expanding domestic spending, including state and local
aid.

The Clinton Presidency

During the Clinton administration, the philosophical foundation of New Federalism

remained in place, with a focus on regulatory reform and shifting decision-making authority
to state and

local governments.

However, the character and scope of this devolution of power

were interpreted in vastly different ways by the president, the Republican House, and the

more moderate leadership in the Senate. In the latter years of the Clinton administration,
state and local governments offered their own ideas on federalism and intergovernmental

relations. Such diverse viewpoints generated a number of questions concerning not only the

state of federalism but also the implications for government practice.

Early on, President Clinton left little doubt as to his administration’s position on
intergovernmental relations, a position characterized by sensitivity to state and local

governments. Within months of taking office, the administration identified the removal of

burdensome federal regulations as a primary objective. President Clinton issued executive

orders that prevented federal agencies from imposing mandates without financial support.
Although administrative agencies gained regulatory powers, central review was continued

to ensure that new regulations were in line with the president’s priorities. The president

reinforced his stance with another order that established a system of state and local review

of intergovernmental regulations.

The Clinton administration’s New Federalist philosophy also was evident in programmatic

areas, such as its drive to “end welfare as we know it.” The administration transformed the

nation’s system of public assistance by turning to mainly market forces for public well-being
and placing service delivery into the hands of nongovernmental actors. Key provisions

included putting time limits on benefits, tying welfare to work requirements, giving

authority for welfare programs to state governments, and limiting or eliminating access to

public assistance for legal immigrants and the disabled. This philosophy also was apparent
in the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Program, the Clinton administration’s

main community and economic development initiative, and the Goals 2000: Educate America

Act, its key education initiative. Both involved efforts to expand state and/or local discretion

(Walker, 1996), reinforcing the belief that reducing federal regulations and handing
decision-making power to state and local governments would place those closest to a given

issue in a better position to effect innovation and change.

Vice President Al Gore’s National Performance Review (NPR) and related efforts further

advanced the Clinton administration’s position on intergovernmental relations by focusing

on a variety of alternative strategies for managing public programs. These strategies, which

echoed Osborne and Gaebler’s (1992) Reinventing Government, injected a spirit of entre-

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec1_5

preneurship into the federal government. Gore’s NPR called for “a new customer service

contract with the American people, a new guarantee of effective, efficient, and responsive
government,” along with several practical measures that affected intergovernmental

relations, such as collapsing categorical grants into more flexible funding streams and

removing unfunded federal mandates.

Regulatory reform and removing unfunded mandates also became key issues for the 104th
Congress. As heralded in the Republican Contract with America, conservatives argued that

federal agencies placed too great a burden on state and local administrations by imposing

regulations without adequate financial resources for their implementation. With assistance

from the Clinton administration, Republican lawmakers revised two measures from the
preceding Congress into the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, under which the cost

of any future mandate would need to be spelled out by the Congressional Budget Office. The

act also raised the president’s executive orders mentioned above to a statutory level, binding

agencies by law to find less expensive, more flexible ways of instituting regulations.

During President Clinton’s second term, however, ties with the Republican Congress

degenerated into political gridlock. Though the two camps did come together on measures

to eliminate the federal deficit and reform the nation’s welfare system, the prevailing
environment was one of partisan extremism. Moreover, even the hallmarks of the period

failed to gain support among many state and local governments that, while recognizing the

need for fiscal constraint and welfare reform, remained concerned that the cost of the

measures would fall primarily on the subnational levels of administration.

The impact of NPR and “reinventing government” also remains in question. While a variety

of federal agencies implemented reform during both Clinton terms, many were fraught with

political and administrative challenges. Reinvention, compared to many political reform
movements, has had a fairly long life span. Examples can be found at all levels of government,

and in the nonprofit sector, as reformers strive to create a more responsive, entrepreneurial,

and results-based system of governance. On the other hand, a growing number of scholars

and practitioners have taken issue with the assumptions underlying the reform agenda.

Although few would dispute the value of making federal agencies more responsive or of

ensuring effectiveness in delivering public services, many have come to recognize that

productivity and performance should not be the only measures of success.

The Bush Administration

The political conditions associated with the election of George W. Bush in 2000—his agenda

to streamline the government, increase the role of nongovernmental organizations in the

policy process, and shift to more market-based models of service delivery, coupled with the

passage of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act—hinted at the possibility of a move

away from federal policy centralization. Unlike many of his recent predecessors, President

Bush did not offer specific proposals signaling his philosophy on federalism. In practice,

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec1_6

however, the administration appeared to have been less concerned with federalism and

more focused on efforts to extend the role of the federal government (Nathan, 2006).

While some Bush administration initiatives were devolutionary in nature, such as a state-

driven change in Medicaid policy and grant consolidations of community development, the

Bush era was characterized primarily by its expansion of centralizing actions, in some

instances overturning “cooperative federalism frameworks that had evolved over many
years” in favor of “a more insistent, demanding federal role” to accomplish policy and

political goals (Posner, 2007, p. 408). This emphasis on less cooperative and more coercive

kinds of policy tools—what we might call coercive federalism—was not new, as the use of

mandates and preemptions of state and local authority had been increasing since the 1970s
(Kincaid, 1990). The continuation of this trend was evident in many of the Bush

administration’s actions, including its approach to homeland security, education, Medicare,

and the administration of elections.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the effects of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 resulted in

several proposals and directives by the Bush administration aimed at centralizing

emergency preparedness and response. For example, the Department of Homeland Security,

created under President Bush in response to 9/11, developed federal standards for thirty-
six areas of emergency planning and response that cover fifteen types of emergencies.

Another measure, the Real ID Act of 2005, established federal standards for driver’s licenses,

requiring proof of identity and lawful status, security features to be incorporated into each

card, and security standards for offices that issue licenses. Residents in states that do not
comply by January 2013 will lose acceptance of their driver’s licenses by federal entities,

including security personnel in airports. In response to problems in mobilizing National

Guard troops in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a rider to the 2007 Defense
Authorization Act gave presidents the authority to federalize the National Guard without the

permission of a governor in times of natural disasters.

Despite a Republican history of supporting local control of schools, the Bush administration

in 2001 proposed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which created federal requirements

for testing and accountability and, thus, a stronger federal role in education policy. Under the

act, while standards are set by the individual states, schools receiving federal funds must

administer a statewide standardized test each year to all students, students must make

“adequate yearly progress” in test scores, and schools must provide highly qualified teachers
for all students. NCLB marked “an expansion of federal authority over programmatic aspects

of education and raises the expectations of federal policy by emphasizing equal educational

outcomes” (Sunderman, 2009, p. 11).

President Bush also supported the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and

Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), “the largest expansion of the federal role in health care

since 1965” (Conlan & Dinan, 2007, p. 282). The act expanded Medicare to include

prescription drug coverage that would be administered by private health plans. It also
included a major restructuring of the program, relying heavily on private insurance for

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-coercivefederalism

benefit delivery and increasing beneficiary cost-sharing responsibilities. The new drug

benefit provision, known as Medicare Part D, shifted drug coverage for low-income
beneficiaries from Medicaid to Medicare, thus relieving states of some prescription drug

coverage costs for these “dual eligibles.” This shift, however, was offset by added

administrative costs as states became responsible, along with the Social Security

Administration, for determining who qualifies for assistance, increasing administrative
costs. States also were required to pay back the Medicaid savings on these dual eligibles,

which, in essence, levied a federal tax on state Medicaid spending (Matthews, 2004).

The controversy over the 2000 presidential election led to the passage of the Help America

Vote Act (HAVA), which President Bush signed into law in October 2002. The act created new
federal standards and provided federal funding aimed at regulating significant aspects of the

administration of state and local elections. Requirements covered voting systems,

provisional ballots, and access to polling places for the disabled. The act also required

centralization of statewide voter databases and uniform processes for vote definitions.

Although the act is centralized in nature, much of the implementation was framed in a

devolutionary way, as key decisions on defining several of the requirements were left to the

states (Posner, 2007). An interesting commentary on the broader trends in governance can
be found in the “Exploring Concepts” box “Transformation of Governance: Globalization,

Devolution, and the Role of Government.”

Exploring Concepts

TRANSFORMATION OF GOVERNANCE: GLOBALIZATION, DEVOLUTION, AND THE ROLE OF

GOVERNMENT

Over the last generation, American government has undergone a steady, but often unnoticed,

transformation. Its traditional practices and institutions have become more marginal to the

fundamental debates. Meanwhile, new processes and institutions—often nongovernmental
ones—have become more central to public policy. In doing the people’s work to a large and

growing degree, American governments share responsibility with other levels of

government, with private companies, and with nonprofit organizations.

This transformation has two effects. First, it has strained the traditional roles of all the
players. For decades, we have debated privatizing and shrinking government. While the

debate raged, however, we incrementally made important policy decisions. Those decisions

have rendered much of the debate moot. Government has come to rely heavily on for-profit

and nonprofit organizations for delivering goods and services ranging from antimissile

systems to welfare reform. It is not that these changes have obliterated the roles of Congress,

the president, and the courts. State and local governments have become even livelier. Rather,

these changes have layered new challenges on top of the traditional institutions and their
processes.

Second, the new challenges have strained the capacity of governments—and their

nongovernmental partners—to deliver high-quality public services. The basic structure of

American government comes from the New Deal days. It is a government driven by

functional specialization and process control. However, new place-based problems have

emerged: How can government’s functions be coordinated in a single place? Can
environmental regulations flowing down separate channels (air, water, and soil) merge to

form a coherent environmental policy? New process-based problems have emerged as well:

How can hierarchical bureaucracies, created with the presumption that they directly deliver

services, cope with services increasingly delivered through multiple (often
nongovernmental) partners? Budgetary control processes that work well for traditional

bureaucracies often prove less effective in gathering information from nongovernmental

partners or in shaping their incentives. Personnel systems designed to insulate government

from political interference have proven less adaptive to these new challenges, especially in
creating a cohort of executives skilled in managing indirect government.

Consequently, government at all levels has found itself with new responsibilities but without

the capacity to manage them effectively. The same is true of its nongovernmental partners.

Moreover, despite these transformations, the expectations on government—by citizens and

often by government officials—remain rooted in a past that no longer exists. Citizens expect

their problems will be solved and tend not to care who solves them. Elected officials take a

similar view: They create programs and appropriate money. They expect government
agencies to deliver the goods and services. When problems emerge, their first instinct is to

reorganize agencies or impose new procedures—when the problem often has to do with

organizational structures and processes that no longer fit reality. The performance of

American government—its effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, and accountability—
depends on cracking these problems.

SOURCE: Donald F. Kettl, “Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution and the

Role of Government.” Public Administration Review 60, no. 6 (November/December 2000):
488–497. Reprinted by permission.

Obama and Federalism

The economic crisis in 2008 and a commitment to enacting health-care reform legislation

prompted a great deal of activity by the Obama administration, resulting in several national

initiatives and inciting widespread concerns about policy centralization and the expansion

of the federal government’s role. While some initiatives involved coercive federalism

strategies, the administration also turned to a variety of cooperative tools, following a path
“that was far more nuanced and cooperative than that suggested by early expectations”

(Conlan & Dinan, 2011, p. 421) in its attempts to promote economic recovery, regulate the

financial industry, and reform health care.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec1_7

President Obama gave an early indication regarding his approach to federalism in a

memorandum early in 2009 directing agencies to preempt state law only in cases with a
sufficient legal basis for doing so. The memorandum also included restrictions on including

statements of preemption in regulations and directed agencies to conduct a review of

regulations enacted over the previous ten years that included preemptive statements to

determine if preemption was justified. Another memo in 2011 directed agencies to work
with state, local, and tribal governments to create greater administrative flexibility and

reduce burdens created by federal regulations (Metzger, 2011).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as the Recovery Act,

enacted shortly after President Obama took office, looked to the intergovernmental system
to play a key role in recovery. The ARRA provided critical relief for state and local budgets

hit hard by the recession of 2008, including funding for existing federal aid programs in

education, community development, and social services. The use of established programs

was aimed at enabling faster state and local spending, although it did little to promote

innovation and reform (Conlan & Dinan, 2011). The ARRA also included flexible funding

related to Medicaid and education, aimed at reducing the impact of the rapid decline in state

and local revenues and minimizing layoffs of government employees. These funds, however,
were restricted by maintenance-of-effort requirements, under which states could not reduce

services covered under Medicaid or reduce education funding to below FY 2006 levels. The

ARRA also imposed requirements on states to use the funds immediately or lose them, and

it included extensive requirements regarding transparency and accountability.

Although historically the states played a major role in the oversight of financial products, the

2008 economic crisis prompted calls for major reforms in the regulation of financial

institutions. In 2010 President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act, which overturned a Bush administration policy of preempting

state authority over federally chartered national banks to protect consumers and maintain

competition. The act essentially safeguarded existing state laws and reaffirmed state

authority to enforce federal consumer protection laws even as it created a more powerful

regulatory effort at the federal level. Although initial versions of the bill included an

expansion of federal preemption, the Obama administration intervened to help protect state

authority (Conlan & Dinan, 2011).

The Obama administration’s health-care reform initiative, which resulted in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), took aim at overhauling the nation’s

health insurance system. ACA imposed sweeping new federal requirements and expanded

coverage to 32 million of the nation’s 55 million uninsured. Although the provision requiring
individuals to have a minimum level of coverage generated the most controversy, the

greatest impact on the states came from a significant expansion of Medicaid and the

establishment of health exchanges. Although the federal government would cover most of

these costs, the states would assume a portion of these along with increased administrative
costs. States also are required to maintain existing eligibility and benefit levels for Medicaid

and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Metzger, 2011). In short, while the states will

have some flexibility and maintain some major responsibilities, the ACA represents a

sweeping centralization effort at the federal level.

While the initiatives advanced by the Obama administration clearly involve the expansion of

federal authority, they also are notable for the extent to which “states are offered central

roles to play in the new federal regimes, with broad grants of authority and federal funds to

entice their participation” (Metzger, 2011, p. 599). This “hybrid” model of intergovernmental
relations “mixes money, mandates, and flexibility in new and distinctive ways” (Conlan &

Dinan, 2011, p. 443). However, in the face of mounting federal deficits and rising ideological

and political polarization, it remains to be seen whether such an approach is sustainable.

Certainly a key issue for President Obama will be whether he can achieve deficit reduction
while also getting Congress to pass programs for innovation, infrastructure, and education.

Judicial Influence

One final point relates to the role of the judiciary in shaping intergovernmental relations.
Through the 1990s, students of federalism became increasingly aware of the role of the

judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, in defining the relationship between the federal

government and the states. Although the recent judicial activism has produced varied

results, with the scope of federal authority limited in some cases and reaffirmed in others,
an important outcome has emerged. The Court has once again established itself as “a

conscious arbiter of the respective powers of the national government and the states” (Wise,

2001, p. 343).

At issue has been Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate activities at the state level.

For much of the twentieth century, the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power

to regulate trade between the states, has been the center point of federal legislation.

However, regulations also have been imposed under the Fourteenth Amendment, which
grants Congress the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the rights provided in the

amendment. Regardless of its legal basis, federal regulatory authority has been allowed to

expand virtually unchecked by the Court since the 1940s. In fact, some scholars of federalism

began to wonder whether any boundaries would be established to limit the scope of the
federal government relative to the states (see Wise, 1998, 2001). The tides began to change,

however, during the 1990s.

Among the first key decisions setting parameters on Congress’s regulatory power was

Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991). In this case, the Court ruled that the Missouri constitution’s rule
that state judges must retire at age seventy does not violate the federal Age Discrimination

Act, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had ruled. “The significance of this

[the Gregory ruling] is that it bars individuals and groups who wish to use federal statutes of

general applicability adopted under the Commerce Clause to attack state regulation in

federal court from doing so, unless Congress makes it clear that the statute applies to the

states” (Wise, 2001, p. 344). Justice O’Connor, in her opinion, emphasized the constitutional

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec1_8

principle of dual sovereignty and the importance of maintaining a certain degree of state

authority.

Congress’s regulatory power under Commerce came into question again in United States v.

Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000). In Lopez, the Court considered a challenge

to federal restrictions placed on handgun possession in a school zone. The Morrison case

focused on provisions in the Violence Against Women Act, which allow victims of violent
crimes motivated by gender to seek federal civil action. The Supreme Court ruled in both

cases that Congress had overstepped its regulatory jurisdiction because the statutes were

not consistent with the authority afforded under the Commerce Clause. At the heart of the

Court’s decisions was the premise that clear lines must be established between national and
state powers and that, under Commerce, these lines must be limited to matters of interstate

trade.

Of course, the Lopez and Morrison decisions focused primarily on restoring a balance of
regulatory power between the national government and state governments. The recent

judicial activism, however, also can be seen on issues of administration, such as in New York

v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), where the Court placed restrictions

on Congress’s ability to compel state and local actors to implement federal statutes.

The New York case involved a challenge from local governments against the Low-Level

Radioactive Waste Policy Act, which required state and regional authorities in certain

circumstances to assume ownership of radioactive waste and commanded them to

implement provisions of the federal legislation. The Court ruled unconstitutional both
alternatives, stating that Congress must not view state and local governments as “mere

political subdivisions… [or] regional offices” (Wise, 1998, p. 95) of the national government

and must afford the level of state sovereignty guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment.

In Printz, the Court reviewed a challenge to provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act, which mandated background checks on prospective buyers and required

local law enforcement officers to serve as entities of the national government in executing

the regulation. The federal government, in an interesting twist, argued that unlike in New
York, the Brady Act did not place responsibility on the states for policy making and that, given

the rewards, the cost to the states would be minimal. The Court disagreed. In its rejection of

the federal claim, the Court stated that New York established, in very clear terms, that

Congress cannot command state officials to execute or administer federal regulations, nor

can the national government bypass the New York limitations by directly enlisting state

actors.

However, the decisions cited here should not be taken as a complete shift toward state
sovereignty. Several recent rulings, including Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education

(1999), Saenz v. Roe (1999), and Sabri v. United States (2004), have reinforced the national

government’s capacity to monitor state activities.

In Davis, for example, the Court reaffirmed Congress’s authority to establish state liability for

certain actions as part of the states’ agreement to receive federal funding. The majority of
the justices ruled that, under the Spending Clause, Congress could use its control over

appropriations to enforce constitutional rights—in this case, the guarantee against third-

party discrimination in public schools—as long as the language in the funding program

remained clear enough so that states would have adequate notice of the federal
requirements.

The main issue in Saenz was the state of California’s revision to its welfare laws to set a

twelve-month residency requirement for certain levels of public assistance. Although the

Court had previously invalidated residency requirements for eligibility (in Shapiro v.
Thompson [1969]), Secretary Saenz, of California’s Department of Social Services, claimed

that the new welfare reform provisions did not exclude new arrivals from welfare benefits

but simply maintained their assistance levels to those of the states where they resided

previously. The Court disagreed, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment does not assign

levels of citizenship according to length of residence but instead links citizenship with

residence generally. Although the Court appreciated California’s desire to reduce the cost of

welfare benefits, a majority determined that fiscal efficiency could not be allowed to
outweigh citizen guarantees against discrimination.

In the Sabri case, Sabri was accused of offering bribes to a Minneapolis councilman to

facilitate city construction projects. The constitutional question before the Court was

whether Congress could criminalize such bribes under its spending power. Even though it
was not possible to establish a direct link between the bribes and a particular federal project,

the Court held that the federal government could act to safeguard the integrity of local

government administration involved in federally funded projects.

When taken as a whole, the decisions cited here present a mixed image of federalism. On one

hand, the Court clearly has reconsidered its deference to Congress on issues of

intergovernmental relations, a practice it had followed throughout the twentieth century,

setting restraints on the scope of federal power. On the other hand, federal regulatory

authority in other areas has been reaffirmed, particularly under the Spending Clause and the

Fourteenth Amendment. Despite the significance of these decisions in themselves, the

implications go even further. Indeed, the most significant outcome is that the Court appears

to have reassumed its responsibility for judicial review on questions of federal-state
authority, which it had all but abandoned in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit

Authority (1985). (The Garcia case will be discussed in more detail in the next section.) Given

not only the nature of the decisions but the mere fact that the judiciary has been willing to
intervene, we can be assured that the Supreme Court once again has become the “arbiter-in-

chief” in our federal system (Wise, 1998, p. 98).

The State and Local Perspective
We have described the system of intergovernmental relations primarily from the federal
perspective, but states and localities are also major actors in the intergovernmental system,

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec2

both as they participate in federal programs and as they interact state to state, state to

locality, and locality to locality. Here, also, intergovernmental relations have seen great
changes. Although budgetary shifts have created serious problems for state and local

governments, the governments have proven remarkably well equipped to deal with these

dilemmas, both financially and administratively.

Funding Patterns

As we noted earlier, federal aid to state and local governments began as early as the Civil

War with the passage of the Morrill Act, establishing land-grant colleges. Soon after, federal

aid was extended to agriculture, highways, and public health, among other areas. During the
Great Depression, federal aid also went to income security and social welfare. But the most

significant increases in federal grants occurred after World War II. There has been a dramatic

increase in federal funding of state and local activities over the last fifty years. In 1960,

transportation received the largest amount of federal funding, but by 1970 there had been
significant increases in funding for education, training, employment, and social services.

Since 1980, changes in the relative amounts among functions reflect large increases in grants

for health (primarily Medicaid) and for income security. Funding for health care alone

increased dramatically over the last two decades, from $43.9 billion in 1990 to $290.2 billion
in 2010.

Over the last twenty years, federal dollars have amounted to approximately 20 percent of

the amount spent by state governments. But that share increased to 25 percent in 2010, as

the federal government sought to assist states and local governments in getting through the

recession. Specifically, as noted above, the federal government provided additional support

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), enacted in February

2009. Federal grants to state and local governments increased from $538.0 billion in 2009
to $608.4 billion in 2010 and were estimated to be $625.2 billion in 2011. These amounts

were used by state and local governments to maintain earlier service levels in the education,

health-care, energy, water, and other programs, and to avoid greater cuts to state services

and increases in taxes. Since state and local governments usually recover at a slower rate
than other sectors, they will continue to face fiscal difficulties for the foreseeable future.

However, the 2012 budget proposed a decrease in the overall amounts of federal grant

funding because most of the funds provided under the Recovery Act will have been spent

(Office of Management and Budget, 2012).

Without question, the last several decades have presented a variety of fiscal challenges to

state and local governments. One surprising development, however, is that the states have

proven capable of managing their new responsibilities far better than many predicted.
Indeed, although the federal government has a huge deficit, most states have continued to

operate with balanced budgets over the last decade typically relying much more on spending

cuts then raising new revenues.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec2_1

Once considered a weak link in the federal system, over the last thirty years, states have

dramatically increased their capacities. Although there are still considerable variations in
states’ powers, most states have undertaken important institutional reforms (such as

developing legislative audits), expanded the scope and professionalism of their operations

(to include new services in areas such as energy planning and conservation or new programs

in areas such as performance management), and demonstrated remarkable fiscal restraint.

The states also are moving into areas of responsibility once thought to rest at the federal

level. International trade is one area where shifting roles already seem to be taking place.

Whereas the federal government has traditionally played the leading (if not the exclusive)

role in foreign affairs, economic forces are precipitating much greater state and local activity
in the international arena. For example, all states have offices of economic development

involved in some way with international economic development. Through such units, the

states provide local businesses with seminars and conferences on how to market themselves

overseas. Over forty states also maintain permanent offices overseas, with some of the larger

states having offices in several countries.

Preemptions and Mandates

Preemptions As discussed previously, although our federal system of government
establishes certain federal powers, reserves certain powers to the states, and permits

certain actions at both levels, there has long been controversy about the exact

definitions of these categories. Intense controversy surrounds the issue of the right of

the federal government to preempt the traditional powers of states and localities or

to coerce states and localities into doing (or not doing) certain things.

As a case in point, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 set the minimum wage and

the maximum hours that could be worked before overtime pay was required. The act
originally applied only to the private sector, but 1974 amendments applied it to all state and

local governments. Many state and local officials argued against the amendments, citing the

difficulties in applying the standards to government—for example, how do you measure the

hours a firefighter works in off-and-on shifts of several days’ duration? Soon the
amendments were challenged in court, and, in the case of National League of Cities v. Usery

(1976), the Supreme Court decided that the functions of “general government” were part of

the powers “reserved” to the states by the Tenth Amendment and therefore could not be

regulated by the federal government. Consequently, the FLSA did not apply.

Networking

For data relating to federal funding to state and local governments, go to the 2012 Statistical

Abstract of the United States at

http;//-w-w-w-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-c-o-m-p-e-n-d-i-a-/-s-t-a-t-a-b-/ or to the 2013 budget

at the Office of Management and Budget at

http;//-w-w-w-.-w-h-i-t-e-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v-/-o-m-b-/-b-u-d-g-e-t-/-O-v-e-r-v-i-e-w-/.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec2_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec2_2_1

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/

The Court’s ruling in many ways raised as many questions as it answered, especially around

the issue of what could be included under the notion of “general government.” The confusion

persisted until, nearly ten years later, the Court reviewed a case that sought to determine

whether the San Antonio transit authority was performing “general government” functions

and was therefore exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), however, the Court went

beyond the narrow question of whether transit is a general government function and

decided that, under its responsibilities to regulate commerce, Congress did in fact have the

power to intervene in the affairs of state and local governments.

The effect of Garcia, a direct reversal of the Court’s earlier position in the Usery case, was to

remove questions about the scope of the federal government’s powers from the realm of

judicial inquiry. The Court essentially held that states have sufficient input into the national
legislative process, through the election of members of Congress and the influence of their

governors and mayors, to protect themselves politically from burdensome legislation. That

being the case, the question of whether the federal government could act in areas previously

believed reserved to the states should be decided through legislation rather than judicial

action. The rights of the states were, therefore, viewed as raising political rather than judicial

questions.

A similar argument was developed by the Court in South Carolina v. Baker (1988), a case

viewed by many at the time as putting a nail in the coffin of the Tenth Amendment rights of
the states. South Carolina asked whether the federal government had the right to dictate the

form of bonds issued by the states. The Court not only answered “yes,” but it also indicated

that the federal government had the right to tax income earned on tax-exempt bonds.
Obviously, if the federal government had this right, then the states would have to compete

directly with private firms issuing bonds. Although political leaders tried to assure the bond

market that the federal government would not try to balance its budget by intruding on the

states’ abilities to issue tax-exempt bonds, several such proposals were introduced in
Congress. As you can imagine, states and localities were incensed at this intrusion into a

critical area of state financing, but, again, the states were precluded from a judicial remedy

and asked to rely on their political power to see that Congress did not act to tax state and

local bonds.

The Garcia and South Carolina cases open the door for the federal government to move into

areas once thought to be the purview of state and local governments. Certainly, state and

local officials, who have seen the federal government act in areas from rat control to
minimum drinking ages, have been skeptical of the self-restraint of Congress. At a minimum,

Garcia and South Carolina set a precedent for expanded federal action directed at state and

local governments.

We should not, however, rush to judgment, because many of the Supreme Court rulings

handed down in the past decade have been decided by 5–4 votes, and in several key cases,
the majority has clearly reaffirmed the sovereignty of state governments (for example, New

York v. United States [1992], Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida [1996], Printz v. United States

[1997], and Alden v. Maine [1999]). In fact, a recent commentary on emerging judicial

federalism noted that majority opinion maintained the theme “that state sovereignty may
not be invaded, not only because it is rooted in the nation’s constitutional structure, but also

because such invasion undermines the very operation of American democracy” (Wise, 2001,

p. 354).

These cases deal with the powers of the federal government over states and localities, but
somewhat less complex issues have been raised with respect to the powers of the states over

local governments. As noted, our intergovernmental system does not allocate separate

spheres of power to state and local governments, but rather treats local governments merely

as “creatures of the state,” having only those powers granted by the state. In what has come

to be known as Dillon’s Rule, Judge John Dillon declared in 1868 that municipalities had only

those powers granted in their charters, those fairly implied by the expressed powers, and those

essential to the purposes of their being granted a charter. In other words, Dillon’s Rule allowed
for state control over all but a narrow range of local activities. Dillon’s Rule has been somewhat

relaxed, especially in states that permit cities greater autonomy through home-rule provisions,

but the powers of local government continue to derive directly from the actions of the state.

There are various mechanisms involved in the relationship between the federal government
and the states and between the states and localities. Preemptions involve the federal

government preempting state action traditionally associated with the lower level of

government. For example, the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 preempted
many state and local laws regarding food labeling. Such assumptions of power have been

particularly significant in the last few years. For example, federal preemptions of state and local

authority more than doubled after 1970. More than 50 percent of the preemption statutes

enacted in the entire history of our country were enacted in the last twenty years. Not even

Ronald Reagan, despite his rhetoric promising a return of more power to the states, was exempt

from this trend, endorsing federal limits on the regulation of business, as well as restraints in

health and the environment (Kincaid, 1990, p. 149).

As we have seen, President Obama, recognizing the limitations that preemptions place on
the states, issued a memorandum on May 20, 2009, requiring executive offices to limit

preemptions of state power. In part the memorandum read:

The purpose of this memorandum is to state the general policy of my Administration that
preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only

with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal

basis for preemption. Executive departments and agencies should be mindful that in our

Federal system, the citizens of the several States have distinctive circumstances and values,
and that in many instances it is appropriate for them to apply to themselves rules and

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-dillonsrule

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-homerule

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-preemption

principles that reflect these circumstances and values. (Presidential Memorandum, May 20,

2009)

Mandates The New York and Printz cases deal with what are called direct orders,

requirements or restrictions enforced by one government upon another (the federal

government on states and localities, the states on the cities). Direct orders might include a

federal requirement that cities meet certain clean water standards or a state requirement that
a city pay part of the costs of certain welfare programs. Another way control can be exercised

over another government is through conditions tied to grants-in-aid. These conditions are

typically of the type parents use with children: “You can go outside to play after you have

cleaned your room.” Conditions of aid might require land-use planning or an assurance of
making facilities accessible to the handicapped prior to a capital construction project.

Because cities derive their powers from the states, most state requirements are direct

orders. But most federal requirements are conditions-of-aid tied to a particular grant
program. “Conditions-of-aid” are of two varieties. Cross-cutting requirements are rules that

apply to most, if not all, grant programs. For instance, the federal government requires

environmental impact statements before undertaking capital projects, certain personnel

provisions in agencies receiving grant funds, and compliance with civil rights legislation. Other
conditions-of-aid are program-specific, applicable only to the particular program. They may

include rules about program planning, implementation, and evaluation. For example, a

particular program might prescribe certain maximum salaries for individuals employed under

the grant or some form of citizen participation in program design (most federal programs have
this latter requirement).

What Would You Do?

You are in charge of a coalition combating domestic violence. The various nonprofit

organizations that are the primary service delivery groups in this area have complained to
you that a new state initiative to stop human trafficking will have the effect of reducing their

capacity to help current victims of domestic violence and abuse. What would you do?

Congress imposes such conditions-of-aid requirements under the Spending Clause of the

Constitution. For the terms to be valid, though, federal lawmakers must clearly state the
conditions in the legislation, making certain that state and local governments are aware of

the requirements. The legality of Congress using funding conditions as a way of advancing

regulatory and administrative objectives has been reaffirmed in several Supreme Court

decisions, notably Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret (1999) and Davis v.
Monroe County Board of Education (1999).

The term mandate has been used to embrace both conditions-of-aid and direct orders, in either

case an order requiring a government to do something it might not otherwise do. And mandates
often require states or localities to spend money they would not otherwise spend. Today it is

estimated that federal mandates cost state and local governments an estimated $100 billion a

year. State spending mandated by the recent immigration bills alone is estimated to be over $1

billion. Moreover, states and cities claim that mandates unduly impinge upon the autonomy of

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec2_2_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-directorders

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-cross-cuttingrequirements

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-mandate

their level of government. Consequently, mandates have become a source of considerable

frustration for those on the receiving end. The argument continues today by mayors and
governors across the country—the mayors concerned with both federal and state mandates,

and the governors concerned primarily with federal mandates.

For nonprofits, mandates tend to be a part of daily life. The key difference is that where a

local government may have mandates from a relatively narrow number of sources, such as
the federal and state levels, a nonprofit agency often will face direct orders or conditions -of-

aid requirements from each of its funding sources, and the larger the funder (and funding

amount), the greater the burden. Those in the nonprofit sector sometimes speak of mandates

as the “golden handcuffs”—the funding is great, but grant-maker demands usually place an
excessive administrative strain on the organization. As Paul Light concluded, the situation

has been exacerbated in recent years by trends in nonprofit management reform:

“Unfortunately, the nonprofit sector is caught in the middle of an unrelenting contest

between competing philosophies and advocates of reform, all of which produce significant

motion back and forth across different reform ideologies” (Light, 2000, p. 45). The varying

philosophical positions can become manifested in an array of reporting standards and

administrative procedures imposed by grant makers.

The United Way of America, for example, plays a leading role in establishing guidelines for

performance (or “outcome”) management by nonprofit organizations, and an increasing

number of local United Ways have set reporting standards for agencies receiving grants.

Similarly, many foundations (large and small) have made interagency partnerships an
eligibility requirement for grant programs. If a nonprofit service provider wants to apply for

a grant, the leadership must show how the agency will “collaborate” with other nonprofits,

government, and even for-profit firms.

At the federal level, every president since Nixon has pledged to reduce the burden of

mandates on states and local governments. In his 1992 State of the Union address, President

Bush said, “We must put an end to unfinanced Federal Government mandates… If Congress

passes a mandate, it should be forced to pay for it and to balance the cost with savings

elsewhere. After all, a mandate just increases someone else’s burden, and that means higher

taxes at the state and local level” (Bowman & Pagano, 1992, p. 4). However, shortly after the

president made his remarks, he signed a budget agreement that contained twenty new

mandates expected to cost state and local governments about $17 billion over the next five
years.

An important step forward was taken in March 1995, when President Clinton signed the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, presumably an effort to limit the effects of
federally imposed mandates. Although this legislation does not provide federal funding for

all mandated activities, it does require that Congress recognize the implications of mandates

for state and local activities and, in some cases, authorize funding f or such mandates.

According to Gullo (2004), UMRA increased the amount of information that federal agencies
are required to provide Congress when proposing a bill that will impose costs for state, local,

and tribal governments. UMRA also gives Congress the authority to defeat or alter a bill that

would impose costs for state, local, and tribal governments above the 2011 threshold of $71
million for intergovernmental mandates.

However, there seem to be a variety of “loopholes” through which Congress might avoid

funding. Although most state and local government associations (such as the Big Seven

Public Interest Groups) actively supported the act, most also realize that it provides limited
relief from federally imposed mandates. Also, the act does nothing about mandates imposed

on local governments by state governments.

And, according to many, unfunded mandates continue. For example, the Bush administration

received criticism from educational groups as well as state and local officials for the
presumably unfunded mandates required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Similarly, the

Obama administration was criticized for including unfunded mandates in the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act, the president’s health-care reform act and a signature
piece of his legislative agenda. In both cases, lawsuits were filed by a number of states

seeking remedy from these supposedly unfunded mandates.

Subnational Relationships

Even focusing on state and local activities, we find the federal government involved in some
way—at a minimum, in providing funds for states and localities. But important

intergovernmental activity also occurs at the subnational level: state to state, state to local,

and local to local.

State to State Relationships between and among states are mentioned several times

in the U.S. Constitution, most notably in the requirement that states recognize the

rights and privileges of citizens of other states and give “full faith and credit” to the

public acts and legal proceedings of other states. Some of the most important

intergovernmental relationships involving various state governments are not based

in constitutional doctrine, however, but are rather the result of political practices over

the years.

Relationships among states are not without conflict. States may differ over census counts
(important in determining the number of representatives in Congress), shifting state

boundaries (as when a river changes course), and a variety of substantive policy issues (such

as the rights to underground water or the degree to which dumping pollutants into a river

affects water quality in states downstream). In addition, states must increasingly compete
with one another for economic development; for example, California recently established the

Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, which is designed to serve as

California’s single point of contact for economic development and job creation efforts. “GO-

Biz offers a range of services to business owners including: attraction, retention and

expansion services, site selection, permit streamlining, clearing of regulatory hurdles, small

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec2_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec2_3_1

business assistance, international trade development, assistance with state government, and

much more” (http;//-b-u-s-i-n-e-s-s-.-c-a-.-g-o-v-/-A-b-o-u-t-U-s-.-a-s-p-x).

States also cooperate. There are many opportunities for officials in one state to seek the

advice of those in other states with respect to policy alternatives or new administrative

arrangements. Many organizations, including the Council of State Governments, the National

Governors Association, the National Council of State Legislators, and groups that bring
together state officials in personnel, budgeting, purchasing, social welfare, health, and so

forth, have been created to help officials share information and expertise. These groups,

along with the Washington offices of various states, constitute an important lobbying group

in Washington.

One way the states come together to resolve potential disputes or work together on common

problems is through interstate compacts. These agreements have historically been bilateral,

involving only two states; however, increasingly, they involve a number of states within a region
or even all fifty states. Originally used to resolve boundary disputes, interstate compacts today

cover a wide variety of topics, most arising from the fact that today’s policy problems do not

confine themselves neatly to the borders of one state. Imagine, for example, the common

interests of people in several states sharing the same underground water supply. Think also of
the problems that are of interest to all who live in metropolitan areas, such as Cincinnati or

Kansas City, that cross the boundaries of two or even more states. It is not uncommon in such

areas to find interstate compacts covering air and water pollution, transportation, law

enforcement, and so on.

States may also use interstate compacts to symbolize their agreement to cooperate in

especially important policy areas. For example, Arizona, California, Nevada, and other

southwestern states have a definite interest in ensuring access to water from the Colorado
River. The states’ governments follow compacts dating back to 1922, which lay out strict

guidelines on access rights and water usage. In cases such as this, an interstate compact

provides a way for states to formalize resolution of a dispute or to work together without

involving the federal government.

State to Local We have seen that the relationship between states and localities is

unitary—that is, local governments have only those powers granted by the state.

However, the nature of the powers may vary considerably. Most cities operate under

some form of charter, the local government equivalent of a constitution. But a state may grant

charters in several ways. Some states develop special charters for each individual local

government; others take exactly the opposite approach and grant a general charter for local

government. The classified charter approach seeks to avoid the restrictive nature of the special
charter and the rigidity of the general charter by granting charters to various classes of cities.

For example, all cities over 1 million in population might be designated Class A and have one

set of charter provisions, whereas cities from 250,000 to 1 million might be Class B and have

a different set of provisions. A final means of chartering cities, called home rule, permits cities

http://business.ca.gov/AboutUs.aspx

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-interstatecompact

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec2_3_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-charter

to write their own charters, within very broad state guidelines and generally subject to voter

approval.

Home rule obviously provides the greatest flexibility for local governments in terms of basic

structure; however, even under home rule, there is substantial state involvement in local

government affairs. For one thing, the states are an important source of funding for local

activities. Indeed, at a time when federal aid has leveled somewhat, state aid to local
governments has increased dramatically. Between 1980 and 2004, for example, state aid to

local governments increased from about $83 billion to over $379 billion, with most of that

targeted for education and lesser amounts for welfare, highways, and other purposes (U.S.

Census, -w-w-w-.-c-e-n-s-u-s-.-g-o-v-/-g-o-v-s-/-w-w-w-/-e-s-t-i-m-a-t-e-.-h-t-m-l). But
more severe economic times have led to a change in direction, as many states have sought to

balance their own budgets by decreasing aid to local governments. For example, in 2011,

Governor John Kasich (R) of Ohio proposed cutting aid to local governments by up to 50

percent and limiting state colleges and universities to 3.5 percent tuition increases. The cuts

would cost counties, municipalities, and townships $167 million in the first year, an amount

local officials described as “devastating.”

What Would You Do?

You are city manager for a medium-sized community in the Northwest. The state legislature

is considering a bill intended to prevent underage drinking. It would require local police

departments in the state to perform additional spot inspections of bars and restaurants

serving alcohol after midnight. Although you think the cause is an important one, you simply

don’t have the resources in your police department to do this. The state is not willing to
provide more money. What would you do?

But states do not only provide money; they also regulate local government activities. State

governments tell local governments what taxes they can levy, what services they can
provide, and what types of management systems they must employ. In doing so, states

provide needed uniformity, as in the case of highway signs, and ensure minimum standards

of performance, as in education or welfare programs. Because states have virtually unlimited

power over local governments, there is an obvious temptation to compel local governments
to assume new responsibilities. In most states, there are twenty to thirty statutes that impose

substantial financial burdens on local governments. The total number of mandates or

regulations may number in the thousands (Berman, 1992, p. 53).

Just as states complain about federal mandates, many local officials view state mandates as
unnecessary intrusions on local prerogatives. The mandates may require local expenditures

that might not otherwise be made. Recently, localities have complained especially about

sneaky mandates, actions that are required of local governments by the inaction of state
governments. For example, Georgia failed to pick up prisoners housed “temporarily” in

county jails, resulting in overcrowding in jails, to say nothing of the additional financial

burden on the counties. There is, however, new sympathy for localities in terms of mandates,

http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.xhtml

and about one-third of the states now have requirements for at least partial reimbursements

of expenses created by mandates.

Localities are not powerless in their relationship with the states, especially as they constitute

an important base of political support for those in the legislatures. Local representatives and

senators can and often do voice the local message loudly and clearly in the state legislature.

Moreover, various patterns of state/local cooperation have emerged in the past several
years. Many states, for example, have developed state-level commissions on

intergovernmental relations. These state commissions bring together state and local officials

to discuss problems in the intergovernmental system and devise ways to work together

more effectively. Among the recommendations that have emerged are suggestions for
greater local discretionary authority and for reductions in the number of state mandates.

Local to Local In discussions of intergovernmental relations, there is an

understandable tendency to focus on national patterns, but for those who work at the
local level, relationships with other local governments are extremely important. One

reason is that many citizens live in one jurisdiction, work in another, shop in another,

and pay taxes to several. They naturally expect services, such as quality streets or law

enforcement, to remain fairly constant as they move from one place to another.

From a political standpoint, the fragmentation of government, especially in urban areas,

often means that problems are separated from the resources that might be employed to solve

them. Wealthier cities have the money; poorer cities have the problems. But even where

resources are evenly distributed, it is difficult to get several local governments together to
resolve common problems. In such cases, citizens often turn to higher-level governments for

help, thus taking the problem (and its solution) out of the hands of local authorities.

But many interlocal problems are resolved at the local level. Natural, though informal,
patterns of cooperation develop, especially in the relationships among local professionals.

The police chief in one community talks with other police chiefs, the health officer talks with

other health officers, and so on. More formally, one government may actually purchase

services from another, contracting for police or fire protection, wastewater treatment, or
trash collection. Los Angeles County, for example, provides a variety of services to local

governments through contract arrangements. Additionally, councils of government (COGs),

oversight bodies representing various localities, may be created to help coordinate local affairs.

In recent years, partnerships between local governments have entered the information age

as many cities and counties have started to share technological innovations across

jurisdictions. In the city of Sunnyvale, California, for example, the local government worked

with other municipalities and the Microsoft Corporation to develop online permitting
software. The Silicon Valley Smart Permit initiative proved to be so successful that Sunnyvale

has created a public-private partnership with a management firm and its e-government

affiliate to market the application to other local authorities that are interested in enhancing

their efficiency and responsiveness (Eggers, 2007; Mariani, 2001).

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec2_3_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-councilsofgovernment

Finally, special districts may be created to solve problems that cross governmental

boundaries. As mentioned in Chapter 2, special districts are local governments created for a
specific purpose within a specific area (not necessarily coinciding with the boundaries of a

city or county). Although special districts may promote coordination of health, education, or

other services, they also add to the number of governments within a particular area. Thus,

one city block may be governed by the city, a county, and several special districts. A resident
may have difficulty figuring out which government can help with a particular problem. The

difficulties in coordinating efforts are substantial, as are the problems of holding the various

governments accountable.

Working with Nongovernmental Organizations
It is impossible to speak of intergovernmental relations without discussing the role of

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the policy process. Nonprofit, for-profit, and

faith-based organizations have taken a leading role in the delivery of public services. NGOs

can be found at all levels of governance and in a variety of policy areas. However, NGOs must
be considered not only for their part in implementing public programs, but also for their

growing influence in raising issues to the public agenda, lobbying for particular policy

alternatives, and guiding political and administrative decision making. In many respects,
even the term intergovernmental relations seems a bit outdated; perhaps we should opt for the

more inclusive term interorganizational relations.

The use of NGOs in the delivery of public services has grown markedly in the last several

years. Figure 3.3 compares, at the federal level, civilian employment and overall
governmental expenditures. Between 1970 and 2004, government spending increased by

over 400 percent, even holding inflation constant, but government employment grew only

about 25 percent, with practically no significant growth in the last twenty-five years. This

substantial growth in federal programs, occurring without comparable growth in federal
employment, is explained by the fact that parties other than the federal government are

actually conducting the programs and delivering the services. Federal money, for example,

goes to private firms, such as defense contractors or banks that administer school loan

programs, and to nonprofit organizations, especially those that provide human services such

as care for the homeless or disabled.

FIGURE 3.3

Federal Spending and Payroll, 1970–2004 (in Billions of Dollars)

SOURCE (numbers):

http;//-w-w-w-.-w-h-i-t-e-h-o-u-s-e-.-g-o-v-/-o-m-b-/-b-u-d-g-e-t-/-f-y-2-0-0-8-/-p-d-f-/-h-

i-s-t-.-p-d-f; and

https://-w-w-w-.-o-p-m-.-g-o-v-/-f-e-d-d-a-t-a-/-f-a-c-t-b-o-o-k-/-2-0-0-5-/-f-a-c-t-b-o-o-k-

2-0-0-5-.-p-d-f (p. 62).

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/009_chapter2.xhtml#ch2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-intergovernmentalrelations

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-interorganizationalrelations

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/010_chapter3.xhtml#fig3-3

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist

https://www.opm.gov/feddata/factbook/2005/factbook2005

Much of the attention on NGOs tends to focus on the nonprofit sector, which we will discuss

later in this chapter, but for-profits also deserve attention. Traditionally, business was seen
as the antithesis to government, with clear boundaries between the public and private

sectors. Today, we have experienced a significant blurring between sector lines, with only

vague distinctions between for-profit firms and government agencies. Such involvement of

private-sector firms in public programs, of course, isn’t completely new. Defense and
aerospace companies have contracted with government for decades, and for-profit prisons

were actually the norm in the nineteenth century. In fact, many of our technological

innovations stem from public-private partnerships. Increasingly, though, these partnerships

can be found in areas once viewed as purely public in nature, including health and human
services, trash collection, education, environmental protection, and parks and recreation

(Rosenau, 2000; Sagawa & Segal, 2000).

Governments have entered into public-private partnerships to conserve revenues, to reduce

crime in blighted areas, and to promote economic growth. We mentioned previously the

partnership between Sunnyvale, California, and other municipalities with the Microsoft

Corporation to create online permitting software. Other examples include an alliance

between the city of Daytona Beach, Florida, and a private development firm to renovate a
dilapidated boardwalk and build a beachfront hotel; a partnership between the state of

Michigan and other states for correctional services; and relationships across the country

between school districts and private computer firms to bring public school classrooms into

the information age. In each case, the interorganizational relationships that arise are
important to the success or failure of public programs.

Privatization and Contracting

The movement toward greater involvement of NGOs in the delivery of public services is
partly ideological. Some people simply feel that services should be provided by those outside

government wherever possible. But the movement has also been stimulated by recent

restrictions on government spending and a resulting effort to find more efficient ways to

conduct the public’s business. Both motives have been discussed under the heading
privatization—the use of NGOs to provide goods or services previously provided by government.

It is important to be clear about its various meanings because the term is used several different

ways.

In its broader sense, privatization refers to efforts to remove government from any
involvement in either the design or conduct of a particular service. In Great Britain, for

example, major industries such as steel or coal, once nationalized, are returning to private

control, typically through direct sales to individuals, firms, or other groups. In the United
States, most such major industries, including most utilities, are already in private hands, so

there are relatively few examples of such magnitude (the sale of Conrail and certain

petroleum reserves are exceptions). There are many more limited examples of privatization,

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec3_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-privatization

however; a city might, for example, sell a golf course to a country club development, thus

ending the government’s involvement in golf.

The rationale for removing government from a particular area varies. In some cases, people

may feel that clients will receive more personal attention from a nongovernmental or private

group, such as one that operates a drug abuse program or a day-care center. Others suggest

that privatization enhances competition among service providers, thus ensuring that the
new means of delivering services will provide higher quality at a lower cost to the client.

Programs also can be turned over to the private sector because the programs seem

inappropriate to government or because the private firm operates more efficiently.

Networking

To trace some innovative practices in government, check out the Alliance for Innovation at
http;//-t-r-a-n-s-f-o-r-m-g-o-v-.-o-r-g and the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and

Innovation at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government program at

-w-w-w-.-a-s-h-i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-e-.-h-a-r-v-a-r-d-.-e-d-u-/-A-s-h-/-i-n-d-e-x-.-h-t-m. For
innovations in nonprofit organizations, see the Leader to Leader material at

http;//-w-w-w-.-h-e-s-s-e-l-b-e-i-n-i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-e-.-o-r-g-/.

Privatization is used in a more narrow sense (and more frequently) to refer to various

devices through which a government retains a policy role regarding a particular service but
engages someone else to actually deliver the service. For example, a federal agency might

decide to contract with a private firm rather than handle computer programming itself; a

state might contract with a nonprofit organization to deliver services to welfare recipients;

or a local government might lease a public hospital to a private firm. In each case, the services

would be spelled out in detail by the government and some, if not all, funding might be

provided, but day-to-day operation of the program would be the responsibility of the for-

profit or nonprofit agency.

During the past decade, government at all levels has explored a variety of mechanisms for

privatizing public services, the most popular being the use of contracting (see the box “Take

Action: Taking Contracting Seriously”). Supporters view fee-for-service and similar

arrangements with NGOs as a more efficient method of service delivery, given the greater
flexibility, different labor costs, and economies of scale offered by for-profit and nonprofit

organizations. Some of the most publicized examples of contracting in recent years have

been in human services, because the federal government shifted to state and local authorities

(and in turn to NGOs) a larger role in the nation’s welfare system.

For example, the state of Kansas used contracts to hand over most of its child welfare

services to the private sector. Several years ago, government officials recognized that the

state’s foster care, adoption, and related programs simply had to change. “We had a failed
child welfare system in this state,” said State Representative Melvin Neufeld, who played a

key part in drafting the reform legislation. Excessive costs and declining effectiveness on the

part of government agencies, coupled with newly elected conservative state leadership,

prompted state officials to shift virtually the entire system of service delivery over to NGOs,

http://transformgov.org/

http://www.ashinstitute.harvard.edu/Ash/index.htm

http://www.hesselbeininstitute.org/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-contracting

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/010_chapter3.xhtml#ta1

mostly for-profit firms. Under the new system, state government contracts with lead

agencies at a regional level, which in turn subcontract with NGOs to handle actual service
delivery. State officials act mainly to administer the contracts and ensure standards for

service quality (Gurwitt, 2000, p. 40).

TAKING CONTRACTING SERIOUSLY

A government that took contract management seriously would

• regard resources required to manage contracts as part of the cost of contracting,

funded from the savings and performance improvements they are likely to produce.

• train contracting people, especially those developing contract requirements and

doing contract management, in the selection and use of performance measures for
contracts.

• take evaluation of contractor past performance seriously, as a method for

incentivizing good performance, particularly for complex “relational” contracts
where there is a danger the contractor will exploit the government after the award

has been granted.

• look for ways to hire relatively young “doers” (such as software programmers, bench

engineers) from industry to do stints as contract managers, to give government the
technical expertise to manage technical contracts in situations where the government

has few “doers” itself.

• reconceptualize—in terms of training and self-image—contract management as a

high-level management job.

SOURCE: Donald F. Kettl and Steven Kelman, “Reflections on 21st Century Government

Management,” IBM Center for The Business of Government (2008 Presidential Transition

Series);

http;//-w-w-w-.-b-u-s-i-n-e-s-s-o-f-g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t-.-o-r-g-/-r-e-p-o-r-t-/-r-e-f-l-e-c-t-i-

o-n-s—2-1-s-t—c-e-n-t-u-r-y—g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t—m-a-n-a-g-e-m-e-n-t (p. 45).

But privatization of human services has its challenges. Even as supporters point to success

stories, a closer look reveals major problems relating to sustainability. For example, next

door to its thriving effort to supply welfare services in West Palm Beach, Lockheed Martin

IMS struggled in Miami-Dade County. Although the company’s costs exceeded $38 million in

the same fiscal year, it failed to make a significant impact on caseloads. In fact, the county
government has since handed the contract for welfare-to-work services over to a local

community college (Walters, 2000).

In Kansas, the state’s transformation of child and family services has come under attack not

only from liberal critics, who argue that public welfare should not be left up to firms whose
primary motive is profit, but also from the businesses themselves. Governing magazine

http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/reflections-21st-century-government-management

reported that “Kansas’s story isn’t really about privatization: It’s about a rushed, no-holds-

barred effort to build a public-private social services system using managed-care principles, as
well as its struggle to recover from the fallout” (Gurwitt, 2000, p. 40). What was the fallout?

State officials have been forced to pick up the pieces from what can only be considered a

managed-care revolution. Unlike other states, Kansas bypassed smaller-scale, experimental

initiatives, choosing instead sweeping reforms. The change inside the state resulted in
confusion, as state officials struggled to learn new roles as contract managers rather than

caregivers. For private firms, the reforms opened a floodgate on newly created service networks

and swamped many businesses that simply did not have the expertise or capacity to deal with

the increased demands of public welfare programs (Cohen & Eimicke, 2008).

A more recent example of the difficulties of contracting for services concerns federal

spending for grants and contracts in wartime. A bipartisan Commission on Wartime

Contracting, which submitted its report in August 2011, found that at least one out of every

six dollars of U.S. spending for grants and contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan has been wasted.

“Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted through poor planning, vague and

shifting requirements, inadequate competition, substandard contract management

oversight, lax accountability, weak interagency coordination, and s0ubpar performance or
outright misconduct by some contractors and federal employees” (“Reducing Waste and

Wartime Contracts,” 2011). The Department of Defense reported to the commission that the

United States simply can’t conduct prolonged military operations without contractor

support, and indeed, the number of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan has approximately
equaled the number of U.S. military forces. But the commission concluded that poor

planning, bad management, and weak accountability needed to be corrected in order to save

money and produce more economical and effective outcomes.

States as well have continued to explore privatization through contracts and other devices.

New Jersey governor Chris Christie created the state Privatization Task Force to explore

opportunities for privatization but also to consider potential difficulties. The task force

explored privatization efforts in other states, noting that Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell

saved $275 million by privatizing forty-nine city services. The task force identified similar

savings as possible in New Jersey, but it also noted that care must be taken in the process of

privatization. While the government has increasingly served as a broker of services, that new

role bears special responsibilities. “The report took careful note of another key factor: the

states most successful in privatization created a permanent, centralized entity to manage

and oversee the operation, from project analysis and vendor selection to contracting and

procurement. For governments that forgo due diligence, choose ill-equipped contractors and
fail to monitor progress, however, outsourcing deals can turn into costly disasters” (“The

Pros and Cons of Privatizing,” 2010).

Contracts used to provide public services certainly have promise; however, alliances with

NGOs may not always be effective. Nor should contracts be seen as the only mechanism.
There are a variety of options for partnering with NGOs. A franchise can be awarded to a

private firm to perform a certain service within a state or locality. The firm charges citizens

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-privatization

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-franchise

directly for the services it provides. Typically, rates and performance standards are established

by the government, and there is often some continuing regulation of the firm. Examples include
electric power, taxi services, cable television, and emergency ambulance services. Similarly,

governments may provide grants or subsidies to private or nonprofit organizations that are

performing needed public services. The government provides full or partial support for

activities that will benefit the community but that the local government, for financial or other
reasons, does not wish to operate on its own. Examples include local government support for

the arts, child care, or shelter for the homeless.

All levels of government have experimented with the use of vouchers, which are coupons

citizens redeem for goods or services. The federal food stamp program, for example, provides
recipients with vouchers to purchase food, but it permits the individual to choose both the

supplier and the items to be purchased (within stated limits).

At the local level, many jurisdictions have explored the use of vouchers for education. But
although proponents suggest it would lead to more effective, efficient options than the public

schools, the issue has become one of the most controversial topics in current education

policy.

Increased privatization means that public officials need to be attentive to the process of

contracting for services. In the words of Ruben Berrios (2006), “The government purchases

the expertise of private firms to provide services. The goal is to create a more effective and

efficient delivery through a system that fosters and creates competition, provides better

management, and helps reduce the size of the government” (p. 119). Although government
contracts are not new, they create new relations between government organizations and

private or nonprofit organizations. Cooper (2003) describes a shift from the traditional

authority-based relations (vertical model) as in regulatory enforcement to negotiation
relations (horizontal model) in today’s public contract relationships:

The vertical model is about authority relationships: the way that decisions get from the

democratically appointed executives and down through agencies to the contracting officer

who is ultimately authorized to negotiate for the needs of the community and then to commit
its resources in a legally binding relationship…The second model comes into play once the

decision to contract for goods or services has been made and operates in tandem with the

vertical model…contractual relationships are horizontal in character and operate from the

base of mutual commitment in which, theoretically at least, the parties are equal. (Cooper,

2003, p. 48)

Recent trends with government contracting refer to so-called public-private partnerships,

where the term “partnership” indicates more than cooperation. These partnerships may
include long-term agreements for activities that are inherently considered governmental,

such as commercial operation of prisons, or for including contractors in rulemaking policy

procedures (Cooper 2003, p. 57). Public-private partnerships and alliances operate between

government agencies and for-profit companies and between government agencies and
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit organizations are a convenient choice for governments

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-vouchers

for at least two reasons: they are often fervently committed to providing assistance for

people in need, and they have close relations with the communities. In addition, volunteers
in these organizations often deliver public services for lower costs than if these services were

provided by government agencies. However, government grants to nonprofit organizations

impose additional administrative requirements for these organizations, frequently requiring

more resources and paid personnel.

While public-private partnerships and alliances may provide better services for lower costs,

they present a huge challenge for government officials. When entering a partnership with a

for-profit company, public managers should be aware that these companies operate for

making profit. “Whatever else is promised, the most common way in which for-profit firms
seek to make money on government contracts for the same amount of money government is

spending now to do the job itself, is to reduce personnel costs” (Cooper, 2003, p. 63). There

are also moral issues related to government contracting. Berrios (2006) talks about some

flaws that complement the contracting process: favoritism for companies that already have

contracts with the government, preferences for large firms over small firms, and corrupt

behavior of the government officials that in some instances grant contracts to private

companies without following legal requirements. Finally, where government programs are
run directly by government, responsibility for their success lies squarely with the

government agency. But where such programs are actually delivered by those in the private

or nonprofit sector, traditional mechanisms for control and accountability may not work.

Maintaining a proper concern for democratic values such as equity and responsiveness may,
in the long run, prove more difficult than the managerial challenges of creating appropriate

interorganizational policy networks.

The Management of Nonprofit Organizations
As we have seen, nongovernmental organizations have become important players in public
policy and administration. Unfortunately, many public administrators fail to appreciate the

distinct challenges faced by these organizations, especially those in the nonprofit sector. In

order to develop more effective interorganizational, cross-sector relations, it may be helpful

to identify some of the key elements of organizational capacity within nonprofits.

Operational Leadership

Nonprofit management begins with effective leadership. By leadership, we mean an

organization’s internal systems for establishing a mission and vision to guide organizational
action, for engaging in strategy making and planning as a way of setting goals and objectives,

and for developing an operational structure to facilitate the translation of strategy into

action.

Creating effective leadership systems in nonprofits starts with forging a sound mission and

vision. The mission represents the purpose the organization will serve in its community. This

vision is the guiding image of what members want the organization to become in the future

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec4_1

(Bryson, 1995; Smith, Bucklin & Associates, 2000). Although these factors are critical in

virtually all organizations, they are especially important in nonprofits. Independent-sector
groups depend on a lot more than paid staff to carry out organizational objectives, including

volunteers, donors, board members, and other resources. Without a strong sense of purpose

or a clear vision for the future, nonprofit leaders will find it extremely difficult to build the

“critical mass” necessary for success.

Of course, setting a mission and vision must be combined with sound planning—in

particular, with the establishment of clear, measurable goals and objectives. A recent survey

of nonprofits found that the “level of support and commitment to planning by the leadership

of the organization is… a crucial element in an assessment of organizational capacity. If
management neither plans nor possesses the support systems needed to enable planning

(such as budgeting systems, planning models, information about past organizational

experiences), then the issue of capacity is largely moot. Organizational survival generally

requires planning and the development of a shared vision and goals” (Fredericksen &

London, 2000, pp. 234–235).

Networking

To explore some of the aspects of nonprofit management, go to the Aspen Institute at

-w-w-w-.-a-s-p-e-n-i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-e-.-o-r-g; and the Hauser Center for Nonprofit

Organizations at Harvard University at -w-w-w-.-k-s-g-h-a-u-s-e-r-.-h-a-r-v-a-r-d-.-e-d-u. See

Chapter 2 for a list of sites relating to the advocacy role of nonprofit organizations.

Leadership also involves building a solid organizational foundation that allows nonprofits to

transform their strategy into action. For those working in the charitable sector, this often

proves to be the most difficult task. Most nonprofits begin with an idea that translates very

well into mission and vision. Things get much tougher, though, in trying to turn the idea into

an organizational reality.

In fact, one of the biggest challenges confronting today’s nonprofits involves creating

effective, high-capacity systems of operation. Much of this challenge stems from an

unwillingness on the part of government and foundation grant makers to provide funding

for administrative costs. Nonprofit agencies could gain access to resources for programming
and service delivery, but they struggled to find support for the basics of management: staff,

equipment, technology, and related expenses. Fortunately, foundations have begun to realize

that although restricting funding to program-related needs sounds good, it’s impossible to

deliver quality services without a well-developed administrative structure (Greene, 2001).

Resource Development

Speaking of financial support, resource development represents another key element of

nonprofit management. Agencies in the independent sector receive their funding from a
variety of sources, including fees and charges, government grants-in-aid, and private giving.

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/

http://www.ksghauser.harvard.edu/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/009_chapter2.xhtml#ch2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec4_2

According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, of some 1.4 million nonprofit

organizations registered with the IRS, nearly half have collected more than $25,000 in gross
receipts. They reported more than $299 billion in revenues from charitable contributions

during 2004, with 83 percent from individual contributions, 11 percent from private

foundations, and 5 percent from corporations (The Nonprofit Sector in Brief, 2007).

These figures don’t include funding from fees and government grants, which make up an
additional $400 billion. With such a diverse revenue base, it might seem strange that a

primary weakness of nonprofits (especially the smaller organizations) is to rely on a single

source of support and not look beyond the next grant cycle for their funding. Successful

nonprofits, on the other hand, diversify their revenue streams, balancing between grants,
fees-for-service, and other sources.

Nonprofit organizations that are classified as either a public charity or private foundation

under IRC 501(c)(3) benefit from their tax-exempt status, which allows taxpayers to deduct
contributions as charitable donations. Some nonprofits also may receive discounts on postal

rates, special provisions for financing, and various exemptions from state and local taxes.

To ensure sustainability, many nonprofits and their associations have developed innovative

strategies for maintaining a sound financial base for the next generation. For example, the

National Committee on Planned Giving has initiated the Leave a Legacy program, a

nationwide effort to encourage people of all socioeconomic groups to include charitable

contributions as part of their estates. The program in large part aims at attracting charitable

contributions from the “baby boomer” generation, which over the next few decades will
retire with unprecedented wealth. An important element of Leave a Legacy is its community-

based focus; that is, a single organization cannot adopt the program, but instead the program

brings together nonprofits from around a given community. Prospective donors are asked to
work directly with the planned giving officers of the foundations or with estate planners to

decide upon a charitable beneficiary.

As any nonprofit manager will tell you, resource development goes well beyond grants and

other types of financial contributions. Although most people recognize the challenge
nonprofits face in competing for donors, few appreciate the level of competition for other

vital resources, such as in-kind support and volunteerism. Although charitable giving

certainly remains central to a nonprofit organization’s balance sheet, more and more

nonprofits depend on in-kind contributions and the time, energy, and expertise of volunteers

to meet their objectives. A study conducted by the Independent Sector found that while

charitable giving by individuals has declined in recent years, more Americans are

volunteering than ever before. In 2004, about 65 million volunteered in charitable
organizations

(http;//-w-w-w-.-u-r-b-a-n-.-o-r-g-/-U-p-l-o-a-d-e-d-P-D-F-/-3-1-1-3-7-3-_-n-o-n-p-r-o-f-t-_

-s-e-c-t-o-r-.-p-d-f).

Keys for successful resource development include being able to articulate a case for your
organization, exploring a diverse array of support, identifying an appropriate development

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311373_nonproft_sector

strategy and action plan, and ensuring effective implementation of the action plan. Most

importantly, at the heart of the resource development strategy must be a commitment to
building and maintaining relationships with funders, donors, and volunteers (Smith, Bucklin

& Associates, 2000).

Financial Management

Running a nonprofit also depends on sound financial management. The benefits of being a
charitable organization were discussed previously, but with these benefits come important

requirements for accounting and public disclosure of financial transactions. For example, all

IRC 501(c)(3) organizations must maintain open records and prepare financial reports for
their stakeholders on a periodic basis. Many foundations and other grant makers ask grant

recipients to undergo periodic audits, sometimes as an eligibility requirement. And

charitable organizations with annual gross receipts of $25,000 or more must submit to the

IRS each year a Form 990 (Return of Organizations Exempt from Income Tax), as well as
disclosure statements to state and local tax authorities.

To satisfy these requirements, nonprofits must maintain detailed financial records. At the

very least, this includes following basic accounting standards and procedures. But financial

management includes much more than reporting. It should be at the heart of a nonprofit’s
strategic planning and management. Without the ability to generate clear, meaningful

financial information and incorporate this information into organizational decision making,

a nonprofit agency limits its overall capacity. Unfortunately, many nonprofits fail to follow

established procedures, and some do not have in place even the simplest mechanisms for

accounting. Small- to medium-sized nonprofits have the greatest need in this area.

The basics of financial management include monitoring the assets, liabilities, and net assets

of the organization, as well as the revenues and expenses for established reporting periods.
Moreover, nonprofit managers should make sure that the budget and financial management

process is undertaken in coordination with the governing board. In many cases, such

coordination is mandated in the articles of incorporation, but it also makes sense to have

those responsible for setting the strategic direction informed on the organization’s financial
condition.

Board Governance

Most of the principles of nonprofit management discussed here have focused on the
operational side of the organization. However, independent-sector agencies also must have

an effective governance system. Nonprofit boards are, in some respects, even more vital to

the organization than to the staff, because some smaller agencies rely on board members for

performing day-to-day tasks. Regardless of an agency’s size, its board represents the final

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec4_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec4_4

decision-making body of the organization. By law, board members are bound (in the articles

of incorporation) to ensure the fiscal and legal health of the agency.

The board is responsible for several important roles. These include setting the strategic

direction for the organization, serving as champions in the external community, and

overseeing organizational planning and implementation (Carver & Carver, 1996; Eadie,

2001). First, with regard to strategic direction, board members act as the primary source of
vision, mission, and values for the agency. They ensure that these strategic factors become

reflected in organizational action. An excellent example can be seen in Porter Hills

Retirement Communities and Services, a nonprofit health-care provider in Grand Rapids,

Michigan. The Executive Leadership Team at Porter Hills actually brings the outline of the
Porter Hills mission, vision, and values into its strategy sessions and considers these

principles prior to moving ahead on decisions. If a new venture, partnership, or internal

change does not reflect the core principles of the organization, or doesn’t coincide with

where the board wants to be in the future, then the issue is either dropped or taken back to

the board for direction.

Second, board members also must be the organization’s champions in the community. They

are the principal spokespeople, representing the organization on key issues, but also the role
models for donations and volunteerism. In this capacity, the board should set the policies

and procedures for the operational staff and leadership on strategies for external

communication. Board members, consequently, must always be kept “in the loop” on factors

affecting the organization.

A vital point here is that the board must speak with one voice, or it shouldn’t speak at all.

This means that board members should support decisions of the governance body once a

consensus has been achieved. Too often, and particularly with smaller, community-based
organizations, members of nonprofit boards go into the community and speak against other

members or against the organization. This does nothing but send a signal to those listening

that the disgruntled board member has failed to appreciate the core values of governance.

Third, the board must support the organization’s leadership on issues of planning and
implementation. The board should make sure that the organization has an effective and

ongoing planning process and work with staff to establish priorities and goals. This doesn’t

mean that board members should try to manage day-to-day activities on the part of the staff.

It does mean, though, that those on the operational side of the organization should

coordinate and seek direction from the board on issues that are truly strategic in nature.

Nonprofit boards vary in size, with some organizations having fewer than ten members and

others having more than fifty members (which is toward the extreme!). The composition of
the board will reflect the history and mission of the organization, but most nonprofits strive

to ensure that the governance system will reflect the diversity and values of the constituent

community. Here are a few of the considerations relating to board size:

• What functions are required of the board?

• How many individuals, and in what roles, are needed to accomplish those functions?

• How many board committees are needed to accomplish the organization’s goals?
• Are there sufficient individuals on the board to participate on board committees?

(Smith, Bucklin & Associates, 2000, p. 29)

Boards are perhaps one of the most important components of effective nonprofit

management. A high-impact board with an effective board chairperson can have an
extraordinary influence on the organization’s success. Unfortunately, the opposite is also

true. Many a good nonprofit has been severely limited, and in some cases completely

destroyed, because of an ineffective, divisive board.

Board-Staff Relations

Among the greatest challenges faced by nonprofits is the need to strike a balance in board-

staff relations. As the previous discussion suggested, board members have a central role to

play in the organization’s strategy making and in representing the organization in the
external community. However, once the parameters for action have been established, board

members must step back and allow staff adequate room to achieve the goals and objectives.

Frequently, boards (especially those consisting of inexperienced members) tend to

micromanage the operational staff. This does little more than foster distrust and frustration,
and, in many cases, it contributes to high staff turnover.

There are several keys to effective relationships. First, the board must set clear expectations

for leadership and staff. At least once a year, board members should sit down with the

executive director and lay out the goals and objectives for the coming term. Second, the

expectations must be reinforced by lines of communication between board and staff.

Communication channels should be maintained by the executive director, and in some rare

events directly between the board and staff. Third, the board must reinforce success. As part
of its oversight function, the governing board should be ready to celebrate the good work

being done, not just sanction the shortcomings.

In many respects, the primary buffer between the board and staff is the executive director.

Although some executive directors position themselves in ways that cut off the governance
and operational sides of the agency, with very little direct involvement between board

members and staff, this takes things a bit too far. The most effective relationships feature

executive directors as the main conduits or brokers. Staff should be present, when

appropriate, at board meetings, mainly to offer expertise and inform the board on key
decisions; similarly, the board must provide oversight and guidance to the staff on key issues

of agency strategy. How far to go on either side will depend on the organization, but it’s up

to the executive director and members of the leadership team to determine the appropriate

balance.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec4_5

Advocacy

The advocacy role of independent-sector organizations is perhaps the most overlooked and
misunderstood aspect of nonprofit management. This stems from the fact that the federal

tax code limits lobbying activities by charitable organizations, and, depending on the party

affiliation or political position, some legislators and policy makers have frowned upon

nonprofit activism. But nonprofit organizations may, even under federal tax law, engage in

advocacy as a way of amplifying the voice of their constituents in the policy process.

In 1976, Congress granted nonprofits the right to lobby in the public interest without having

to worry about losing their status as tax-exempt organizations (Pub. L. 94–455,1307 [1976],
now codified under Section 501(c) of the federal tax code). While the IRS deliberated on the

issue for more than a decade, in 1990 the federal tax code was revised to expand the

advocacy rights of nonprofits. Under the 1976 tax law, nonprofits that choose to come under

its jurisdiction must comply with the definition of lobbying as “the expenditure of money by
the organization for the purpose of attempting to influence legislation. Where there is no

expenditure by the organization for lobbying, there is no lobbying by the organization”

(Smucker, 1999, p. 51).

The tax law establishes two types of lobbying: direct and grassroots. In direct lobbying, the
organization communicates with legislators or other public officials on matters concerning

legislation in which they have a role to play or with the nonprofit organization’s own

membership. In grassroots lobbying, the organization influences the legislative process by

attempting to sway public opinion on policy issues. The tax law also establishes ceilings for

expenditures that may be allocated to lobbying, based on the total level of tax-exempt

expenditures for the organization.

As future nonprofit managers, you should explore the legal constraints before engaging in
lobbying activities, but by no means should you shy away from attempting to influence policy

decision making on behalf of your constituents. The law is on your side, and you certainly

will have greater protection than you may have originally thought for lobbying without fear

of threatening your organization’s tax-exempt status.

Summary and Action Implications
Given the complexity of modern society, your work as a public administrator will likely

involve a complex set of relationships with all kinds of external groups. Many of these groups

will be agencies at other levels of government. Our federal system has evolved from a pattern
in which the various levels of government were relatively distinct to a pattern in which

funding and programmatic relationships are extremely intense.

The fact that public programs today operate through vast and complex webs of people and

organizations—public, private, and nonprofit—means that new skills are required of the

public manager. Any particular program may involve various levels of government,

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec4_6

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec5

organizations from all sectors of society, and clients or citizens with many different interests

and concerns. As a public manager, you must be able to identify the network that is or should
be involved in a particular situation and assess the effectiveness of that network.

To make that judgment, you will need to consider several factors. The first is

communications, the type of information that goes from one organization to another and how

it is transmitted. Second, you might focus on exchanges of goods and services, money, and
personnel among the organizations involved. Third, you might examine the normative aspect

of the relationship—that is, what each organization expects of the other and what each is

willing to contribute to the alliance. Examining these same categories may also suggest ways

to improve the effectiveness of interorganizational relationships.

The interorganizational nature of modern public administration also has interesting

implications for the interpersonal skills you must bring to the job. Increasingly, the

government official responsible for a given program must be skilled in negotiating
relationships with those outside the agency to ensure that the program proceeds effectively

and responsibly. More and more, the public administrator works in a world in which older

images of organizational hierarchy and control are quickly giving way to newer images of

“managing in ambiguity” and “negotiating organizational boundaries.” The
interorganizational nature of public administration today has a direct effect on what skills

managers need.

STUDY QUESTIONS
6. Although intergovernmental relations involve more than financial matters, funding

programs have a significant role in the process. Define and give examples of the

various kinds of grants and funding programs.

7. Compare and contrast dual federalism, cooperative federalism, and coercive
federalism. Describe the approach to federalism used during the Clinton and Bush

presidencies. How would you characterize the Obama approach?

8. In the last decade, states and localities have faced significant changes in funding from

the federal government. Discuss the reasons for the changes and how they affect

relations among the various levels.

9. How do governmental mandates and regulations affect operations at the state and

local levels?
10. Government has been moving to “privatization” of some goods and services. How will

this trend affect intergovernmental relations?

11. Explain the importance and use of contracting for services and goods.

CASES AND EXERCISES
12. Analyze the relationship between state and local governments in your state. What

legal requirements govern state-local relationships? What, if any, bodies exist to help

in intergovernmental cooperation? What kinds of mandates has the state imposed on

local governments? What has been the reaction to these? How do you think state-local

relations could be improved?

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec6

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch3-sec7

13. Divide the class into several groups of six to eight students each. Have one group

assume the role of a granting agency charged, by legislation, with providing funds to
local communities to help in projects that improve the economic potential of the

community and assist low-income and disadvantaged groups in the community.

Assume that the agency has $50 million to distribute, but that the legislation has given

the granting agency the authority to determine all other details of the grant program.

14. The agency group must first define as clearly as possible the intent of the legislation

and then prepare guidelines outlining the types of projects that will be funded under

the program. A written Request for Proposals (RFP) should then be prepared and

distributed to a set of potential applicant communities, each represented by one of
the other groups in the class. The RFP should contain, at a minimum, a description of

the program, criteria by which proposals will be evaluated, examples of projects that

might be funded, and instructions for submitting proposals for funding (including a

deadline for applications).

15. Each community group will then prepare a grant application to support a project or

projects it wants for its community. Members of each community group may

communicate with one representative of the agency designated as liaison to that
community, but should not talk with other agency members. Community groups can

communicate with one another if they wish. By the deadline contained in the RFP, all

proposals should be submitted to the agency. The agency will then determine which,

if any, projects will be funded and at what levels. The results should be communicated
to all the communities.

16. Following the exercise, the class as a whole should discuss the entire process. You

might want to focus on issues such as these:

o What is the role of the agency in defining the kinds of projects that will be

funded?

o What types of instructions are necessary to enable communities to compete

fairly and effectively?
o What was most attractive about the proposals that were funded?

o For what reasons were other proposals not funded?

o What effect on the final decisions did communications between the

community and the liaison from the agency have?

o Did “politics” play any role?

THE INTERORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Exploring Concepts
NETWORKS AND NETWORK MANAGEMENT
The Development of Intergovernmental Relations
Networking
What Would You Do?
Dual Federalism
Cooperative Federalism
Picket-Fence Federalism
The Reagan and First Bush Years
The Clinton Presidency
The Bush Administration
Exploring Concepts
TRANSFORMATION OF GOVERNANCE: GLOBALIZATION, DEVOLUTION, AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
Obama and Federalism
Judicial Influence
The State and Local Perspective
Funding Patterns
Preemptions and Mandates
Networking
What Would You Do?
Subnational Relationships
What Would You Do?

Working with Nongovernmental Organizations
Privatization and Contracting
Networking
TAKING CONTRACTING SERIOUSLY

The Management of Nonprofit Organizations
Operational Leadership
Networking
Resource Development
Financial Management
Board Governance
Board-Staff Relations
Advocacy
Summary and Action Implications
STUDY QUESTIONS
CASES AND EXERCISES

PLANNING,IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION

Developing policies and programs, putting them into operation, and measuring their success

or failure constitute an important and recurring cycle for public and nonprofit managers. For
example, a new monitoring program is initiated in the Balkans. To support that policy, the
U.S. Navy organizes a fleet of vessels to expand our presence in the Persian Gulf, while
political and military leaders assess the operation and decide what to do next. Similarly, a
new policy involves sending literature on AIDS to all households in the United States. A group
in the surgeon general’s office convenes to monitor the operation. Both the efficiency of the
mailing and its effectiveness as an educational device are discussed. Meanwhile, a local parks
and recreation department joins with nonprofit organizations to develop a program for
handicapped athletes. After staff and money are acquired to support the program and it
begins operations, the department director asks whether the program is worth the time and
energy it seems to be taking from other tasks. Repeatedly, plans are made, policies and
programs are implemented, and the work of the organization is evaluated (Birkland, 2011;
Sabatier, 2007; Stone, 2011).

Recently these issues have taken on increased importance as managers in the public and

nonprofit sectors have been asked to do with less, while at the same time providing more
and better services. This situation has led many to call for “managing for results”—that is,

clearly stating goals and objectives in terms of public outcomes, designing and implementing

programs, and then measuring the performance of the government or other agency against

established standards. The idea of “managing for results” or “performance management”
suggests the importance of bringing together careful planning, implementation, and

evaluation.

Although planning, implementation, and evaluation all require knowledge of the political and
ethical context of public administration and certain personal and interpersonal skills,

various technical aids have been developed during the past decade to assist the manager in

these three areas. These technical aids include Web-based participative planning, strategic

planning, and specific quantitative methods for measuring performance. Moreover, these
techniques reflect a change in the way public and nonprofit organizations account for their

actions. Citizens, lawmakers, and other advocacy groups increasingly hold agencies

accountable not only for their efficiency in expending public and charitable resources, but

also for their effectiveness in achieving public outcomes. Techniques such as strategic
planning and performance measurement link the actions of public and nonprofit organizations

with specific, measurable results. Through the use of such techniques, public administrators

may account for both their own efforts and the impact those efforts have in each given policy
area.

Networking

The Government Accountability Office website at -w-w-w-.-g-a-o-.-g-o-v provides resources

relating to managing for results. For additional resources on productivity and performance

management, see the American Productivity and Quality Center at -w-w-w-.-a-p-q-c-.-o-r-g.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-strategicplanning

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-performancemeasurement

http://www.gao.gov/

http://www.apqc.org/

Planning
On a daily basis, all managers engage in planning. But organizations, and indeed entire

governments, engage in more formal planning processes, often involving a wide range of

participants and the development of considerable data and other information. Planning

typically leads to the development of alternative courses of action, and each must be

examined to decide which way to go. Depending on the level of the problem, the process of
examining and choosing among alternatives may involve the manager in either policy

analysis or program design or both.

In a planning effort that captured the public’s attention like few in recent memory, New York

City was faced with the momentous task of deciding how to rebuild the devastated
downtown area after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. New York’s Regional

Planning Association convened the Civic Alliance to spearhead a participative planning

process (see -w-w-w-.-c-i-v-i-c—a-l-l-i-a-n-c-e-.-o-r-g). The Civic Alliance is a coalition of

approximately eighty-five different civic groups, businesses, universities, foundations, and
community groups that joined together to solicit public comment and involvement and to

provide recommendations to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, a joint city

and state organization charged with the rebuilding and revitalization effort. Several different
approaches were used to provide citizens with the opportunity to become involved and have

their ideas heard in the process. For example, an event called “Listening to the City”

employed both face-to-face dialogue and technology in one-day forums. More than 4,500

people participated in small roundtable discussions while a network of people with laptop
computers recorded and immediately transmitted the ideas generated to a “theme team.”

The theme team identified key themes and concepts and reported them back to all of the

participants. Participants also had electronic keypads to record their preferences and

answers to specific questions. Subsequent to these forums, an additional 800 people
exchanged approximately 10,000 messages in small virtual discussion groups and

participated in numerous polls in online dialogue over a two-week period to express their

views and preferences.

In the first phase of this project, 230 workshops and an interactive website were used to

solicit answers to three primary questions: What have we lost? How have we changed? What

should be done? In the subsequent phases, participants were asked to react to proposed

designs for rebuilding on the site of the World Trade Center. Although the revitalization
project is not completed, the process used in New York City illustrates the potential of using

innovative strategies and approaches to garner public participation in large-scale planning

projects.

Strategic Planning

Planning is not only used when responding to a crisis, but has been increasingly employed

as an ongoing process in the public and nonprofit sectors. A number of writers have

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-policyanalysis

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-programdesign

http://www.civic-alliance.org/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_1

commented on the rapidity of the social and technological changes we are now experiencing

and on the turbulence and complexity that such changes generate. In an effort to recognize
and respond to such changes, many private corporations began programs in the 1960s and

1970s to systematically plan for future development. The success of these programs is now

confirmed by the fact that more than half of publicly traded companies use strategic planning

in some form. Strategic planning helps an organization match its objectives and capabilities
to the anticipated demands of the environment to produce a plan of action that will ensure

achievement of objectives (Andrews, 2012; Bryson, 2004; Greiner & Cummings, 2009).

We can differentiate strategic planning from more familiar long-range planning activities in

several ways. Long-range planning primarily concerns establishing goals or performance
objectives over a period of time; it is less concerned with specific steps that must be

undertaken to achieve those goals. Strategic planning, on the other hand, implies that a series

of action steps will be developed as part of the planning process and that these steps will

guide the organization’s activities in the immediate future. Strategic planning takes the

future into account, but in such a way as to improve present decisions.

A second way that strategic planning differs from long-range planning is its special attention

to environmental complexity. The organization is not assumed to exist in a vacuum; rather,
both the organization’s objectives and the steps to achieve them are seen in the context of

the resources and constraints presented by the organization’s environment.

A final distinction between the two types of planning is that strategic planning, especially in

the public sector, is a process that must involve many individuals at many levels. As most
managers know quite well, effective changes in organizational practices are most readily

accomplished by involving all those who will be affected by the change. This general rule is

especially applicable to changes generated through a process of strategic planning.

Public organizations undertake strategic planning efforts for many reasons: (1) to give

clarity and direction to the organization, (2) to choose from among competing goals and

activities, (3) to cope with expected shifts in the environment, and (4) to bring together the

thoughts and ideas of all participants in the work of the organization. Most importantly,
planning activities provide an opportunity for the widespread involvement of leaders and

citizens in defining the direction of the community or the agency as it moves into the futur e,

thus building trust and commitment.

Planning for Planning

As a manager, you may wonder whether such activities are appropriate for your jurisdiction

or agency. Whatever your work—at any level of government or in a nonprofit organization—

you will find precedents for planning. Many federal, state, and local agencies have begun

strategic planning programs over the past several years, as have voluntary associations,

human service organizations, and job training programs. The key seems to be that any

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_2

organization is a candidate for strategic planning if, by allocation of resources, it can

significantly influence either formulation or implementation of public policy.

You may, of course, question whether strategic planning is worth the costs in terms of

consultant fees, research and data analysis, and time away from other duties. The best gauges

for assessing costs are: (1) Is it likely that careful planning will lead to reduced operating

costs or increased productivity over the long run? and (2) What might the organization lose
in the absence of a more comprehensive and integrated approach to the future?

The latter question has become increasingly important to those in local governments, who

now realize that they must compete with other communities in attracting industry, providing

amenities, and maintaining the population base. The issue, however, must be treated
differently when an administrative agency such as a state government department is

considering planning. Although strategic planning might make the agency more competitive

in attracting resources from the executive or legislature, this clearly should not be the
purpose of planning. Rather, the agency should use strategic planning to involve key

stakeholders in assessing the unit’s work and the possibilities for improving its services. The

process may indeed lead to requests for further funding, but it may also suggest ways to more

effectively utilize existing resources or even ways to reduce the scope of activities.

What Would You Do?

You are a member of the management team of a medium-sized Florida oceanfront vacation

and retirement community. You have been asked to make recommendations to the city

council concerning elements that should be part of a new vision and an accompanying

strategic plan for the city. What would you do?

Because of budgetary uncertainties, you may also question whether the time is right for

planning activities. Some say that planning can’t take place without solid information about

funding levels. But the opposite argument is compelling—that planning is most essential in
times of uncertainty, for these are exactly the times when you most need to be in control of

your own destiny. Times of uncertainty do not mitigate the need for planning; they intensify

it.

Managers in the public sector voice a related argument: that periodic changes in political
leadership make planning more difficult than in private industry. Again, the opposite

argument is compelling: in times of transition, planning can provide continuity. Even when

new leadership wishes to change the directions specified in an earlier planning effort,

changes can be made with greater clarity and aimed more readily toward critical concerns if
a plan is in place.

Finally, you may wonder whether strategic planning efforts are consistent with your

organization’s commitment to democratic or participatory processes. Here lies the most
significant difference between strategic planning in the public and private sectors. Whereas

planning in the private sector may involve many people throughout an organization, it

remains centered and directed at the top, because that is where the private interests of the

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-stakeholder

firm are most clearly articulated. In the public sector, however, every effort must be made to

significantly involve all those who play an important role in the jurisdiction or the agency.
For example, a local government planning effort should involve not only elected leadership

and city staff, but also many others with a stake in the outcome: unions, neighborhood

associations, chambers of commerce, civic organizations, and so forth. Similarly, a state

government agency’s planning effort should involve people from all levels of the
organization, members of constituent groups, elected officials, people from other agencies

and other levels of government, and representatives of the general citizenry.

Strategic planning in the public sector must be a highly participatory process; consequently,

this participation opens the possibility of building new understanding among various
groups. Many communities that have engaged in strategic planning have found that the

process brought together various groups in a way not previously possible. Strategic planning

may therefore be undertaken to achieve both direction and commitment.

Organizing for Planning

The planning process can proceed in a number of different ways, but the most common

approach is to form a central planning group to work closely with an outside consultant to

obtain information and make commitments to various new directions. In a local community,
the group might include the city’s political leadership; representatives of the city

administration (for example, the city manager); representatives of business, industry, and

labor; members of neighborhood associations; and so on. For a federal or state agency, on

the other hand, the major planning group might consist of the agency director, managers

from the next organizational level below, and selected program directors. The planning

group in a nonprofit organization might include the executive director, members of the

board, staff members, and representatives of constituent groups.

Steps in Planning

Once it has been brought together, the planning group will want to give its attention to four

primary concerns before developing action strategies (see the box “Exploring Concepts:

Steps in Strategic Planning”). The group should consider (1) the organization’s mission or

objectives, (2) an assessment of the environment in terms of both opportunities and

constraints, (3) an examination of the organization’s existing strengths and weaknesses, and

(4) the values, interests, and aspirations of those important to the organization’s future.
Consideration of these issues will lead to several strategic alternatives—perhaps stated as

“scenarios for the future”—and to the choice of a particular direction in which the

organization should move. Finally, a set of action steps or implementation items will be

developed to indicate what must be done immediately to put the organization in the proper
position to face the future most effectively.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#ec1

Exploring Concepts

STEPS IN STRATEGIC PLANNING

1. Statement of mission or objectives

2. Environmental analysis

3. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses
4. Analysis of organizational leaders’ values

5. Development of alternative strategies

Statement of Mission or Objectives Arriving at a concise, yet inclusive, mission

statement of the organization is a difficult step in the planning process. Although most
organizations have a general sense of their mission, questions often arise that cannot

be readily answered in terms of stated objectives. Having a specific mission statement,

however, provides an identity for the organization, as well as a guideline for future
decisions and a standard against which to measure specific actions.

Because arriving at a mission statement may imply certain strategies, care should be taken

to consider alternative approaches to the organization’s goals. A mission statement might

indicate, for instance, whether a city wishes to seek a broad industrial base or focus on
particular types of businesses, such as tourism or high-tech industries. Similarly, a university

mission statement might indicate whether the institution seeks a broad range of programs

in all areas or a limited number of exceedingly high-quality programs. The mission statement

of a state agency might comment on the desired range of clientele, responsiveness to changes
in the environment, or quality of service. If there is doubt or debate about items, they should

be carried forward as elements of strategy for later consideration.

Environmental Analysis After developing a mission statement, the planning group
should move to an analysis of the environment within which the organization

operates. This assessment should include legal and political considerations, social and

cultural trends, economic circumstances, technological developments, and, where

appropriate, the organization’s competitive or “market” position. Each area should be

examined in terms of the present environment and how it is likely to change in the

future. This assessment leads the group toward identifying possibilities for reducing

constraints and extending opportunities.

Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses At this point, the planning group can turn
its attention toward assessing the organization’s existing capabilities—its strengths

and weaknesses. The analysis should be as forthright and inclusive as possible, taking

into account financial resources (including changing patterns of funding), human

resources (including political and managerial strengths and weaknesses), the
operation of both technical and organizational systems, and quality of work. This

assessment of capabilities should relate as directly as possible to the stated mission

of the organization. For example, an agency involved in facilities design and

construction might want to consider the age and condition of facilities, the number

and abilities of architects and engineers, the number and frequency of design projects,

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_4_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_4_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_4_3

and the unit’s standing among other similar organizations. Examining strengths and

weaknesses should be accompanied by some attention to programs that might
significantly improve capabilities in one or more areas.

Analysis of Organizational Leaders’ Values A next step in preparing to develop

strategic alternatives is to take into account the values, interests, and aspirations of

those who will guide the organization into the future. People will respond to the same
environmental and organizational analysis in different ways. In business, for example,

some will be perfectly satisfied with the security of a stable market share, whereas

others will be willing to take greater risks in the hope of greater payoffs. Leaders vary

in terms of creativity, energy, and commitment. Yet, if a plan is to be effectively
implemented, it must reflect the concerns and interests of those who will play major

roles in shaping the future of the organization.

Development of Alternative Strategies At this point, the planning group can move to
formulate alternative strategies. These strategies can take several forms; however,

one useful way to proceed is to draw up alternative “scenarios of the future,”

indicating what the organization might look like five, ten, or twenty years into the

future. The scenarios should indicate new directions the organization might take;
pessimistic, realistic, and optimistic interpretations of its future; and factors likely to

influence these future patterns. It is helpful to develop more than one scenario and then use

them as competing viewpoints from which to debate the merits of various alternatives. From

a thorough discussion of the scenarios, one or more strategies will emerge. The strategy
should be chosen that most effectively moves the organization toward its mission, given

environmental opportunities and constraints, organizational strengths and weaknesses, and

the values, interests, and aspirations of the leadership. After developing the strategic
orientation, the planning group should be pressed to identify specific action steps for

implementing the strategy.

The Logic of Policy Analysis

One possible outcome of a formal planning process is that the need for new policies will be
identified. (The need for new policies can be generated in other ways as well, many of which

we discussed in Chapter 2.) A local group considering economic development issues might

recognize the need for new tax incentives for industries interested in locating in the

community. A state welfare department planning group might focus on the relationship
between providing day care and job training. Or a nonprofit organization might decide there

is a need for a new publications program. In each case, a problem is identified and the

question arises as to whether a new approach to the problem—a new policy—might help.

Many issues may come up. Exactly what is the nature of the problem? What would we be

trying to achieve with the new policy? What might be alternative approaches? What might

we expect from each alternative? What criteria would we use to evaluate alternatives? Which

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_4_4

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_4_5

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_5

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/009_chapter2.xhtml#ch2

alternative would best meet our criteria? Answering questions like these is the basis of

analyzing public policies. We can therefore define policy analysis as the process of researching
or analyzing public problems to give policy makers specific information about the range of

available policy options and their advantages and disadvantages. There are several ways you

might become involved in policy analysis. All managers engage almost daily in a sort of informal

analysis of public policies; they encounter new problems and consider alternative policies. Often
a more formal review of policy options is called for. Sometimes staff members perform the

analysis; many public organizations employ policy analysts to work on just such problems. In

other cases, another governmental agency may help; for example, the Office of Management

and Budget, as well as its counterparts in many states, develops policy reports. Policy analysis
might also be performed by legislative staff or legislative research groups. Finally, many

analyses are performed by consultants, including university consultants, where the public

manager acts as a client, issues the contract, monitors the work, and receives the final report.

Even though, as a manager, you may not perform the analysis yourself, you must be able to

distinguish between high-quality analysis and work of limited usefulness (Fischer, Miller, &

Sidney, 2007; Iris, 2005; Kraft & Furlong, 2009; Sabatier, 2007; Stone, 2011).

Steps in Policy Analysis

Broadly speaking, most policy analyses attempt to follow a “rational” model of decision

making, involving five major steps: (1) formulating the problem, (2) establishing criteria for

evaluation, (3) developing policy alternatives, (4) considering the expected impact of the
various alternatives, and (5) ranking the alternatives according to the established criteria.

(See the box “Exploring Concepts: Steps in Policy Analysis.”) As a simple illustration, think

about how you might decide what would be the best route from home to work (Quade, 1989,

pp. 33–34). If you assumed at the outset that the “best” route is the shortest, then you could
simply lay out the alternative routes on a map and select the shortest. (Using a map would

in effect create a “model” that would help in your analysis.) As in almost all policy analyses,

however, there may be more than one criterion involved. For example, the shortest route

might involve more traffic and take longer to drive. The shortest travel time might then
constitute a second criterion, but it would require a more sophisticated model than a map,

taking into account traffic congestion and perhaps other variables. Just thinking through the

various complications that might arise in this “simple” example, you can get some sense of

the difficulties you might encounter in moving through the five stages of a more
comprehensive policy analysis.

Exploring Concepts

STEPS IN POLICY ANALYSIS

6. Defining the problem

7. Setting objectives and criteria

8. Developing alternatives
9. Analyzing various policies

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-policyanalysis

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_6

10. Ranking and choosing

Defining the Problem There are obviously many problems facing any public

organization and, correspondingly, many opportunities to analyze policy alternatives.

Someone, however, must decide about the problem and how the analysis will proceed.

This someone—the sponsor of the analysis—may be a legislator, an elected chief executive,

or an agency manager. But, in any case, the one who will perform the analysis—the analyst—
should seek as clear a statement of the problem as possible and as much information about

the nature of the problem and the range of solutions. Why has the problem surfaced? Who is

affected? How does this problem relate to similar problems? What policy options have

already been tried? What is the range of policies that would be feasible, both economically
and politically? What resources are available to support the analysis?

Obviously, how the question is initially formulated will guide the analyst toward certain

possibilities and away from others, so it is important at the outset to be as clear as possible
without unnecessarily cutting off alternatives. The sponsor might ask, for example, “How can

we provide adequate shelter for the homeless in our community this winter?” This statement

permits exploring alternatives ranging from subsidizing existing shelters to building new

shelters. If, however, certain options, such as building new shelters, are clearly out of the
question due to time or money, then the analyst should be advised of these limitations.

Sometimes the problem is only vaguely understood at the outset, and part of the analyst’s

job is to develop a background statement or issue a paper that outlines the problem. In some

cases, gathering information at the library will be helpful, especially in laying out the history
of the problem, discovering approaches used in other jurisdictions, and becoming aware of

technical developments in the field. The analyst may want to talk with other people, perhaps

in other jurisdictions, to see what their experience has taught them. People in other
governments, other levels of government, and other agencies at the same level can be helpful.

The analyst can also gather information from those involved. In our example, the analyst

would probably want to talk with those already involved in providing shelter. A statistical

survey might even be possible. Finally, agency records and statistics might be helpful.

Throughout these initial information-gathering efforts, the analyst wants to develop an idea

of how different people and different groups perceive the problem and possible solutions.

Setting Objectives and Criteria As we have seen, establishing objectives for a new

policy or criteria for judging alternatives is often quite difficult. In some rare agencies,

the existing values and preferences are clear enough to guide choices. The manager

might be able to say, “It’s worth much more to our agency to achieve Result A than

Result B, C, or D. Therefore, whenever the choice presents itself, choose A.” But in most
policy areas, there are likely to be multiple and often conflicting objectives. To route

a highway through an urban area, for example, one must consider factors such as the

cost of the project, how many and who might use the highway, the number of houses

and other properties that might be displaced, and the impact of noise and pollution on
adjacent neighborhoods. How does one begin to rank all the factors?

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_6_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_6_2

There are other problems in selecting criteria. For example, criteria may differ among

different levels of the organization. A constant problem for decision makers is to be sure that
criteria used at one level are consistent with those at another level. A particular course of

action might fit the criteria developed at one level, but so distort the use of resources at the

next higher level as to make the choice inappropriate. Criteria must also be stated as

completely as possible. An analyst might be told to seek a solution that maximizes ou tput at
minimum cost and then discover that no single alternative can meet both criteria. Which is

more important?

Finally, choosing criteria depends on individual perspective. Most policy areas have many

different stakeholders—people who are involved in and affected by the policy decision.
These may include legislators, agency personnel, client groups, and other interest groups,

and each group may feel quite differently about what is most important. In the design of a

new highway, for example, a neighborhood association might place highest value on

environmental concerns, while someone who lives in the suburbs might be most concerned

with finding the shortest, quickest route to work. Different criteria compete for prominence

in any policy analysis. And, often, which criteria receive greatest prominence is a political

decision of legislators or high-ranking administrators.

Developing Alternatives Developing alternative policies is without question the most

creative phase of policy analysis, for it is here that the analyst must move beyond easy

solutions and develop innovative approaches to public problems. Different

alternatives often derive from different assumptions about the problem. For example,
should the welfare system be oriented toward providing support at home for

impoverished mothers or should it enable mothers to work by providing day care?

Should day care be addressed by building new centers or by providing tax credits or
vouchers to subsidize attendance at existing centers? Obviously, answers to questions

about alternative approaches to child support depend on interpretation of both the

causes of poverty and the motivations of the mothers. To develop a complete range of

alternatives, the analyst must assume the perspectives of many different

stakeholders.

Another way to develop far-ranging alternatives is to consider the relationship between the

particular problem and other similar issues. For example, adequate care for the homeless

ties to issues of health care, financial support for housing, welfare policy, and perhaps such
areas as mental health and Social Security. Again, alternatives that take the various

interrelated concerns into account are likely to be generated if the analyst considers the

views of many different stakeholders. Rather than saying, “How can my organization solve
this problem?” the analyst should ask, “How can this problem be solved?”

Analyzing Various Policies Having generated a number of realistic policy alternatives,

the analyst must now assess the likely impact of each alternative. How one analyzes

the impact will vary according to the particular type of policy. In some policy areas,
including some of major importance, limited information about possible impacts will

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_6_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_6_4

be available. The analyst can only make intuitive judgments based on his or her

experience and the experience of others. In other cases, however, one can gather
specific data and analyze it by means of quantitative techniques. In the urban highway

example, data could be gathered and analyzed to determine cost per mile, load-

bearing capabilities, travel time for users, and a variety of other factors.

Occasionally, actual experiments with several policy options may be possible, sometimes
with an experimental design similar to that used in the natural sciences. That is, the behavior

of a particular target population may be compared to that of a control group when only one

variable (the policy) is changed. Applied to large-scale social problems, such experiments

may be quite costly, but they may also save considerable time and money in the long run.
Sometimes it is appropriate to spend millions to save billions. (We should also note the

ethical problems associated with providing a treatment expected to be beneficial to one

group but intentionally denying it to another “control” group. Is it ethical to deny some

people a treatment you think will be beneficial?) A less formal means of policy

experimentation occurs when one state or locality tries a particular policy approach and

makes the results available to other communities. Sometimes this form of experimentation

is simply the result of different groups trying different programs, but sometimes it is
conscious. When state and local groups pressured the Carter administration to move the

management of the small cities’ portion of the Community Development Block Grant

program to the states, Wisconsin and Kentucky were asked to run the program on an

experimental basis. Their success in tailoring programs to local needs led to legislation
allowing all other states to assume administration of the program (Jennings et al., 1986; for

more recent examples, see Beland & Waddan, 2012).

Ranking and Choosing The final step in the analytic process is to compare the impacts
associated with various alternatives and the criteria for evaluation established

earlier. Alternatives can then be ranked in terms of their respective impacts. When

both the criteria and impact levels are fairly straightforward, a simple comparison of

possible effects may readily show which choice should be made; other cases may be

more complex. The highway construction example, for instance, might yield three or

four alternative proposals and as many as twenty criteria by which to evaluate the

alternatives. One way to treat such cases is to simply lay out the expected results of

each alternative in terms of the various criteria, leaving the task of comparing the data

and ranking the alternatives to the decision maker. Sometimes more sophisticated

quantitative techniques are available to the analyst.

Costs and Benefits

One of the most straightforward quantitative techniques is the cost-effectiveness approach,

which compares policies by quantifying their total costs and effects. Costs are usually measured

in monetary terms, but effects may be measured in units of any type.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_6_5

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_7

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-cost-effectivenesstechnique

Typically, the cost-effectiveness approach takes one of two forms. First, the level of

effectiveness can be fixed, and one can search for the alternative that achieves this level at
the least cost. If, for example, we want to increase the number of houses in a community that

get tested for radon by 25 percent, would it be cheaper to hire inspectors or to spend money

on advertising so that homeowners would do the inspection themselves? A second approach

fixes the budget amount and then asks which alternative will provide the highest level of
effectiveness for that amount. If we want to spend no more than $50,000 a year on radon

inspections, which two approaches will result in a higher number of inspections?

The cost-effectiveness model is widely used because it is quite flexible and does not demand

the same degree of precision as other approaches. Cost-effectiveness is especially useful
when the relative merits of competing proposals, such as different child-care delivery

mechanisms, are being debated. It is not as useful in comparing questions of absolute merits,

however, such as whether to allocate resources to early childhood programs or to radon

testing. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness approach may be somewhat limited where criteria

and impacts are more complex.

Closely related to cost-effectiveness is cost-benefit analysis. Essentially, the cost-benefit

approach involves identifying and quantifying both the negative impacts (costs) and positive
impacts (benefits) of a proposal, then subtracting one from the other to arrive at a measure of

net benefit. In contrast to cost-effectiveness analysis, the cost-benefit approach seeks to

establish both the total monetary costs and total monetary benefits of a proposal. The logic of

cost-benefit analysis is obvious, but applying it to policy proposals that involve large
expenditures and produce difficult-to-measure results can be quite complicated.

There are several advantages to cost-benefit analysis. If programs can be evaluated in terms

of costs and benefits, the approach can result in rather precise recommendations. But even
if it is difficult to calculate costs or benefits, focusing on the two areas may help clarify the

manager’s thinking about a proposal. Legislation often requires that cost-benefit analysis

precede particular policy changes, especially in environmental or regulatory policy.

Several factors make it difficult to assess the costs and benefits of a particular program. First,
the analyst will be asked to come up with measures of both costs and benefits and reduce

them to a common unit of measure (usually money). But in analyzing a proposed new

highway, can we accurately portray the fatality rate for similar highway segments as a

measure of safety? And, if so, how can we translate the rate of fatalities into dollars? Second,

we should always remember that the final calculated cost-benefit ratio is not the only basis

for choosing one alternative over another. Despite the ratio of costs and benefits in our

highway example, a particular level of fatalities may simply be considered too high, either
politically or ethically.

Typically, costs are thought of as inputs and benefits as outputs. Costs might include one-

time items such as research and development, buildings and facilities, land acquisition,

equipment purchases, and so on. Costs might also include recurring budgetary items such as
personnel, rent, maintenance, administrative overhead, insurance, and so forth. Because

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-cost-benefit

these expenditures take place over time, calculations usually take into account the time value

of money—the fact that people generally are not as willing to pay for something in the future
as in the present. Although the particular calculations are beyond the scope of this text,

taking time into account enables us to answer questions such as whether Project A with low

initial cost but high maintenance is better than Project B with high initial cost but low

maintenance.

Benefits, based on outputs, include both positive and negative effects. (The negative effects

of a program obviously might be calculated either as increases in cost or decreases in

benefits. They are usually the latter.) Positive benefits might include reduction in disease or

improved drinking water or increased highway safety. Negative benefits might include
increased noise and pollution from constructing a new airport. Again, some effort to

translate positive or negative benefits into monetary terms would have to be made.

Obviously, measuring outputs and translating them into dollars are exceedingly difficult
tasks. For example, eliminating a disease might increase productivity, which could be

measured, but also reduce pain and suffering, which would be more difficult to measure.

Omitting these factors because they are hard to measure biases the analysis, but assigning a

dollar value to them might do the same. Consequently, the quantitative presentation of costs
and benefits is often accompanied by an explanation of additional qualitative considerations.

Other Quantitative Techniques

In addition to cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit approaches, there are many other

techniques to aid policy analysis. It is not necessary to examine the mathematical formulas,

but it is helpful to understand the logic they depend on. Let us examine the following payoff

matrices with that goal in mind. Assume a simple example: hiring an office worker who will

need proficiency in computer operation and budgeting. After interviewing two applicants, A
and B, you feel that A is stronger (rated 1) than B in both areas. Your thoughts might be

modeled as shown in Table 4.1.

TABLE 4.1

Simple Payoff Matrix

Value Measures

Computers Budgeting

Candidate A 1 1
Candidate B 2 2

Your choice here is simple, because one candidate is clearly superior in both respects. But

what if your decision appears to be structured as shown in Table 4.2?

TABLE 4.2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec1_8

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#tab4-2

Simple Payoff Matrix
Value Measures
Computers Budgeting

Candidate A 1 2

Candidate B 2 1

Now there is no clear choice. Even if you thought computer skills were more important than

budgeting skills, you couldn’t choose, because Candidate A might be a little better with

computers, but Candidate B may be much better in budgeting. To decide, you need either
more sophisticated measures of ability or a way to weight the two factors, as we do in the

example in Table 4.3.

TABLE 4.3

Weighted Payoff
Matrix

Value Measures

Computers Budgeting Combination
Candidate A 9 3 6.3 + 0.9 = 7.2

Candidate B 5 8 3.5 + 2.4 = 5.9

Weight 0.7 0.3

Here we measure the ability of each candidate in the two areas on a 10-point scale, with a
higher score indicating higher proficiency. Because we have established that computer skills

are more important than budgeting skills, we give those skills a higher weight (0.7 compared

to 0.3). By multiplying the candidates’ scores by the weights, we obtain a combined value
measure for the two candidates, thus enabling us to choose the better candidate. (This classic

example is adapted from Latane, 1963.)

We could extend the logic of the payoff matrix even further. One way is to combine scores

under differing working conditions. Indeed, following the logic of the payoff matrix, we could
accommodate large numbers of weighted variables, as might be involved in a large-scale

policy analysis; the logic remains much the same. Remember that one can adopt different

decision rules and that the choice of criteria is subjective.

Another tool of policy analysis is decision analysis, a technique for use where decisions are

likely to be made sequentially and with some degree of uncertainty. Decision analysis is

applicable to a variety of complex problems, such as choosing airport sites or developing plans

for commercial breeder reactors, but the underlying logic is fairly straightforward and often
quite helpful. Consider another classic illustration.

The officer in charge of a U.S. embassy recreation program has decided to replenish the

employees’ club funds by arranging a fund-raising dinner. It rains nine days out of ten at the

post, and he must decide whether to hold the dinner indoors or out. An enclosed pavilion is

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#tab4-3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-decisionanalysis

available but uncomfortable, and past experience has shown turnout to be low at indoor

functions, resulting in a 60 percent chance of gaining $100 from a dinner held in the pavilion
and a 40 percent chance of losing $20. On the other hand, an outdoor dinner could be

expected to earn $500 unless it rains, in which case the dinner would lose about $10. (Stokey

& Zechauser, 1978, p. 202)

Using decision analysis to structure the officer’s dilemma involves first constructing a
decision tree to show the various possible outcomes, given the risks associated with each (see

Figure 4.1). Obviously, the decision tree lays out the options, probabilities of various

occurrences, and anticipated outcomes in much the same way as a payoff matrix. It is easy to

imagine how much more complicated the situation could become, however, with the
addition of other variables or other decision options. Even in this simple case, matters might

be complicated by other variables, such as whether the weather will be hot or cold, whether

there are other ways to increase attendance (advertising and so on), and whether the

commanding officer prefers to be indoors or outdoors. You can imagine how much more

serious are the sequences and variables involved in a decision concerning location of a

nuclear facility.

FIGURE 4.1
Embassy Dinner Decision Tree

FIGURE 4.2

Chess Match Decision Tree

And as if this weren’t enough, consider what happens when you take into account
competition from others. Let’s imagine a chess match in which we have decided on some

evaluation criterion, such as king safety or center control that we can measure. That is, we

have identified a way to place a value on each outcome that might result from a given set of
moves. Let’s say that White is ready to move and has two options, W1 and W2, leading to the

decision tree in Figure 4.2. (If we move W1, then Black can move either B1 or B2; if we move

W2, then Black can move either B3 or B4; and so on. After evaluating all possible outcomes,

we assigned the values shown across the bottom row.) We would obviously prefer to choose
W2, and then have Black choose B4, so we could choose W9, the alternative with the highest

value for us. But taking into account what Black is likely to do, we recognize that if we take

W2, then Black will take B3, leading us to the two lowest payoffs. Recognizing this

probability, we will instead take W1, expecting that Black will take B1, and we will have a
satisfactory outcome.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-decisiontree

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#fig4-1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#fig4-2

Although our examples have been quite simple, their logic can support far more

sophisticated applications of policy analysis. Moreover, the discipline these techniques
impose makes them useful for even relatively simple applications. The models force us to

examine our assumptions, structure the problem clearly and logically, and consider the full

range of available options. The models also allow us to more effectively communicate our

analysis to others.

That brings us to one final point. No matter how sophisticated the analysis and how rational

its conclusions, a policy analysis must be effectively communicated to the actual decision

makers. Communication is often quite difficult, because decision makers are extremely busy

and have a variety of conflicting demands on their time and interests. Sometimes even those
who are invited to do a policy analysis find themselves and their analysis swept aside by

political or other considerations, and, indeed, that is the prerogative of major decision

makers. A rational analysis is helpful in the decision process, but political considerations, in

the positive sense, must also be taken into account before any actions are taken.

Bardach (2011) suggests that policy analysis is more art than science and emphasizes the

importance of intuition as a complementary part of the methodology used for a policy

analysis. He develops eight useful steps in the policy analysis process that can be used as a
practical guide when constructing policy proposals.

11. Define the problem. A clear operational definition of the problem to be solved is a

crucial step that gives “both a reason for doing all the work necessary to complete the

project and a sense of direction for your evidence-gathering activity” (p. 1).
12. Assemble some evidence. Before gathering evidence, it is important for the analyst to

think carefully about what is relevant to the problem. Pertinent literature review,

applied best practices, and analogies are some of the sources for supporting the
argument for the existing policy problem.

13. Construct the alternatives. When looking for alternatives, use a comprehensive and

focused approach. The alternatives should address the problem and should be

feasible.

14. Select the criteria. Commonly used evaluative criteria are efficiency, equality, equity,

fairness, and justice. Commonly used practical criteria are legality, political

acceptability, robustness, and improbability.

15. Project the outcomes. When analyzing the policy along with the policy proposal, think
about results that will come in the future. For this step, it is most important to be

realistic (not too optimistic, which is a common pitfall) in one’s expectations for the

future.
16. Confront the trade-offs. “As economics teaches us, trade-offs occur at the margin” (p.

48). In other words, it tells us how much extra money we should pay to receive an

extra unit of some service.

17. Decide! With this step, the policy analyst makes a decision on which policy alternative
to concentrate his or her attention.

18. Tell your story. This step implies that the intention of the analysis is to suggest a

solution for a certain problem. The policy analyst should be aware that the clarity of
the presentation of his or her analysis is very important.

Implementation
In the cycle of planning, implementation, and evaluation, implementation is the action phase.

Once plans have been made and policies decided on, you must put them into operation.
Financial and human resources must be allocated and mobilized, organizational structures

and systems must be devised, and internal policies and procedures must be developed.

During implementation, you may be involved in issuing and enforcing directives, disbursing

funds, awarding grants and contracts, analyzing programmatic and operational problems,
taking corrective action, and negotiating with citizens, business, and those in other public

and nonprofit organizations.

Over the past 25 years, a body of literature dealing with the implementation process has

emerged. Some of the literature merely uses new terms to talk about the general processes
of administration in the public sector. Other parts of the literature focus on the relationship

between policy development and program implementation. This literature specifically alerts

us to the difficulty of effective program implementation and to how implementation may
distort or even subvert the intent of policy makers. Most pointedly, one commentator has

written, “It is hard enough to design public policies and programs that look good on paper.

It is harder still to formulate them in words and slogans that resonate pleasingly in the ears

of political leaders and the constituencies to which they are responsive. And it is
excruciatingly hard to implement them in a way that pleases anyone at all, including the

supposed beneficiaries or clients” (Bardach, 1977, p. 3).

A classic study of the relationship between policy and implementation was suggestively

titled Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; or Why
It’s Amazing That Federal Programs Work at All (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973).

Implementation described a particular economic development program in the Oakland,

California, area that was less than successful. Pressman and Wildavsky concluded that “what
seemed to be a simple program turned out to be a very complex one, involving many

participants, a host of different perspectives, and a long and tortuous path of decision points

that had to be cleared” (p. 94). Implementation was characterized by multiple and conflicting

interests trying to influence the program’s direction to suit their many and divergent needs.
The major recommendation of the study seemed to be that people involved in designing

public policies “pay as much attention to the creation of organizational machinery for

executing a program as for launching one” (pp. 144–145).

This lesson has been clearly recognized in the literature of strategic planning. Plans remain
sterile without implementation, so there has always been a close connection between

planning and execution. As noted, planning is most beneficial where it can help make

immediate decisions in light of future impact. Thus, a final step in any planning process is to
arrive at a series of specific actions to take in the near future—the next six months, or the

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec2

next year or two years—who does what, when, and to what effect. These steps, which may

detail new policy positions or new organizational processes, will form a new action agenda
for the community or the agency.

Organizational Design

Some of the classic approaches to implementation, formerly called “organization and

management,” focused on the structure and design of new organizations and their work
processes or flows. The traditional organization chart expresses both the division of labor

within an organization and the structure of command or control.

In the late 1930s, Luther Gulick advised managers developing new organizations that there

were several ways they could divide work (Gulick, 1937, pp. 21–29). Among these were (1)

purpose, (2) process, (3) people or things, or (4) place. Dividing work according to purpose

might result in distinctions such as between providing education or controlling crime, while

dividing work according to process might lead to a legal unit, a medical unit, or an
engineering unit. One could also divide work according to the people served or the things

being dealt with—for example, the Department of Veterans Affairs deals with all problems

that veterans face, whether legal, medical, and so on. Finally, one may organize according to

geographic area, as would a state welfare department that has regional or county offices.

Networking

Online resources and case studies relating to the planning and implementation of

productivity initiatives can be found at the U.S. Conference of Mayors site at

-w-w-w-.-u-s-m-a-y-o-r-s-.-o-r-g-/-u-s-c-m-/-b-e-s-t-_-p-r-a-c-t-i-c-e-s. For information on
scenario planning, go to the Global Business Network at -w-w-w-.-g-b-n-.-c-o-m.

Gulick and his contemporaries also talked about the number of levels that would be

appropriate to an organization. Obviously, many organizations are fairly “tall”—they have

many levels; others are “flat”—they have relatively few levels. The number of levels is guided

to a degree by the type of work and by the number of people who report to any one manager.

The term span of control signifies the number of people that one individual supervises;

although there are significant variations, depending on the type of work, it is generally

considered difficult to supervise more than six to ten people.

In addition to developing organizational structures, early writers urged charting work

processes as an aid to organizational design. Process charting or flowcharting can provide a

graphic demonstration of the various steps in an operation, the people performing each step,
and the relationships among these elements. Figure 4.3 shows a simple illustration of process

charting, although charts can become far more sophisticated in actual applications. This

process chart uses a variety of symbols to indicate different activities. The vertical lines set

the basic framework of the chart. The columns show the flow of work from one person to
another and vary depending on the complexity of the process and the degree of analysis

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec2_1

http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/best_practices

http://www.gbn.com/

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-spanofcontrol

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-processchartingflowcharting

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#fig4-3

desired. The column headings indicate the positions under study. In Figure 4.3, the ovals

indicate a specific task (sorting, conferring, and so on); the circles indicate transportation of
work from one person to another. The triangle indicates storage, a period during which

operation is stationary. Finally, the rectangle indicates an inspection, usually to check for

quality or quantity. As illustrated here, one can make notations on the chart to indicate the

nature of particular steps in the process.

FIGURE 4.3

Process Charting

Process charting is most useful where a considerable number of clerical or nonprofessional

employees perform the same general classes of work and follow the same general sequence
of operating steps. Although process charting is less useful in analyzing the work of

professionals, there are possible applications here as well. For example, charting a

professional operation may reveal bottlenecks, excessive periods of review, or excessive
checkpoints that inhibit the flow of work. As with other techniques, process charting can

become quite complex, but its logic is both simple and compelling. Process charting

simplifies analysis because it sharply points out backtracking, excessive detail, unnecessary

repetition, poor distribution of functions, and other administrative defects. For this reason,
process charting has enjoyed a revival of interest by those implementing total quality

management

programs.

Systems Analysis

There are many other sophisticated devices that have been developed for analyzing the

design and operations of both public and private organizations. Many of the approaches are

based in systems theory, an effort to identify, in logical fashion, the interactions of various

internal and external elements that impinge on an organization’s operations. The systems
approach has been used in a variety of fields, including physics, biology, economics, sociology,

and information science, but the basic concepts are much the same regardless of discipline.

Generally speaking, a system is a set of regularized interactions configured or bounded in a way

that differentiates and separates them from other actions that constitute the systems
environment. Thus, we can speak of a biological system, a physical system, an economic system,

or a political system. Any such system receives inputs from its environment and then translates

these through some sort of conversion process into outputs that are returned to the
environment. These outputs in turn affect future inputs to the system through a feedback

loop. Presumably, if the outputs of a system are valued by the environment, new inputs will

be forthcoming and the organization will survive. A basic systems model is illustrated in

Figure 4.4.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#fig4-3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec2_2

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-systemstheory

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-system

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/011_chapter4.xhtml#fig4-4

FIGURE 4.4

A Basic Systems Model

Following this model, consider the operation of a thermostat. The thermostat takes in

information about the heat in a room and then measures the heat against some standard. If

the level of heat is below the standard, the thermostat causes more heat to be put out into

the room. The additional heat becomes part of the environment and creates new information
(feedback), which becomes part of the next input into the system.

The systems concept works similarly in human organizations. A business might receive input

from its environment that customers are demanding more red shoes. A decision might be

made to produce more red shoes, and those shoes would be part of the organization’s output.
The new red shoes become part of the environment and affect new inputs into the system,

which might range from comments about the quality of the shoes to information that the

demand has not yet been met. This new information guides the operation of the system in
the future.

Like many of the other models we have discussed in this chapter, the systems approach has

been used in highly sophisticated applications ranging from the analysis of organizational

design and processes to the creation and modification of major weapons systems. Indeed,
the first major applications of systems analysis occurred in the military during and soon after

World War II. For some time thereafter, the Department of Defense was the major user of

systems analysis, depending on a variety of contractors, most notably the RAND Corporation

to help in applying systems analysis to a variety of problems. Yet, it is possible to apply
systems logic to a variety of problems public organizations face, and, as with other

techniques, the systematic discipline that the approach brings to problem solving is perhaps

its greatest strength.

Systems analysis emphasizes the relationship between the organization and its

environment, suggesting that public managers carefully consider factors in the environment

that impinge on their operations. These factors include legal and political matters, support

and opposition generated by interest groups and client organizations, human and financial

resources, and applicable technology. Naturally, the environment also includes a large

number of other organizations with which the agency interacts, such as the chief executive’s

office, the legislature, the budget office, related agencies at the same level of government,

parallel agencies at other levels of government, and a variety of private and nonprofit groups
and associations.

Many systems analysts tend to ignore what occurs within the system itself, preferring to

think of it as a black box into which inputs go and from which outputs come. Others speak of
several different subsystems that carry forward the organization’s work. In a classic

formulation, the institutional subsystem is responsible for adapting the organization to its

environment and for anticipating and planning for the future. People involved in this activity
generally constitute the organization’s leadership cadre. The technical subsystem, on the other

hand, is concerned with the effective performance of the organization’s actual work. If the work

of the organization is building rockets, the technical subsystem is the people who actually build

the rockets. Finally, the managerial subsystem is concerned with providing the necessary
resources for accomplishing the technical task, as well as mediating between the technical and

institutional subsystems (Thompson, 1967, pp. 10–11).

Outputs of public organizations range from goods (such as highways or buildings) to services

(such as student loans or employment counseling), but they also include regulations,
adjudication, and support for other programs. To know the effect of their efforts, managers

need some sort of feedback mechanism. Feedback often occurs naturally: clients write letters

of appreciation; legislators inquire about program operations; a program may even become

an issue during an election campaign. Sometimes, however, you will want to secure more

systematic and accurate feedback, for which you can use devices such as questionnaire

surveys, field testing, or spot checks of service provision. Recall that systems analysis helps

focus on how an organization interacts with its environment; developing effective feedback
mechanisms helps the manager in that process.

Reengineering

Over the past twenty years, many public administrators have adopted a more

comprehensive, even radical technique for enhancing organizational performance, called

reengineering. (Although the word reengineering has been used with decreasing frequency, the

basic principles of reengineering are reflected in other approaches such as Six Sigma and have

become a part of the core organizational processes in many agencies.) The central tenet of
reengineering centers on redesigning work processes and organizational structures to be in

line with agency outcomes. Through this technique, policy makers attempt to make public

organizations more flexible and capable of responding to the dynamic conditions of

contemporary society.

In some respects, reengineering builds upon systems theory and other analytic techniques

in that it involves the recognition of core processes and the systemic context of staff

behavior. However, the outcome of reengineering goes well beyond simply making

alterations within the existing bureaucratic structure. Its goal is to overhaul rigid
government agencies into what one author calls seamless organizations: “In contrast to the

fragmented bureaucracies of the past, seamless organizations provide a smooth,

transparent, almost effortless experience for their customers. Staff in seamless organizations
perform the full job, in direct contact with their end users” (Linden, 1994, p. xii).

Implementation of a reengineering process begins with an identification of the

organization’s desired outcomes. These include the short- and long-term impacts the agency

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-institutionalsubsystem

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-technicalsubsystem

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-managerialsubsystem

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec2_3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-reengineering

wants to achieve. Then the organization is redesigned around the core and support

processes that will produce these outcomes. Given the hierarchical, inflexible nature of many
public organizations, though, this is not as simple as it may seem.

Reengineering requires that public administrators change their current assumptions, those

equating organization with traditional bureaucracy. Such a reorientation helps to transform

work processes and agency structures to those driven by meaningful outcomes—a shift from
segmentation to integration, from division of labor to seamless work (Linden, 1994).

Reengineering involves enhancing those activities that may be considered value-added—

activities that give customers more of what they are willing to pay for and cutting functions

that merely stand in the way. Of course, some functions remain crucial for the organization’s
success. Central administration activities such as budgeting, accounting, and quality

inspections cannot simply be removed from the picture. On the other hand, these functions

often hinder the completion of the more value-added activities. The key to successful
reengineering is to separate the core processes from the other tasks, enabling the critical

activities to be carried out more effectively (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Linden, 1994).

Evaluation
The sequence of planning, implementation, and evaluation is completed by asking whether

the program goals and objectives have been achieved in a way that was both efficient and

effective. Such evaluations may, however, operate at a variety of different levels. Some may

respond to the legislature’s interest in knowing whether the intended benefits of legislation
were achieved; others may be designed to communicate to the public what is happening in

areas of broad citizen interest; still others may be oriented toward improvements either in

the design of the policy being implemented or in the way it was conducted. An understanding

of contemporary approaches to evaluation requires attention to both the performance
measurement movement mentioned earlier and more traditional program evaluation

approaches. Whereas program evaluation offers insight into each policy or program’s

direction, effectiveness, and sustainability, performance measurement generates
information concerning the organization or network as a whole. When combined within the

framework of evaluation research, these strategies not only assist in the decision-making

process but also improve the overall accountability of public organizations. In turn,

evaluation research enhances legislative oversight and administrative control.

Several legislative groups conduct or sponsor evaluation research at the federal level. These

include the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office, and

various legislative committees, primarily those concerned with the budget and oversight of

specific programs. Executive agencies, such as the Office of Management and Budget and the
Executive Office of the President, also conduct evaluation

research.

Much of this research,

however, is sponsored by the agencies themselves, as managers seek to determine how they

can better manage or generate greater productivity from their organizations.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec3

There is also great interest in program evaluation at the state and local levels, although

resources to support such activities have often been limited. State governments have
developed analytic capabilities within the executive branch, often through the budget office.

In recent years, many states have restructured their budgets to be in line with

predetermined performance standards (see Chapter 10). This has enabled state

governments to link fiscal resources to the desired results targeted by each agency.
Evaluation research is then used to help a state government determine how successful it has

been in achieving its performance goals. Consequently, state legislatures and citizens can

now see what services and impacts were gained with public resources.

Again, at state and local levels and in most nongovernmental organizations, as at the federal
level, a great deal of evaluation research is done as part of the agency’s or program manager’s

ongoing responsibility. Public administrators increasingly must show not only the efficiency

of their actions, but also the results of their actions within the broader stakeholder

community. Examples of performance measurement and program evaluation range from

complex, detailed, one-time studies to the ongoing, integrated monitoring of performance

goals. Regardless of the level of sophistication, evaluation research offers important details

to support the organization’s overall strategic planning and to assist the organization in
determining the direction of individual programs.

Program Evaluation

There are a variety of ways to classify the approaches to program evaluation, including

outcome evaluations and process evaluations. Outcome evaluations are closely tied to the type

of assessment in performance measurement; they focus on the results of program activity—

that is, the extent to which a program meets its objectives in terms of impact on the

environment (as described in the discussion of the United Way in Chapter 3). If the work of an
organization is to improve adult literacy, then an evaluation might measure the number of

individuals who learned to read. That information would likely then be related to program

inputs to show, in a cost-benefit ratio (in this case, based on allocative efficiency), the number

of individuals learning to read per thousand dollars spent. In general, an outcome evaluation
seeks to determine whether X causes Y, where X is the activity of the program and Y is the

desired outcome or goal. As you can imagine, outcome evaluations are particularly valuable

to legislators, grant makers, and others concerned with the performance of various

programs.

In contrast to outcome evaluations, process evaluations focus on ways that program

implementation might be improved to better meet the program’s objectives. The question here

is what can be done to X, the program’s management, to improve Y, the desired outcome.
Whereas an evaluator interested in outcomes might spend a great deal of time developing

systematic measures of program results, someone interested in process evaluation would

analyze the organization and management of the agency’s activities, including distribution

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/017_chapter10.xhtml#ch10

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec3_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-outcomeevaluation

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/010_chapter3.xhtml#ch3

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-processevaluation

of financial and human resources and design of service delivery mechanisms. Process

evaluations also determine if legally prescribed processes are being followed and ensure that
individual rights are not violated.

Read “Children in
Poverty: Can Public
Policy Alleviate the
Consequences?” by
Aletha C. Huston,
and “Prison Math:
What Are the Costs
and Benefits of
Leading the World in
Locking Up Human
Beings?” by
Veronique de Rugy.
These two articles
discuss the kinds of
public policy issues
that confront those
in the public sector
and in related
organizations. The
first article discusses
policy options that
might be available to
help with the issue
of children in
poverty. The second
article discusses the
costs and benefits of
a high prison
population.

Discuss each case,
emphasizing in the
first the possible
policy solutions that

http://www.cengage.com/

might be developed.
What are the
alternative policies,
and what are the
advantages and
disadvantages of
each? In the second
case, consider the
“mathematics” of the
situation being
evaluated here. What
policy conclusions
would your analysis
of the situation
suggest? How much
are your
recommendations
guided by the data
and how much by
your personal
values? How does one
affect the other?

Relevant measures here would fall more on the input side and might include such items as
workload measures or data on resource allocation. In such studies, it may be important to

distinguish between efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency is concerned with the relationship

between inputs and outputs, usually expressed in a ratio per unit of input. For example, a

measure of streets paved per thousand dollars spent would be a measure of efficiency.
Effectiveness, on the other hand, is concerned with the extent to which a program is achieving

or failing to achieve its stated objectives. Effectiveness measures are outcome oriented; they

focus on the real changes the program produces, such as a decrease in airline deaths.

Sometimes process evaluations occur after the fact—that is, upon completion of the
program; but often they occur during program operation. Indeed, some process evaluations

are almost continuous in their ongoing review of program operations. In either case, the

information that emerges in the course of a process evaluation is likely to be of greatest
interest to the program manager who hopes to improve his or her organization’s

performance.

Program evaluations may therefore be directed toward many different audiences and serve

many different purposes. The specific kinds of information required vary from evaluation to
evaluation. Eleanor Chelimsky, former head of the GAO’s Program Evaluation and

Methodology Division, lists the following types of information that may be developed

retrospectively:

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-efficiency

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-effectiveness

• Information on program implementation (such as the degree to which the program is

operational, how similar it is across sites, whether it conforms to the policies and
expectations formulated, how much it costs, how stakeholders feel about it, whether

there are major problems of service delivery or of error, fraud, and abuse, and so on).

• Ongoing information on the current state of the problem or threat addressed by the

program. (Is the problem growing? Is it diminishing? Is it diminishing enough so that
the program is no longer needed? Is it changing in terms of its significant

characteristics?)

• Information on program outcomes. (What happened as a result of program

implementation?)
• Information on the degree to which the program made, or is making, a difference.

(That is, what change in the problem or threat occurred that can be directly attributed

to the program?)

• Information on the unexpected (as well as expected) effects of the programs. (For

instance, was a program of drug education accompanied by an increase in the use of

drugs?) (Chelimsky, 1985, pp. 8–9)

Evaluation Designs and Techniques

Approaches to the evaluation of public programs range from historical analysis to

sophisticated experimental designs. Indeed, over the years, there has been a recurring

debate over the proper approach to evaluation. Some argue that such research should be
primarily qualitative, concerned with tracking program development and indicating forces

that helped shape the program. Advocates of this approach tend to be most interested in

process questions, such as reasons for success or failure and unanticipated consequences of

the program; they ask, “What happened?” Others argue that program evaluations should,
wherever possible, employ the most rigorous scientific methods appropriate to the subject

matter, including the design and execution of formal experiments. These analysts tend to be

more interested in program outcomes; they ask, “Does it work?” (Chelimsky, 1985, p. 14).

Whatever the approach, those involved in program evaluation must confront two challenges
to the validity of their work. The first question, concerning internal validity, asks whether the

approach measured what was intended. Was the design consistent with the goals of the

program and the needs of the sponsor? Were the methods most appropriate for answering

the questions that needed to be asked? Were the results as free from bias as possible? A
second question, concerning external validity, asks to what extent the findings may be

applicable to more general circumstances. What does the study say about similarly situated

programs? Can the study be replicated and be expected to produce similar results? These
and other questions can be directed toward the various techniques employed in evaluation

research.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec3_2

Qualitative Techniques Many program evaluations depend on qualitative information

derived from reading about the program, from interviewing important actors
(including agency personnel, clients, and others), and sometimes from actually

participating in the work of the program. The initial step in a qualitative evaluation

project is usually to read everything available about the program, including

background material on the subject of the program (flu vaccines, child nutrition, rapid
transit systems, and so on), agency documents, operating procedures, internal

memoranda, newspaper and magazine articles, articles on similar programs

elsewhere, and reports issued by various concerned groups. The researcher would

also likely make a few phone calls to identify the significant actors in the program and
determine where the most important activities are taking place.

Following an initial reconnaissance, the analyst settles on a limited number of sites (schools,

hospitals, highway systems, and so on) as the focus of the investigation. Most qualitative

evaluations are largely exploratory, designed to explore a variety of hunches or intuitions

about the program’s operation. For these cases, the analyst will probably try to select sites

that vary widely along several crucial dimensions. Some evaluations, however, are hypothesis

guided, designed to demonstrate the plausibility of a particular hypothesis, so the analyst
might choose a limited number of crucial sites that are especially illustrative of the issue

under investigation.

What Would You Do?

You have been asked to assess the effectiveness of a new program aimed at reducing teen

pregnancies by providing birth control information through the high schools. You have heard
several suggestions about how to design the study—and some comments that it’s simply

impossible to measure something like this. What would you do?? What Would You Do?

Once the research sites have been chosen, the analyst may choose to gather most of his or
her information through intensive interviews, detailed information-gathering sessions

involving major actors both inside and outside the agency responsible for the program.

Interviewing skills include establishing the interviewer’s credentials, setting the proper

climate, arranging questions effectively, asking reasonable but challenging questions, and
keeping a good record of all that is said. Perhaps most important, the interviewer must keep

the discussion on the subject, in a way that is neither obvious nor embarrassing to either

party. Immediately following the interview, the interviewer should review and expand upon

the notes taken during the interview session. These notes will form an important basis for

drawing conclusions about the program.

An alternative means of gathering qualitative information is the use of a participant-observer,

someone involved in either the target population or the agency itself who makes observations
and draws conclusions based on firsthand data. For example, an evaluation of an antipoverty

program in eastern Kentucky some years ago employed a participant-observer who lived in the

community, talked daily with others in the community about the program, and reported back

to the overall evaluation staff.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec3_2_1

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-participant-observer

Either technique can be questioned with respect to both internal and external validity.

Biased information and questions about internal validity can arise if the wrong people are
chosen to interview or if those interviewed provide misleading information, intentionally or

unintentionally. Participant-observers can affect the program’s operation through their own

presence, leading to outcomes far different from what would otherwise have happened.

Questions concerning external validity (or generalizability) might be raised with either
technique based on the choice of only a limited number of sites for investigation.

Quantitative Techniques Policy evaluations often endeavor to approximate the

scientific methods of the physical sciences, although such efforts are extremely

difficult. In its classic formulation, an experimental design involves examination of two or
more groups under carefully controlled conditions. One group, the experimental group,

receives a treatment or intervention; in the case of program evaluation, members of the

experimental group receive the benefits of the program being evaluated. Another group, the

control group, consists of individuals who are as similar as possible to those in the

experimental group and who act under the same general conditions, yet do not receive the

intervention. Members of both groups are tested before and after the experimental

intervention (pretest and posttest measures), and the results are compared. If the program
has had either a positive or negative effect, the differences should show up in the data. We

can illustrate the difficulties in designing a rigorous experimental design with respect to

social programs by imagining that we are interested in analyzing the effectiveness of a new

approach to mathematics education in the fourth grade. One classroom might be designated
an experimental group and be taught using the new approach; another classroom might be

designated the control group and be taught using traditional methods. The mathematical

abilities of all students would be measured both before and after the period in which the new
program was being taught. If the new technique is indeed more effective in educating

children in mathematics, the posttest scores of the children in the experimental group should

be higher than those of the children in the control group.

In a very general sense, this is an application of an experimental design to a social program,

and you can easily imagine how similar designs might be used to measure other programs,

ranging from immunizations to welfare incentives to highway designs. But we can observe

difficulties in such designs, some of which relate to questions of internal validity. One might

respond to the study by saying that students in the experimental group were smarter to

begin with, or that the absence rate was higher among those in the control group. Or you

might suggest that one teacher was better than the other, and that made the difference. Or

even if the same teacher taught both groups, you might speculate that he or she taught the
new material with more enthusiasm. Similar questions might be raised about external

validity. For instance, if the results were obtained in a rural school, would they apply as well

to an urban setting?

Some, if not all, of these questions could be anticipated by slightly altering the research
design. For example, students could be randomly assigned to the two groups, thus

eliminating any possibility of bias in the groups’ composition. But questions such as these

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec3_2_2

show the difficulty of achieving true experimental conditions in measuring social programs.

For this reason, most evaluations of social programs are called quasi-experimental.

Quasi-experimental designs retain the requirement for systematic data gathering that should

be part of any quantitative approach, but they free the researcher from some of the

difficulties of developing experimental designs, such as the need for random assignment of

subjects to various groups. Here again, different groups may be compared, but an essential
task for the researcher is to separate the effects of a treatment from the effects of other

factors. Only the effects caused by the treatment are of interest.

Quasi-experimental approaches not only are more adaptable to social situations, but they

also better fit the situation in which program evaluators often find themselves—assigned to
the evaluation long after the program has begun and having little influence on patterns of

intervention. In such a case, a historical approach may be of special value. For example, one

quasi-experimental design—time series analysis—involves making a number of observations
about the target population both before and after the program intervention. (These

observations may even be made retrospectively by gathering historical data.) In one case, basic

information about neighborhood crime was evaluated for a period of years prior to the

introduction of a new patrol pattern; then similar data evaluation followed after the new
approach was introduced.

Summary and Action Implications
As a public manager, you will become quite familiar with the cycle of planning,

implementation, and evaluation. In practice, the phases of the cycle will rarely appear as
distinct as in our discussion, but you will still find that you must devote a portion of your

time to each phase. In middle and upper management, the planning, implementation, and

evaluation cycle will become especially complex because you will find yourself engaged in

all three phases almost simultaneously. That is, you will be planning for one project at the
same time that you are implementing a second and evaluating a third, and so on. Obviously,

maintaining a good sense of the timing of the various projects and knowing when and how

to shift from one to the next will be extremely important.

As we have seen, techniques have been developed to help you work through the typical

problems you will encounter in each phase of the cycle. Although many of the techniques can

be elaborated in highly complex ways, the logic on which they are based can be helpful in

dealing even with fairly simple and immediate problems.

Throughout the planning, implementation, and evaluation cycle, you should remember that,

whereas we have focused on technical aids to your administrative work, each of the three

areas will be strongly affected by how you interact with the people in your organization (and

elsewhere). Planning, implementation, and evaluation are human processes and are thus
subject to people’s shifting values, attitudes, and behaviors. In planning, implementation,

and evaluation, as with budgeting, financial management, and personnel, techniques are

successful only when you use them with full regard for democratic values, clear leadership,
and humane management.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/019_glossary.xhtml#glossary-timeseriesanalysis

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec4

STUDY QUESTIONS
19. Planning is one aspect of the policy process. Discuss the various types of planning and

their objectives.

20. In organizing a planning process, what are the primary concerns of the planning

group?
21. Discuss the necessary steps for comprehensive policy analysis.

22. Identify some of the quantitative techniques used for policy analysis.

23. The second phase of the policy process is implementation of plans. Discuss some of

the techniques available to help in the beginning stages of the implementation
process.

24. Compare and contrast the several different subsystems that carry forward an

organization’s work.

25. What does the phrase “managing for results” mean? How might such a program be

implemented?

26. What are the different types of evaluation approaches? Discuss the distinctions

among them.

https://jigsaw.vitalsource.com/books/9781305561953/epub/OEBPS/004_table_of_contents.xhtml#toc-ch4-sec5

PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION

Networking
Planning
Strategic Planning
Planning for Planning
What Would You Do?
Organizing for Planning
Steps in Planning
Exploring Concepts
STEPS IN STRATEGIC PLANNING
The Logic of Policy Analysis
Steps in Policy Analysis
Exploring Concepts
STEPS IN POLICY ANALYSIS
Costs and Benefits
Other Quantitative Techniques
Implementation
Organizational Design
Networking
Systems Analysis
Reengineering
Evaluation
Program Evaluation
Evaluation Designs and Techniques
What Would You Do?

Summary and Action Implications
STUDY QUESTIONS

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Public Administration ‒ The Good, The Bad, The Ugly ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now