Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A proposal for the development and operationalization of a PPBS approach to fund allocation in the social… Patillo, Roger W 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A4_5 P38_5.pdf [ 11.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099963.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099963-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099963-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099963-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099963-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099963-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099963-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099963-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099963.ris

Full Text

A PROPOSAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF A PPBS APPROACH TO FUND ALLOCATION IN THE SOCIAL SERVICE FIELD by ROGER WILLIAM PATILLO B.A., (Economics) University of Windsor, Ontario B.S.W., University of British Columbia M.S.W., University of British Columbia • - A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS' FOR THE ,DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In the Department of" Commerce We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 1975 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I ag ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Commerce The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia V a n c o u v e r 8. Canada Date February 25, 1975 - i i -A Proposal f o r the Development and O p e r a t i o n a l ! z a t i o n o f a PPBS Approach to Fund A l l o c a t i o n i n the S o c i a l S e r v i c e F i e l d A b s t r a c t In recent years considerable i n t e r e s t and concern has been expressed w i t h regard to the nature and q u a l i t y of decision-making at f e d e r a l , pro-v i n c i a l and l o c a l l e v e l s i n both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e s e c t o r s . This concern, s t i m u l a t e d by the unintended consequences o f h a s t i l y and p o o r l y developed d e c i s i o n s and by the a c c e l e r a t i n g r a t e o f s o c i a l change, has prompted the a l l o c a t i o n o f s u b s t a n t i a l resources i n many o r g a n i z a t i o n s and depart-ments to develop more r a t i o n a l approaches, designs and models f o r decision-making. In the s o c i a l w e l f a r e f i e l d at f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l l e v e l s i n both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e s e c t o r s there i s a l s o an i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r b e t t e r models and approaches f o r decision-making, a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and performance a n a l y s i s and general a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . This t h e s i s w i l l suggest the development and o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f a Planning, Programming Budgeting System (PPBS) as a means of meeting some of the above demands and w i l l focus upon the development o f a comprehensive decision-making model which w i l l f a c i l i t a t e : 1 . the r a t i o n a l and on-going i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of community need 2. the establishment o f p e r i o d i c community p r i o r i t i e s 3 . the f o r m u l a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c planning/budgeting o b j e c t i v e s 4. the a l l o c a t i o n o f resources to a l t e r n a t i v e s e r v i c e or program s t r a t e g i e s to achieve d e f i n e d o b j e c t i v e s .5. the on-going e v a l u a t i o n o f ^ r e s u l t s f o r the next planning-programming-budgeting c y c l e . While the s e t t i n g i n which t h i s t h e s i s was developed i n the United Way of Greater Vancouver, the model developed i s a p p l i c a b l e to the general - i i i -social service f i e l d at various levels in both the public and private sectors. -iv-Table of Contents Chapter I Introduction 1 I The Need for PPBS 1 II Area of Focus of this Thesis . .» 7 III The Setting of the Study 12 Chapter II Theoretical Base and Review of the Literature.. 26 I What is PPBS? 28 II The Evolution of PPBS 46 III Specifics of the PPBS Approach -How i t i s Intended to Work 52 IV Problems of Implementation 56 Chapter III A Proposed Approach to Operationalizing a PPBS System 84 I Introduction . 84 II Assumptions 86 III Constraints of the Proposal 87 IV Proposed System - Program Budgeting 87 V Setting Program Objectives 87 Chapter IV Suggested Approach to Implementation 103 I Committee Operations 103 II Timing of the Program Budgeting Process 112 III Distribution of Funds between Funding Levels . . . 116 Chapter V Information for Decision-Making -Sources and Potential Uses 118 I Standard Caseload Reporting 119 II Census Statistics . 125 III Address Conversion 126 IV Community, Client and Agency Opinion 132 V Financial Data 132 Chapter VI Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Study. 134 I General Conclusions 134 II Areas Requiring Special Consideration 138 III Assessment of the Proposed Approach to Operationalization . . . 142 Appendices I Analysis of Agency Income 153 II Suggested Outline for Developing Program Proposals . . 155 III Program Budget Forms 157 IV Index of Services and Units of Service Delivery . . . . 159 V Synopsis of Needs and Problems 162 VI A Guide for Determining the Management Effectiveness of Social Service Agencies 166 VII Proposed Caseload Reporting Form 181 VIII Bibliography 199 - v i -Acknowledgements This thesis is dedicated to those people who have assisted in the development of the Vancouver PPBS project over the past three years. Fi r s t , I wish to express my gratitude to four men who have i n f l u -enced my personal career and without whose warm support and encourage- . ment this project might never have been started. The late Dr. William  Baker was a man of rare personal and intellectual qualities who generously took considerable time out of his busy schedule during the last months of his l i f e to discuss and explain the concepts of systems theory and post industrialism. Dr. John Frei stimulated my thinking and imagination with his b r i l l i a n t lectures and many hours of enthusi-astic discussion. Kenneth Brookfield has provided support, encouragement and constructive criticism as well as special training in Systems and Methods Analysis. Derek Scrivener, the Director of Agency Operations at United Community Services, has shared my enthusiasm and afforded me the opportunity and freedom to pursue this project. Allan Fitzpatrick, my colleague and the co-director of the Vancouver PPBS project, has assisted my work immeasurably, as have Kenneth Wyndham  Brown and Christopher Jaques. My thanks also to my secretaries, Phyllis Randlesome and Jane  Oglesby, who have put in many hours of typing and proof reading of reports and drafts of this thesis. In conclusion, I wish to offer my warmest thanks to Dr. Vance Mitchell who encouragedme to enrol in the M.B.A. program and spent many hours with me in private consultation. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I The Need for PPBS In recent yeaiS,, considerable interest and concern has been expressed with regard to the nature and quality of decision-making at federal, pro-vincial and local levels in both public and private sectors. This concern, stimulated by the unintended consequences of hastily and poorly developed decisions and by the accelerating rate of social change has prompted the allocation of substantial resources in many organizations and departments to develop more rational approaches, designs and models for decision-making. Examining the need for better decision-making models and processes i n the public sector, the Economic Council of Canada in their Eighth Annual Review noted that: "Government activities have been growing rapidly in scale and scope. A l l Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the impact of government decisions - federal, provincial and municipal - on their daily lives. Along with this awareness has come a spreading recognition that government decisions now have greater consequences for good or i l l than was true in earlier days when governments played much more limited roles. These developments are not unique to Canada; they are taking place on a world-wide basis ... A rising need for better decision-making i s , in part, a consequence of success. Affluence has had a prismatic effect on the aspirations of our society, producing a wide spectrum of wants. To govern is to choose, and to choose among multiplying, shifting and conflict-ing goals is to govern under d i f f i c u l t conditions. Affluence i s , of course, the result of change. The heightened pace of change - i t s e l f a source of unease - has coincided with growing awareness in recent years of the complexities of modern society and together these appear to be producing a wide array of discontents. This perhaps more than any other single factor has produced a focus for public concern about developing greater innovation in both government and private decision-making processes." (Economic Council of Canada Eighth Annual Review - Design  for Decision-Making, Queen's Printer, Ottawa (Sept. 1971)) The Council report goes on to state that: - 2 -"The nature of government is such that ad-hoc responses to crises, and incremental changes in policy w i l l always be facts of l i f e . It is not possible to plan ahead for every contingency, nor is i t desirable, in the interests of p o l i t i c a l consensus to avoid the t r i a l and error process of moving ahead by small changes. Yet in our increasingly complex interdependent society, short range and ad hoc responses to the problems of growth and change seem increasingly inappropriate in many instances. The conviction that there must be better ways of making decisions has led to the exploration of a variety of innovative approaches. None of these is a cure-all but they do provide additional per-spectives by looking at society's problems in more systematic and comprehensive ways." In the social welfare f i e l d at federal, provincial and local levels in both public and private sectors there is also an increasing demand for better models and approaches for decision-making, accountability and per-formance analysis. "At no time in social welfare history has there been so much pressure upon social agencies to produce hard facts: pressures from their supporting public, from budget authorities, at local, provincial and national levels. Not facts about the money they spend, the number of people who pass through their doors, the various activities in which . they engage ... these are known. Instead the demand i s for facts which w i l l show the extent to which social agencies are dealing with pressing social problems about which our society now i s more con-cerned than at any previous time. Facts about the nature and causation of these problems, about the degree of progress, or lack of i t , being made toward the elimination of them among the families and individuals receiving the community's social and health services." (Greater St. Paul United Fund § Council Family Unit Register, St. Paul, Minnesota (1969)) Over the past decade there have been many expressions of disenchantment with the management and administration of the social service system. In recent years these expressions have increased in frequency and intensity. Some of the most frequently noted criticisms of the administration of the present social service system are as follows: - Decisions regarding the allocation of resources are rarely linked to meaningful s t a t i s t i c a l data, systems of pri o r i t i e s or statements of policy. - 3 -- Service and program strategies to achieve specific objectives or to deal with defined social problems are rarely identified. - Service and program objectives are seldom stated and those that are, are either poorly formulated or unrelated to broader goals, pri o r i t i e s and policies. - L i t t l e evaluation is carried out to determine the relative effect-iveness of alternative strategies used in dealing with social problems. - Creative responses to changing problems and needs are s t i f l e d by the present system of resource allocation and the failure to search for alternative approaches. - Lack of concerted decision-making and coordinated service delivery in the public and private health and welfare sectors results in duplication of effort, inadequate program development, failure to meet changing needs, waste of scarce resources and the failure to identify the overall pattern of social need and resource allocation at any given point in time in the community. The problems of the present social service system are summarized by Alan Cohen: "Budgets are agency oriented rather than service or program oriented. Efficiency is a l l too often related to the use of resources rather than to organizational goals. Data are rarely available to enable policy decisions to be made on a cost-benefit basis, weighing a l l the possible a'liternatives to achieving the stated goals. L i t t l e i s being done in the f i e l d of value analysis, the practice of attaching financial values to benefits, as determined by actual agency output. L i t t l e research has been done on fi n a l performance evaluation which is the stage where control can become meaningful planning because i t is the process that determines how effectively the type of program just completed has been contributing to the agencies' stated objectives." (Cohen, 1968) - 4 -The expanding role of the social service system, the increasing complexity of 20th century urban social problems, the growing turbulence of the contemporary environment (Trist, 1968) and the continuing c r i t i -cism of present administrative procedures necessitates a new look at the methods of formulating policy, defining objectives, and allocating re-sources to meet community needs of the present and the future: a system that w i l l be flexible enough to f a c i l i t a t e modification and change i n response to the ongoing evaluation and assessment of present and future contingencies and developments. Wolf Wolfensberger (1973) in reviewing problems in the social service fields, notes that: "In the past, human service agencies and personnel have been remarkably unconcerned with the issue of accountability. By tradition, and partly by necessity, human services have been based more upon ideology than empiricism, and therefore, dog-matic assertions were often made and readily accepted. Operating a service agency was often equated with rendering a service; and both were equated with rendering quality services. Concern with the cost of a service in relation to i t s benefit was rarely expressed. One reason for this is probably the fact that many human managers considered i t inappropriate to put dollar price tags on human service benefits. It i s only recently that indus-t r i a l management concepts have begun to f i l t e r into human service systems, and that the public has become aroused to the issue of accountability in a wide range of human services. A second reason i s that there have been relatively few tools available, either to assess the quality of human service or for establishing cost-benefit ratios. Again, i t i s only recently that such tools have been developed to any significant degree. In addition to moving toward greater f i s c a l accountability, we are now coming into an era of demand for programmatic accounta-b i l i t y , of new accountability requirements on federal, provincial or state, and local levels and of demands of consumers and citizens which necessitate new and different types of agency auditing concerns. In addition to the periodic financial audit requirement of most service agencies, agencies w i l l see educa-tional, rehabilitational, social service and other auditors in their midst. Already in some financial assistance programs - 5 -administered by the United States Office of Education, under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a yearly audit is required for an educational accounting and a rigorous and intensive cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of the funded program. This audit and analysis must be conducted by outside experts whose job i t is to determine the extent and degree to which the program has reached i t s specifically defined behavioral outcomes for the students." Observing these trends toward greater accountability and the use of more sophisticated techniques and procedures, Wolfensberger cautions that: "With increasing sentiment that human services should account in a better way for their stewardship, certain dangers inherent in this trend must be recognized. One of these is precipitate use of inadequate or inappropriate instruments and techniques merely because these may exist while better or more appropriate ones may not. Rendering an accounting with such tools may not be merely f u t i l e , but also costly as well as misleading. Furthermore, certain methods of accounting may permit deception by those with vested interests, and/or induce them to engage in practices which may be less productive than those in which they engage ordinarily. A good example has been the practice in the f i e l d of vocational rehabilitation to insist on case closure as a measure of counsellor productivity. As a result, counsellors simply close cases prematurely and the client pays the price. A major problem with some systems which have attempted to evalu-ate human services objectively is the fact that these systems tended to seize upon those program elements which are easily quantifiable. Unfortunately, easily quantifiable program elements may also be relatively t r i v i a l and are often only modestly related to program quality:.'., we have too often made  the quantifiable important instead of the important quantifiable. Despite the dangers just mentioned, the time for the common program laxity of the past is drawing to an end. Because of the increasing demand for quality of services and for human cost-accounting, means must be developed and/or adopted for bringing adaptive change into agencies and - indeed - for building strat-egies for such change right into agency structure and operation." (Wolfensberger, 1973, pp. 2-3) Arthur Spindler (1969) observing that social and rehabilitation programs operate in a highly challenging rapidly changing world, notes that, nowhere is the challenge greater to social service agencies than in the public's - 6 -growing awareness of and impatience with the results of programs to help handicapped and disabled persons and to end poverty, deprivation, and other social i l l s . Nowhere is change more rapid than in the methods being developed to manage human affairs. "Technological development in the management sciences can go a long way toward helping social and rehabilitation agencies meet the challenges before them. The Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) now used by the Federal Government offers such an opportunity. The system gives order and relation-ship to the, key functions of planning, programming, budgeting and evaluation by focusing them upon the primary goals and objectives that agencies seek, weighing alternatives and presenting the . facts objectively and validly for better decision-making. These functions have long been in operation, but a distinguishing characteristic of PPBS is their integration into a unitary or systematic mechanism." (Spindler, 1969) Spindler suggests that social and rehabilitation agencies especially need a PPB system, for the administration of public programs in these fields is complex and the allocation of resources to them does not pro-vide equally for a l l . Agencies operate many diverse programs and offer a variety of services in many fie l d s . Their operations are governed by numerous plans, laws, regulations, guidelines, manuals and directives, and their staff members represent many professions. The people they serve often dif f e r widely in background and in the kinds of services they are seeking. And the public spurred by community consciousness is press-ing social agencies to f u l f i l physical and social needs. Given such com-plex conditions, there i s an urgent.need to assess the direction in which social and rehabilitative agencies are moving. In an environment of limited funds and manpower, this assessment becomes a necessity. - 7 -II Area of Focus of this Thesis The basic assumption of this thesis i s that the methods and tech-niques of management science, systems analysis, functional budgeting, computer technology, evaluation research and cost-benefit analysis can be applied to the social service f i e l d as effectively as they have been to other fi e l d s . Nowhere is change more rapid than i n the methods and techniques being developed to manage human affairs. Increasingly the strategies and techniques of a variety of disciplines and professions are being adopted in order to develop the s k i l l s and techniques which w i l l introduce systematic problem-solving approaches and modern management techniques to the social service f i e l d . The methods of sc i e n t i f i c manage-ment, cost/benefit, value and decision analysis, computer science, functional accounting and budgeting, systems analysis and simulation techniques are being experimented with, adapted and modified for applica-tion in the f i e l d of health, welfare, recreation and education, in order to deal with the complex problems of assessing needs, planning programs, determining p r i o r i t i e s , allocating resources, and evaluating outcomes in a systematic fashion. While these developments have taken place largely in the United States, there has been some i n i t i a l exploration in this regard by the Treasury Board of the Federal Government and the Economic Council of Canada.* The fact that decisions regarding the allocation of resources in the social service f i e l d have not generally been based on logical problem-solving approaches, or on the systematic evaluation of alternative program strat-egies, explains a great deal of the criticism currently levelled at the * see Bibliography for work of the Treasury Board and the Economic Council - 8 -management of the welfare system. At the present time there i s l i t t l e appreciation of the total pattern of need at the local community level. There is only a general idea of the services being provided for the dollars allocated to agencies and there has been failure to set specific objectives and to relate expenditures to an on-going analysis of need. L i t t l e thought of the relative cost-benefits of alternative service and program strategies has been accorded. This thesis w i l l suggest the development and operational! zation of a Planning, Programming Budgeting System (PPBS) as a means of effectively integrating the above concepts and developing a comprehensive decision-making model which w i l l f a c i l i t a t e : 1) the rational and on-going identification of.community need 2) the establishment of periodic community priorities 3) the formulation of specific planning/budgeting objectives 4) the allocation of resources to alternative service or program strategies to achieve defined objectives 5) the on-going evaluation of results for the next planning-programming-budgeting cycle Figure 1 sets out the general PPBS model that w i l l be used as a guide in developing and operationalizing a PPBS approach for the social welfare f i e l d , - The general model'forms a framework for systematically dealing with the complex problems of: 1) identifying and assessing needs 2) determining p r i o r i t i e s 3) setting objectives 4) planning services and programs and 5) evaluating outcomes - 9 -It i s important to note at this point that this proposal is pre-sented from the perspective of a central planning or funding body. The general principles and processes, however, are applicable to any organi-zation, agency, or group who come together to deal with a.common task (or set of tasks) since the "name of the game" in the f i n a l analysis i s problem-solving and decision-making. 1) The Model begins (or ends) with a data storage system which should provide the information necessary for the identification and measurement of social problems, needs and trends in the community. 2) From a variety of sources of information which w i l l be discussed, i t should be possible to identify a range of social problems and issues to be dealt with over the planning-budgeting period. This process should involve representatives from the government, social agencies and the community. 3) After identifying a range of geographically specific problems or needs to be dealt with, pr i o r i t i e s should then be set as to the relative importance and urgency of each for the distribution of resources during the period. 4) When relative p r i o r i t i e s have been satisfactorily established, specific objectives,should be.set for each of the problems identified. These objectives must clearly define the expected outcomes for the period and should be stated in quantifiable terms. For example - to reduce juvenile delinquency by 20% in a certain area of the community. 5) Having formulated specific objectives, the various service or program strategies appropriate to the successful achievement of each objective should be selected for funding. 10 Figure 1 P P B S M O D E L C Y C L E DATA BANK OPERATE PROGS. RESEARCH PRIORITY SET FOR CYCLE COMMUNITY PRIORITIES 0* POLICY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES UCS COMMUNITY CLIENT GROUPS - 11 -For example - programs' or service strategies that might be seen as appropriate to reduce juvenile delinquency could include: I) Detached youth work programs II) Family and individual counselling programs III) After school programs, e.g. group work, social adjustment and social development programs. It i s expected that as the cycle goes around several times, the fund allocating body w i l l gain a greater appreciation of the types of service strategies that are appropriate to achieve various types of objectives. These service strategies may take the form of innovative programs or more traditional services or they may be a combination of the two. 6) After the various program strategies are agreed upon, the agencies offering them should be allocated funds to deliver specific programs or services in specific areas of the community to achieve specific objectives. It follows that the objectives set by the individual agencies should be congruent with those'established for the broader planning, programming, budgeting system. The agencies should be responsible for developing and delivering these funded programs, providing statistics and financial data, and participating in the evaluation of outcomes. 7) Statistics and the evaluation of outcomes should be incorporated into the data bank to create a self-monitoring system. These data should then be available for any group or organization in the community for de-tailed research and analysis. The next planning, programming, budgeting period begins with the ben-e f i t of experience gained from previous cycles and therefore refinements, adjustments and modifications in approach and procedure, may take place with each new cycle. - 12 -It w i l l be noted that there is continuous feed-back, analysis and evaluation at a l l stages in the process. Statistical data, community and agency opinion and matters of policy are reflected in determining prior-i t i e s and defining objectives. The selection of program and service strategies are influenced by on-going evaluative research, experience and data developed in other communities. The important feature about the general PPBS model is the fact that decisions made at any stage in the process can be related to those of previous stages. The proposed model seeks to effectively integrate various management activities and place them in proper perspective. It projects a rational, yet flexible system that provides for maximum participation at a l l levels and the provision of a clear frame of reference for decision-making and policy formulation. The above model w i l l be used as a general guide for developing and operationalizing a suitable PPB system for the social welfare f i e l d . While the general model i s deceptively simple and intuitively logical at f i r s t sight, the development of a f u l l y operationalized PPB system for any f i e l d of endeavour i s a highly complex undertaking. It i s the intent of this thesis to come to grips with this task. I l l The Setting of the Study The setting in which this thesis w i l l attempt to develop and opera-tionalize a suitable PPB system for the social welfare f i e l d w i l l be United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area (UCS). The following * paragraphs describe the basic nature, objectives and structure of UCS. * The following is taken from the UCS Directors' Kit - 13 -A) Statement of Objectives of UCS United Community Services is a volunteer directed Society responsible to i t s membership and the community for carrying out i t s constitutional objectives. The Society is governed by an elected Board of Directors which repre-sents the concerns and interests of various elements in the Greater Vancouver community. This balance on the Board is essential to unite support for the Society's goals in terms of fund raising, budgeting, planning and research. Early in 1970, in an effort to c l a r i f y and make current i t s goals, the Board adopted a redefined statement of the Society's aims. This statement reads: The objectives of United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area are to ensure the development of social services in a manner that enables them to respond effectively and with justice to the needs of people; and to provide for access to the opportunities afforded by society to those persons unable to obtain i t for themselves. To achieve these objectives UCS is pledged to: United Fund Raising - pursue a policy directed toward unification of a l l valid fund raising endeavours on behalf of health, welfare, rehabilitation and recreation services. UCS w i l l continue to seek to consoli-date those appeals i n contiguous geographical areas into one United Way campaign. - increase the number of people who financially support the United Way and to achieve f a i r share levels of individual and corporate giving to the United Way, thereby narrowing the gap between needs and financial resources, and strengthening i t s mandate for community action. Stewardship - ensure that monies collected are disbursed in support of services which are consistent with the continually emerging needs of people whose access to opportunities is limited for financial or other - 14 -reasons. In support of this goal UCS adopts the concepts of functional budgeting (financing by services) and the application of a continually updated system of p r i o r i t i e s in the allocation of monies entrusted to i t . - encourage innovative and demonstrative programs designed to explore more effective means of meeting social needs. - ensure that fees are charged to those able to pay for services rendered, making available greater assistance to those unable to do so. - encourage the meaningful use of volunteers to assist i n the direct delivery of services. - exercise a strong voice in urging governments to assume their appropriate financial responsibility for those services which are fundamental and universally required in the community. Planning and Advocacy - maintain a social planning and research program which constantly reviews and evaluates community needs and services. - serve as a responsible 'community advocate' for the development of social policies and services. - f a c i l i t a t e active citizen involvement in the continuous consider-ation of social issues as they emerge in our community, in the firm belief that a concerned and involved citizenry is essential to the development of a community united toward the betterment of i t s people. The Board of Directors The Board of Directors meets at least 6 times a year. Occasional extra meetings are called for special purposes. It is the function of the Board to receive reports from the various sections of the organization and to deal with them in a manner consistent with the goals of the Society. The Executive Committee of the Board serves as a steering committee coordinating the activities of the organization and f a c i l i t a t i n g consideration of matters by the Board of Directors. The Executive Committee is comprised of the Officers of the Society - 15 -and the chairmen of the Membership, Management Advisory, Agency Operations, Social Planning, Social Policy and Research and Fund Raising Committees, the chairman of the Conference of Financially Participating Agencies, and chairmen of the three Divisions. The following chart indicates the general structure of the organi-zation. Each segment of the Society is volunteer based; each is provided with staff services to carry out i t s program. The United Way Campaign The United Way Campaign is an annual fund raising partnership under-taken by United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area, the Canadian Red Cross Society, and the United Good Neighbours. Some 20,000 volunteers contribute their efforts annually to this major task. The one United Way Campaign replaces a multitude of individual cam-paigns. This means that with less campaign expense there is more money to help people. It also results in one "knock on the door" instead of 70. Fund Raising responsibilities are undertaken by two committees: the Fund Raising Committee and the Campaign Management Committee. The Fund Raising Committee provides year-to-year continuity through: 1. establishing basic fund raising policy 2. undertaking projects to improve fund raising, and 3. selecting the General Campaign Chairman. The Campaign Management Committee is responsible for organizing and carrying out the United Way Campaign under the chairmanship of the General Campaign Chairman. GENERAL STRUCTURE MEMBERSHIP Public Relations Board of Directors Executive Committee Operations Committees Fund-Raising Committee Campaign Management Committee Agency Operations Committee Social Planning Committee Social Policy and Research Committee Standing Committees Membership Management Advisory Divisions Conferences Burnaby Division Richmond Division North Shore Division Conference ofj Local Area Councils Conference of Financially Participating Agencies Staff Executive Director Campaign Director Public Relations Director Associate Executive Director - Planning Associate Executive Director - Agency Operations Social Policy and Research Director - 17 -The General Campaign Chairman i s appointed by the Board of United Community Services upon the recommendation of the Fund Raising Com-mittee and the General Campaign Co-Chairman is appointed by the Board of United Good Neighbours. Each year the United Way Campaign Goal is established by a Goal Setting Committee. The Goal is determined after a consideration of agency needs, an economic forecast, and campaign potential. Agency Operations Committee The main responsibility of the Agency Operations Committee (AOC) is to consider a l l budgets and to recommend to the Board of Directors annual allocations to member agencies, as well as to carry out planning and evaluation which is directly related to the determina-tion of allocations. A summary breakdown of each agency's budget for 1972, by major sources of income is presented in Appendix I. Although the consideration of annual agency budgets is the core of this Committee's relationship with agencies, i t s overall task includes consultation with individual agencies on financial, administrative, service and s t a t i s t i c a l matters, general and continuing liaison with a l l agencies and the carrying out of special studies of agencies or smal1 groups of agencies. AOC consists of some 30 appointees by the Board of Directors, Social Policy and Research, Social Planning, the Divisions, the Conference of Financially Participating Agencies, and the Conference of Local Area Councils. - 18 -Budget Reviews There are 11 Budget Review Committees within AOC, composed of AOC members and a general pool of knowledgeable volunteers. The review committees meet throughout the year for orientation, planning, and review of agencies and services encompassed by their committee. In addition, they maintain continuing liaison with the agencies and services coming within their scope. They are particularly active during the months of April and May, when agency budgets and services are reviewed for suggested alloca-tions for the ensuing year. For many years, UCS has been attempting to distribute the money i t raises in a way which w i l l : 1. have the greatest beneficial impact in the Greater Vancouver area 2. demonstrate the need for and effectiveness of new services and programs not yet supported by the government 3. complement and support government sponsored programs. Traditionally, UCS distributed the money i t raised to i t s member financially participating agencies. These funds were used to support either the total agency operation or selected aspects or programs of the agency's work. This method of distribution was cr i t i c i z e d from time to time by the public, the agencies and by UCS i t s e l f on the grounds that allocation decisions were not re-lated to planning considerations, that data concerning service costs or output was lacking, and that there was l i t t l e analysis of the effectiveness of alternative approaches. In addition, the agencies themselves had no way of clearly identifying specific program or service budgets by income or expenditure, and agency statis t i c s varied from organization and did not permit comparison or analysis. Priorities Over the past few years UCS has made efforts to support those specific aspects of agency programs and services which appeared to be most appropriate for voluntary support. The f i r s t step i n this direction was the publication of the Priorities Report in 1965. The report examined the quantity and quality of each service offered in the Health and Welfare f i e l d in Vancouver, and made specific recommendations as to future patterns of government and voluntary financing for each. Attempts to implement the recommendations of the Priorities Report began to shift the focus - 19 -of UCS from an agency orientation to a service orientation as steps were taken to examine in detail the services and programs of each agency rather than the total agency in isolation of the services i t offered. Functional Accounting As a result of the decision to deal with pr i o r i t i e s on a service basis, i t became necessary to recommend that agencies maintain their accounts and submit their budgets not merely on an overall basis, but also on a service-by-service basis, i.e., a functional basis. At the time the original Priorities Report was issued another report on functional accounting and budgeting was d i s t r i -buted. It soon became apparent that the d i f f i c u l t y of service cost accounting in large and complex agencies made a manual book-keeping system vi r t u a l l y impossible. The decision was made to develop a computer program for agency functional accounting, and with the help of funds from the Vancouver Foundation, such a pro-gram was produced. Progress in the adoption of functional account-ing and budgeting by agencies was slow for several years unt i l the Provincial Government became interested i n and f i n a l l y adopted the UCS program. Later the Provincial Government provided funds for converting a number of agencies to the system. The Priorities Report and Functional Accounting together f a c i l i t a t e rational decision-making in the distribution of UCS voluntary dollars and provide some specific guidelines for selecting the services that should legitimately be funded by UCS. They also permit the selection of specific services for which additional support is indicated. In 1970 i t was agreed to update the prior-i t i e s on an annual basis within AOC. The f i r s t annual report, called "Service Priority Guidelines for 1972 Budgeting", was adopted by the Board in January 1971. Planned Program Budgeting Systems Project Late in 1971, UCS, building upon the foundation of i t s leadership in the fields of functional accounting and budgeting and the appli-cation of p r i o r i t i e s , initiated a demonstration project i n Planned Program Budgeting Systems (PPBS). On November 5th, 1971, the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced the approval of a demonstration project grant to finance the project over a four year period. This project i s an attempt to f u l l y integrate planning, budgeting, service delivery, the establishment of p r i o r i t i e s , and the evalua-tion of outcomes into a rational yet flexible system. It is divided into four phases, each of approximately one year, and w i l l seek to develop and experiment with: - 20 -1. the extension and refinement of functional accounting 2. the development of meaningful s t a t i s t i c a l and case reporting information 3. the identification of community opinion regarding i t s problems and needs ("community" includes agencies, experts, clients and citizens) 4 . the formulation of objectives for services and programs in quantitative terms which w i l l lead to 5. the a b i l i t y to evaluate the benefit and successes of various services and programs 6. the development of methods of cost benefit analysis 7. the integration of a l l the above components into a system which w i l l be capable of adoption by individual agencies, groups of agencies, UCS, governments or any other funding systems so as to produce the most beneficial employment of funds to respond to community needs. In approving the i n i t i a l grant to finance Phase 1 of the project, the Department outlined i t s general expectations of the project. It was f e l t that the project had the potential to: "a) demonstrate the a b i l i t y of a non-governmental service system to actually develop and implement a PPBS model b) demonstrate the way in which such a model could be u t i l i z e d by municipal and provincial authorities in the management of their service programs c) demonstrate the degree to which governmental and non-governmental administrations could use a common model and so increase the rationalization of the total service delivery system. d) stimulate non-governmental organizations i n other parts of Canada to actively explore and test the concepts of PPBS e) provide a model that would have potential application else-where in Canada." These were taken as the broad term of reference of the project. The project is administered by two co-directors, A.R. Fitzpatrick and R.W. P a t i l l o , each of whom is responsible for specific com-ponents of the project as presented on the following page. - 21 -Figure 3 PPBS Vancouver - Project Structure Computer Programmer (Part Time) Planning, Programming, Budgeting Model R.W. Patillo Project Economist Planning Associate Functional Accounting A.R. Fitzpatrick steno steno Accounting Associate Demonstration and Development Fund The Table Officers Committee of AOC, with certain other interested members of AOC, administers the UCS Demonstration and Development Fund. This Fund was created to provide a means of stimulating the development of new and innovative programs by any agency, organization or group in the Greater Vancouver area. It is not limited to UCS members. In 1969, $15,000 was made available for this purpose, in 1970 - $20,000, in 1971 - $22,000, in 1972 -$53,000, and in 1973 - $40,000. Social Planning Committee The Social Planning Committee provides overall direction and co-ordination to community social planning carried out under UCS auspices. More specifically, the Committee undertakes such studies and activities which wi l l f a c i l i t a t e the planning, coordination and evaluation of health and social services in the Greater Vancouver Area. - 22 -Activities in which the committee and planning staff have been particularly active recently include: updating of priority guidelines for the allocation of United Way dollars; decentrali-zation and integration of services; a study of family and indi-vidual counselling funded by the Vancouver Foundation; organiza-tion of local information centres in Division areas; specific activities in efforts to meet local community needs (youth services in Richmond, day care services on the North Shore, etc.) . The Social Planning Committee i s appointed by the Board of Directors, and committee members include members of the Board and representatives from the Agency Operations and Social Policy and Research Committees, the Conference of Financially Participating Agencies, Conference of Local Area Councils, and each of the Divisions. Although planning activities are carried out at the central level, the UCS Division governing committees in Burnaby, Richmond and on the North Shore provide a focal point for action related to local community needs, identifying p r i o r i t i e s , and co-ordination of agencies. Social Policy and Research Committee The Social Policy and Research Committee (SPAR) of UCS initiates broad studies of major social issues and concerns, and identifies trends and needs related to the health, welfare and recreational fields. When the research i s completed, policy implications are considered by a task force of knowledgeable volunteers. Results are then publicized via the media and a special effort is made to com-municate with groups responsible for policy change, such as government, - 23 -school boards, and agencies. Recent activities of SPAR include studies which reflect current concerns for housing, day care and family planning. Divisions of UCS United Community Services maintains Divisions in Burnaby, Richmond and on the North Shore. These Divisions provide UCS community planning and coordin-ation services in their respective areas. Most important, they encourage citizen participation in the leadership and planning necessary to meet local problems and to relate these to overall UCS operations and objectives. Conference of Local Area Councils In recent year UCS has actively encouraged the formation of Local Area Councils as organizations which can best deal with social problems at a local community level. A number of Councils are now active in Vancouver, Burnaby and on the North Shore. The Councils are composed mainly of local citizens and are completely autonomous. Planning consultation from UCS staff is available to them upon request and in the city of Vancouver the Councils receive community development staff through services of the Neighbourhood Services Association. Under UCS auspices, a Conference of Local Area Councils f a c i l i -tates effective local area planning and coordination and fosters co- • operation among the autonomous local area councils and between the councils and UCS. The Conference functions primarily for area councils in the City of Vancouver. In adjacent municipalities, area - 24 -councils work closely with the governing committees and. staff of UCS Divisions. Conference of Financially Participating Agencies The Conference, which is comprised of an Officer of the Board of Directors and the Executive Director of each financially parti-cipating agency, meets at least once, each year. In addition, however, participating agencies choose to belong to one of four special groups on the basis of common interest. These groups meet more frequently. Each group elects a chairman who i s a volunteer and an Honorary Secretary who is an executive director. On-going business is conducted by a Chairman's Committee which normally meets monthly except in July and August. The Com-mittee consists of a Chairman who is elected by the f u l l Conference and the Chairmen and Honorary Secretaries of the four groups. The Chairman of the Conference is an ex-officio member of the UCS Board of Directors and of the Board Executive. The purposes of the Conference and i t s groups are: 1. to promote satisfactory understanding and sympathetic relationships between the financially participating member and the Society and among these members. 2. to consider and make recommendations to the Board of Directors of the Society upon matters of common interest and concern. 3. to develop effective communications among the financially participating agencies and between them and the Society. - 25 -The Conference considers both policy matters referred to i t by the Board of UCS and questions of general concern raised by any group or any member agency. - 26 -CHAPTER II Theoretical Base and Review of the Literature Unfortunately PPBS has come to mean many different things to many different people and a great deal of emotionalism has developed around the very mention of the term. Some welcome i t s emergence and others fear i t for many reasons. Some see i t as the premature application of unproven techniques and methods to the social service f i e l d and others identify i t as some devious plot to control and manipulate the unaware. Some feel that i t holds the solution to a l l problems present and future and others see i t as an improvement over previous methods and approaches to dealing with social problems and concerns. It i s thus very d i f f i c u l t to gain a balanced perspective since those who. advocate the PPBS approach tend to be as emotional about i t s potential as do those who oppose i t . Ass PPBS approaches attempt to organize the diverse but interacting activities of planning, programming, and budgeting so that they work to-ward the common purpose of optimizing management effectiveness in achieving organizational and/or system wide goals and objectives. The PPBS approach gives order and relationship to the key functions of planning, programming, budgeting and evaluation by focusing on primary goals and objectives, weigh-ingalternatives and presenting the facts objectively for better decision-making. While these functions have long been in operation, the distinguish-ing characteristic of the PPBS approach is the effective integration of these activities into a rational problem-solving system or model. PPBS has been identified as relating primarily to budgeting. In real i t y i t is a unifying concept which effectively integrates planning and budgeting i n the - 27 -interests of achieving specific objectives. It places each activity of management in proper perspective and relates community need to program objectives and to fi n a l outcomes. In addition the approach introduces and demands a rational, systematic way of thinking which relates one management activity specifically to the other. In this sense PPBS is a management tool. David Page (1967) analyzing the PPB system of the U.S. government and the analytical techniques that underlie i t s operations, notes that i t was designed to improve the evaluation of federal expenditures and suggests that " i t i s l i k e l y to become one of the most significant innovations in planning and budgeting at a l l levels of government". Page observes that: "In recent years government o f f i c i a l s and the general public alike have caused, and in turn, have been influenced by many changes in attitude. Strong and long held views have undergone drastic modi-fication and new techniques are being applied to assist in a more rational approach to decision-making in allocating scarce resources. New approaches to budget formulation and the allocation process require that input-output relationships be carefully evaluated and seek to maximize the benefits to public programs by equating marginal benefits and marginal costs. Alternatively the newer approaches attempt to achieve a given objective at minimum cost. Benefit-cost analysis has thus' proven helpful in evaluating' and choosing between alternatives. Such analyses are useful in select-ing projects, in allocating funds within program categories and in allocating funds between broad program categories." (Page, 1967, p. 256) Traditionally, budgets have been organized by executive departments and their sub-divisions. Within this format, expenditures emphasized personnel, supplies and equipment. In addition, expenditures for these resources were usually projected only one year ahead. Such an approach is clearly "input" oriented. That i s , i t focuses on the resources that must be brought together to carry out the agency's programs and a c t i v i t i e s . For several reasons, this approach i s no longer adequate for a systematic analysis of expenditures across the total system. - 28 -F i r s t , the name or even the apparent goal of a department or agency, is usually not sufficient to describe what i t does. Second, numbers or types of personnel reveal l i t t l e of the functions they perform. Third, a one year budget throws l i t t l e light on the significance of expenditure decisions, the effects of which may be spread over the next decade or beyond. Fourth, the relationships among programs with similar purposes, complementary or substitutive are not shown. Fi f t h , and perhaps most important, i t does not t e l l one whether proper amounts are being expended on programs. "A budget should be a financial expression of a program-plan. Setting goals, defining objectives, and developing planned programs for achieving those objectives, are important integral parts of preparing and justifying a budget submission. Until now, program review for decision-making has been concentrated within too short a time period; objectives of agency programs and activities have not been specified with enough clarity; accomplishments have usually not been adequately presented or analyzed, and in most cases, the future costs of present decis-ions have not been systematically programmed or analyzed. In short, planning and systems analysis have had too l i t t l e effect on budget decisions." (Page, 1967, p. 257) The PPBS approach should go a long way in remedying some of these shortcomings. It is designed to provide decision makers at various levels with information and analysis that w i l l assist them in analyzing objectives and in deciding on the use of resources among competing claims to meet these objectives. I What is PPBS? PPBS i s the brain-child of the Rand Corporation and was f i r s t developed and used in the government sector in 1965 by the U.S. Department of Defense under Secretary McNamara. It was the success of the Rand-McNamara approach to military defense systems that led to the adoption of PPBS throughout - 29 -the U.S. federal government and later in various state and local govern-ments throughout the country. This also stimulated considerable interest in Canada, especially from the Federal Treasury Board, the Economic Council of Canada and several provincial governments. While there has been much confusion about what PPBS actually i s , the most responsible proponents and defenders of PPBS have tended to be very clear about what PPBS is not. They have repeatedly stressed that i t : "- i s not dependent upon tight mathematical models or computerized calculations. - i s not a system of replacing human judgement. - does not deal directly with such sector-proportion questions as the relative emphasis placed upon health versus education, transportation versus communications, or military versus c i v i l i a n expenditures." Despite this, many otherwise well-informed people s t i l l think that PPBS i s one or a l l of the above. This may be explained in part by the fact that those most closely associated with PPBS have d i f f i c u l t y in explaining what i t actually i s . Bertram Gross (1969) feels that there are many good reasons for this d i f f i c u l t y : "One i s that the PPB s p i r i t i s more important than the letter. Some officers practice PPB without knowing i t ; others go through a l l the formal motions without coming anywhere near i t . More-over there i s really no one system. Rather there is a large variety of PPB type services; and organizations will d i f f e r greatly in the specific mix provided during any one period. Above a l l , PPB i s in an early state of growth - and more changes are probably taking place in i t than anyone could possibly track down. The s p i r i t of PPB is a marriage between program planning and budgeting. Without such union, planners can easily lose touch with the contraints imposed by scarce resources, while budgeteers can easily be divorced from the contents of plans and programs." (Gross, Bertram M., March/April 1969, pp. 115 - 116) Briefl'y described, the PPBS approach attempts to replace the piecemeal methods of program planning, budgeting and evaluation at successive organ-izational levels with a unified and integrated system of decision-making. - 30 -The U.S. Bureau of the Budget summarizes PPBS as follows: "The principle objective of PPB.is to improve the basis for major program decisions, both in the operating agencies and in the Executive Office of the President. To do this, i t is necessary to have clear statements of what the decisions are and why they have been made. Program objectives are to be identified and alternative methods of meeting those objectives are to be subjected to system-atic comparison. Data are to be well organized on the basis of major programs and are to reflect future as well as current impli-cations of decisions. As in the case of budgeting generally, PPB applies not only to current programs but to proposals for new legislation." (Bureau of the Budget Bulletin No. 68-2, Washington July 18, 1967) Paul Permar identifies PPBS within the context of effective planning: "PPBS is a framework for planning - a way of organizing information and analysis in a systematic fashion so that the consequences of particular choices can be seen as clearly as possible. It attempts to do three things: 1) to display information about the functioning of actual programs so that i t i s possible to see easily what portion of resources i s being allocated to particular objectives, what i s being accomplished by the programs and how much they cost; 2) to analyze the costs of alternative methods of achieving par-ticular objectives so that i t is possible to rank the alternatives in terms of their relative costs; 3) to evaluate the benefits of achieving objectives as comprehensively and quantitatively as possible i n order to f a c i l i t a t e the setting of pr i o r i t i e s among objectives. Under the PPBS approach the six major elements of a program budget are: 1) An attempt to describe the programs in narrative statements involving a statement of objectives and a breakdown into sub-programs and targets; 2) A breakdown of budgetary allocations by functional programs which involves crossing organizational lines when necessary; 3) An attempt to identify and quantify the results of the programs; 4) A relation of output to input in terms of cost-benefit analysis; 5) A relation of programs to total resources in terms of a discussion of alternative methods and pr i o r i t i e s and 6) long range planning, generally from three to five years ahead." (Permar, Paul A.) Samuel Greenhouse (1966) suggests that an understanding of what PPBS i s , rests upon recognizing the primacy and interplay of i t s ingredients. The concept of "accountability" is posited as the philosophic base of the PPBS structure. A true understanding of PPBS cannot derive from reliance upon the traditional definitions of terms. Each has a particular meaning and - 31 -significance in the rearrangement of established ideas which PPBS represents. The fresh design which emerges from this rearrangement, rather than the in-dividual ideas themselves, i s what is new about PPBS. PPBS is a multi-purpose system and i f implemented and instrumented soundly, i t should have a variety of uses, not the least of which i s the improvement of individual agency operations. The PPBS approach assumes that the central purpose of agencies i s the delivery of goods and services to the public, rather than merely a happen-stance or an indirect byproduct of other, more characteristic purposes. An understanding of PPBS therefore, depends upon recognizing that internal agency efforts and interchanges are considered subordinate to the central purpose. Unless this is recognized, the ideas which underlie the terms "objective", "program", "output" and "input" cannot be clearly dis-cerned nor can the interplay of these terms be comprehended. In 1971, the United Way of America, with the assistance of the consult-ing firm Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. identified PPBS as: "An analytical tool designed to assist management in performing i t s function with optimal results. The function of management can be defined as the orderly use of means to achieve ends. The concept of "orderly use of means" implies planned allocation of resources -resources of every kind; manpower, money, material, building space etc. Thus, in very simple language PPBS is a system which helps management in putting i t s resources to the best possible uses for achieving i t s organization's ends or goals." (United Way of America, Alexandria, Virginia (1972) p. 5) A number of basic concepts of PPBS require definition, explanation and analysis in order to f u l l y describe the overall approach. The f i r s t i s the concept of "System" since this construct provides the linking pin between the others. - 32 - Figure 4 Sample of a Hierarchical Goal Structure G-l-A-1 G-l : Optimal personal development of the individual and his or her optimal adjustment at home and in society. G-l-A : Preserve and strengthen families; provide for a substitute family environment where one i s absent; provide intervention i n c r i s i s situations; protect individuals from exploitation and self-abuse; and provide certain supportive services to individuals and families. G-l-A-1 : Assist families and individual members of a family unit whose social functioning has been impaired for one or more reasons, and who experience stress because of existence of some problem or condition. G-l-A-l-a: Enable families and individuals within a family unit to come to grips with anito resolve whatever emotional problem or temporary stress experienced by them. - 33 -1. A System can be defined as: "a complex unity formed of many, often diverse parts subject to a common plan or serving a commong purpose ... an aggregation or assemblage of objects joined in regular interaction or interde-pendence ... a set of units combined by nature or art to form an integral, organic or organized whole; an orderly working t o t a l i t y . " Thus, the concept "system" encompasses two major elements. F i r s t , that i t is made up of diverse parts and second, that these different parts are organized in such a way that they are interdependent and that they interact to serve a common purpose. In PPBS, therefore the diverse but inter-dependent and interacting activities of planning, programming and budgeting are so organized that they work toward the common purpose of optimizing management effectiveness in achieving organizational goals. 2. Planning - The key concept in PPBS is planning. It is the most fundamental activity in program budgeting and i t i s the budgeting based on planned programs which sets i t apart from a l l other types of budgeting. The dynamic conept of planning may be defined as: "a systematic, deliberative process of determining and laying out a course of action (including the devising of procedures) to achieve a stated goal based on a rational examination of a l l available pertinent data for implementation in some future time frame." Broadly described, the concept of "planning" encompasses the following inter-related and interdependent a c t i v i t i e s . a) Goals - Planning is not done in a vacuum - i t i s always related to something, some goal, objective or area of concern. Precision in defining organizational goals and objectives is one of the most important factors in planning because i t f a c i l i t a t e s the measurement of outputs. * Websters Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) - 34 -Organizational goals are usually described in a "goal structure" which may be in the form of goals-sub-goals or goals-objective structure. Whatever may be the name given to a goal structure, the essential prin-ciple is the same: namely that a broad general goal statement is followed by one or more specific, preferably quantitatively expressed statements. Large, complex organizations use a hierarchical goal structure con-taining several levels of goals as shown in exhibit 1. The importance of the factors of c l a r i t y and specificity in a goal structure or a goal statement cannot be over emphasized since i t i s closely tied to programm-ing, budgeting and especially to later evaluation. The statement of goals and sub-goals ( o r objectives) can, therefore, have c r i t i c a l positive or negative consequences on the entire PPBS system. b) Selection of a Course of Action - Determining and laying out a course of action to achieve some goal or objective implies that a rational choice is made from among available alternatives. In theory, for every possible course of action, there are one or more alternative courses to achieve the same goal. In the real world, however, this may not be practi-cal or feasible. A number of constraints from a variety of sources operate to narrow down the choices for feasible, implementable alternatives. Constraints are conditions existing within and without the organiza-tion which limit the capacity of achieving certain ends even though well deserved and highly desired. It is therefore advisable to identify as many of the constraints as possible and to document them for use as guide-lines in developing organizational goals and alternative methods of achieving them. - 35 -c) Evaluation - The process of choosing means among alternatives to achieve ends also implies evaluation of current programs being u t i l i z e d to achieve the same or similar goals. The evaluation process may be defined as: "the process of arriving at objective, optimal evidence with regard to the degree to which a given course of action has achieved i t s pre-defined (or hypothesized) objectives". In short "evaluation" means finding out whether a given program has or has not achieved what i t was supposed to, and how well or how badly. d) Program Analysis - The selection of appropriate means to achieve defined goals or objectives i s known as program analysis and is a c r i t i c a l component of the PPBS approach. The idea of "program" is very different from the traditional governmental usage. Prior to PPBS, a l l agencies used the term to characterize functions and professional disciplines. Hence, "procurement", "data management", "engineering" and many other activities were called programs. Individual a c t i v i t i e s , functions, and professional disciplines are the very antithesis of programs in the PPBS sense. The concept of PPBS i s to f a c i l i t a t e the drawing together of agency efforts to meet particular ob-jectives. The valid i t y of each program may then be assessed i n terms of i t s overall approach, dimension and costs, and may be compared with other competing programs, potential or existing. The program analysis process can be described in the following steps: Fi r s t , i t is essential to establish some general program selection c r i t e r i a . Application of the c r i t e r i a has the effect of narrowing down the possible alternative programs and expedites elimination of certain alternatives without need for detailed examination. - 36 -Second, feasible alternative programs meeting the predetermined c r i t e r i a are analyzed in depth in terms of a) various resources needed for the program including dollar resources, b) the kinds of benefits the program is expected to achieve e.g. analysis of advantages and disad-vantages of the program and c) the relationships between the total program costs and the total program benefits. Third, the selection of the most appropriate program - not necessarily the one which is the most suitable and implementable under the circumstances. Once the decisions have been made as to which measures are to be used, and which course of action is to be selected to achieve stated ends, the related step is that of laying out a course of action or designing a "pro-gram". The concept of planning i s comprehensive enough to encompass within i t some element of programming activity at least in outline form. e) Data Base - "Information to planning and to PPBS is like cement and concrete to a building structure. Quality information - both hard and soft variety - i s essential at every single stage in the planning process. Without i t , the decision making process lacks cohesion - decisions become at best guesstimates. The process of planning not only must use available information from outside but must develop i t s own information in the needed format. Specific types of information are needed at various planning stages. For example - a systembatic delineation of needs and establishment of p r i o r i t i e s preceed the establishment of organizational goals. Designing new programs or modifying existing ones requires a wide variety of demo-graphic and economic data, including information on the efficacy of exist-ing programs. It can be safely stated that the quality and extent of infor-mation and information analysis w i l l have direct impact on the degree to which a given planning effort succeeds or f a i l s . " - 37 -f) Time Frame - A meaningful planning effort i s always set in some specific time frame. The following is a good example of a time-bounded planning goal; "to create 5000 new jobs in selected trades and occupa-tions by December 31, 1974". (Reddin (1970) stresses this in his book Effective Management by Objectives.) When the time period to achieve a stated goal is not specified, one i s hard put to measure the results. There is no magic number to use as a guideline for the duration of a planned program. The most common in useage is three to five years. Planning for a specified time frame promotes long range planning. The advantage is that i t permits evaluation of the current year's effects of a management decision and also the long-term impace on the allocation of resources in the future. It should be stressed that the planning process per se does not make the decisions and thus does not guarantee rational choices. It does how-ever provide decision assisting information in a format which shows the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative courses of action. The decisions themselves in the f i n a l analysis are value judgements arrived at through the p o l i t i c a l and administrative processes of the organization. 3. Programming Under the PPBS approach, programming is a distinct component activity that can be defined as a group of interdependent and inter-related activ-i t i e s operating or working towards a common objective. Essentially, pro-gramming involves: 1. identification of specific program components, tasks and activities - 38 -2. scheduling of the various tasks to f i t into the time frames specified in the goal-objective structure; and 3. assignment of resources such as personnel, materials, f a c i l i t i e s etc., for the performance of the identified tasks. Programming occurs during the program analysis process described earlier. Once a program has been selected on the basis of analysis, however, some refinements may take place in the "programming of the program". Organizations having several programs use a program structure as shown below, which is a hierarchical arrangement of programs that demon-strates the relationship of program activities to the organization's goals and objectives. Sample Program Structure Figure 5 P-l S J . P-l-A P-l-A-1 I P-l-A-la P-l Adequate Income § Economic Opportunity P-l-A Employment Services P-l-A-1 Manpower Development and Training P-l-A-la Job Finding 4. Budgeting The last concept in PPBS is that of budgeting. Webster defines the term "budget" as:± - 39 -"a statement of the financial position of a sovereign body (as of a nation) for a definite period of time based on a detailed estimate of planned or expected expenditures during the period and proposals for financing them'..." Under the PPB approach, the annual budget must be prepared and pre-sented on a program basis. This is why i t is commonly called a program  budget and the process of preparing i t - program budgeting. The program budget is much more than a l i s t i n g of expenditures by program. In a program budget, the proposed dollar figures for expenditures are related to the goals, objectives and programs of the organization. In grouping costs by programs, the budget indicates where the emphasis is being placed and to achieve what. In the case of organizations u t i l i -zing long-range planning, the dollar figures are incorporated in two documents - the multi-year financial plan and the program budget i t s e l f . The former presents financial data for existing and alternative programs projected over several years, frequently five years. The program budget, pertains only to the forthcoming f i s c a l year. The stage is now set for the actual commencement and the day-to-day operation of the program. The budget i t s e l f i s now looked upon as a work-ing tool and a management control device. Maintaining control over opera-tions involves periodic comparison of the actual progress with the program budget. This leads to what is technically recognized as the f i n a l step in the PPBS approach - that of evaluation. 5. Evaluation of results to determine the program's effectiveness in achieving the anticipated program objectives is built into the PPBS cycle. The evaluation task is performed by comparing program results against the evaluation c r i t e r i a established in the planning phase. Thus, i t may be - 40 -more appropriate to consider the evaluation function as part of the "planning continuum". PPBS operates in a dynamic environment. It is designed as a continually active process. In the PPBS cycle, the line between the beginning and the end i s hard to pinpoint. Werner Hirsch (1966) examining early experiences in developing and applying PPBS to various departments in the U.S.A. suggests that i t has three major aspects; structural, analytical and administrative. Structural Aspects PPBS relies upon a structured program, the chief feature of which is that i t i s output oriented. It permits the activities of several agencies of departments to be assembled i n terms of specific output packages i.e. programs and sub-programs of various convenient levels of aggregation. For example, i f one of the national goals is the economic and social development of human resources then allocation decisions must be made to achieve this goal, (i.e. between a vocational retraining pro-gram to develop new s k i l l s i n the work force and a college education pro-gram to improve the level of scholarly, s c i e n t i f i c and a r t i s t i c contri-butions in the country). These two sub-programs must therefore compete with each other for resources and federal funds. Each sub-program is in turn made up of alternative sub-subprograms which compete with each other for resources as inputs for achieving the objectives of the program of which i t i s a part. Therefore, teaching the operation of a turret lathe or physical therapy can be viewed as alternative forms of vocational training and are more competitive with each other than they are with studies of p o l i t i c a l science, economics and philosophy. The structural layout of this set of programs can be presented diagrammatically as shown in Figure 6. 41 Program Goal/Program Level Figure 6 Economic § Social Development of Human Resources Sub-Program Level Vocational Retraining ^Program Sub-Sub Program Level Turret Lathe Program Physical Therapy Program .College Educ Program Po l i t i c a l Science Economics Philosophy Ultimately the program budget identifies elements down to the input level of basic building blocks of required resources: manpower, materials, equipment, building, land etc. These elements may be combined and re-combined into various packages that produce desired outputs. Wherever possible, programs and sub-programs should be clearly delineated, should have minimum overlaps with other programs and should consist of compon-ents that are in closer competition with each other than with those outside the program. Breaking down and combining data into useful building blocks allows a decision maker to reconstruct the program budget at his particular level of responsibility according to articulated objectives or goals. The program budget format requires that outputs be quantifiable so that projected expenditure data can be meaningfully related to expected performance. - 42 -"The fi n a l structural aspect of the program budget is i t s extended time horizon. The traditional organization of budgetary data rarely offers a profile of the future expenditures linked to or implied by current investment decisions. To make rational choices, the decision-maker must know something about the future expenditure implications of decisions he makes today, and this may require that the budget be projected several years into the future. By under-standing the f u l l costs of f i r s t year financing, "foot in the door" financing which has often proven costly can be prevented." (Hirsch, 1966 p. 261) Analytical Aspects Analysis and evaluation is an integral part of the PPBS process and includes the study of objectives and of alternative ways of achieving them, of future environments and of contingencies and how to respond to them. Since planning and budgeting need to be done over a number of years into the future, explicit recognition must be given to the uncertainties of the future. To do so, budget analysts can draw on the economic theory of choice over time and benefit cost analysis. "Benefit-cost analysis i s concerned with resource allocation efficiency and attempt to relate total resource costs to benefits produced by a particular program. It permits the use of explicit c r i t e r i a and systematic comparison of several alternative courses of action that might achieve a certain objective for some future time period. Benefit-cost analysis requires information in addition to that l i k e l y to be presented in the program budget. Ideally i t should take into account a l l costs by whomever they accrue. The benefits are the value of the added output or the added satisfaction resulting from the choice of one course of action rather than another. The costs of a program are the re-sources sacrificed i f that action is taken; i.e. their value in their best alternative uses." (Hirsch, 1966 p. 261) The program budget provides no information on benefits, however, and in addition, not a l l of the items that are included in the program budget are costs, and a l l of the costs of a program are not included in the pro-gram budget. The program budget presents a l i s t of proposed expenditures, but not economic costs. - 43 -"If benefits and costs were exhaustive, certain and commensurable, efficient resource allocation would result from a policy calculated to yield the greatest present value of net benefits. If financial constraints were to force us to choose from desirable programs, we would adopt those with the highest positive net present value until we came to the point where the entire budget was spent. In fact, benefits and cost are not exhaustive, certain and commensurable. In virt u a l l y no case can we obtain a complete estimate of the present value of net benefits. With care however, we can usually identify major social benefit and social cost components, and obtain partial estimates of some of them, and can furnish the decision-maker with partial qualitative information on others. Therefore, in practice, instead of seeking to maximize net present values, we are satisfied with identifying preferred solutions, i.e. we sub-optimize." (Hirsch, 1966 p. 262) Budget analysis also involves the careful, explicit treatment of un-certainties and their implications for planning and budgeting. These arise largely because of the extended time horizon required for rational de-cisions. Some of the tools for handling these uncertainties are sensitiv-i t y and contingency analysis. Administrative-Organizational Aspects In addition to devising a program budget and using available analytical tools to help reach decisions, there must also be the means to administer and possibly revise the budgetary decisions that have been reached. Hirsch feels that i t would be preferable to shift relevant administra-tive functions into the jurisdiction of o f f i c i a l s who make fi n a l program decisions but such a reorganization i s not lik e l y to be accomplished soon. Program budgeting is therefore l i k e l y to face considerable opposition with-in bureaucratic organizations where o f f i c i a l s are used to the familiar administrative budget. Some o f f i c i a l s w i l l resist program budgeting to protect established seats of power. Others w i l l feel that existing budget-ary arrangements benefit them, and fear uncertainties of the new. Thus, makeshift arrangements are likely to be developed, and these should include effective information systems, decision making processes and the means to - 44 -insure compliance with program decisions, once they have been made. Hirsch suggests that these adjustments are li k e l y to result in some concentration of authority, and yet they should be such that budget modifications and revisions can be made i f conditions should change over time. This w i l l require a system which controls or at least monitors reprogramming. To accomplish such a scheme, dollar thresholds should be designated, and methods of reprogramming, evaluation, approval and en-forcement should be designed. It is lik e l y that such steps w i l l be  facilit a t e d by linking the PPBS process with the prevailing annual budget  cySIe. Considering the special nature of social and rehabilitative agencies, Arthur Spindler (1962) identifies several important principles and characteristics of PPB that must be considered when application i s con-templated in this setting. 1. PPBS is a goal-oriented system. Its f i r s t and overriding re- quirement i s for better definitions of public goals and objectives. This requirement applies to the alternate aims of social and rehabilitation services directed toward adults, children and their families. PPBS can stimulate a re-examination of goals and objectives and can help c l a r i f y existing points of uncertainty about relationships with other agencies and programs. 2. PPBS calls for a clear expression of the relationship of social  and rehabilitation programs and services to program goals and objectives. Within social and rehabilitation services for instance, day care can be offered as part of rehabilitation, prevention or collateral services. The agency's purpose and method of operating a day care program can be deter-mined and evaluated according to the agency's objectives. Seeing the - 45 -r e l a t i o n o f the day care program to o b j e c t i v e s i n t h i s way i s s i g n i f i c a n t throughout the process o f pl a n n i n g , programming and budgeting. 3 . PPBS r e q u i r e s comprehensive, r e l i a b l e and v a l i d i n f o r m a t i o n about  the universe o f unmet needs f o r d i f f e r e n t kinds of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . Be-f o r e an agency can recognize needs and f i n d ways to meet them, i t must develop a d e t a i l e d knowledge of the s o c i a l , economic, p s y c h o l o g i c a l and h e a l t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d i f f e r e n t groups o f people i n the p o p u l a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y the disadvantaged and the u n d e r p r i v i l e g e d , as w e l l as the nature, cause and prognosis of these peoples' problems. To make t h i s i n -formation a v a i l a b l e , p u b l i c , p r i v a t e and v o l u n t a r y agencies must t r y to i n t e g r a t e and standardize t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n and s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t i n g systems. A high degree of cooperation between l o c a l , p r o v i n c i a l and fed-e r a l agencies i s r e q u i r e d as i s a commitment of resources and c a p a b i l i t i e s to develop mutually compatible i n f o r m a t i o n systems. 4. PPBS p o i n t s up the important r e l a t i o n of program costs to program  performance. A major requirement o f the PPBS approach i s to o b t a i n and apply an accurate d e f i n i t i o n of program costs to show c l e a r l y the extent of the commitment of resources to s p e c i f i c g o a l s . The element o f cost i s v i t a l i n the management of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e agencies, not only to j u s -t i f y requests f o r increased s t a f f and other resources, but a l s o t o e x p l a i n the s o c i a l and economic value of program, to p r o j e c t the d o l l a r value of s e r v i c e s and a c t i v i t i e s and to r e l a t e c ost and value to program goals i n planning 5. PPBS r e l i e s on the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f u n i t s o f measurement th a t  d e f i n e types of s e r v i c e s and programs and makes p o s s i b l e the comparison of performance and program e f f e c t s among d i f f e r e n t agencies or departments  at d i f f e r e n t times. Once an agency or system o f agencies has agreed upon - 46 -the measurement units i t w i l l use, i t can assess and analyze the contribu-tion of i t s services and programs in meeting specific goals and objectives. One unit of measurement of the success of a work incentive program, for example, might be "the number of trainees enrolled", another might be "the number of social assistance cases closed as a result of successful place-ment". A fourth measure that assesses the most direct program effects i s "the aggregate of the trainee's weekly earning compared with the average training cost, the actual and potential social assistance payments, and the tax revenue resulting from employment". To these should be added a f i f t h - the program's value in improving the self-image of the trainee -but ways to measure such results have yet to be developed. The foregoing has attempted to outline the basic nature, principles and characteristics of PPBS. The following section w i l l examine the evo-lution of PPBS as i t has emerged in the United States. II The Evolution of PPBS In his classic and often quoted a r t i c l e , "The Road to PPB: the Stages of Budget Reform", Allen Schick (1966) traces budgeting reform in the U.S.A. through three distinct stages, the last of which i s associated with Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems. Schick suggests that the PPBS approach proposes: "A radical change in the central function of budgeting, but i t is anchored to a century of tradition and evolution. The budget system of the future w i l l be a product of past and emerging developments; that i s , i t w i l l embrace both the budgeting functions introduced during earlier stages of reform as well as the planning function which is highlighted by PPB. PPB is the f i r s t budget system designed to accommodate the multiple functions of budgeting." (Schick, December 1966, pp. 243 - 244) - 47 -Reviewing the functions of budgeting, Schick notes that budgeting has always been conceived as a process for systematically relating the expenditure of funds to the accomplishment of planned objectives. In this sense there is a b i t of PPB in every budget system. "Even in the i n i t i a l stirrings of budget reform more than 50 years ago, there were cogent statements on the need for a budget system to plan the objectives and activities of government and to furnish reliable data on what was to be accomplished with public funds." (Schick, December 1966, p. 244) Planning, however is not the only function that must be served by a budget system. The management of ongoing activities and the control of spending are two functions which in the past have been given priority over the planning function. Robert Antony (1965) identifies three distinct administrative pro-cesses: strategic planning, management control and operational control. "Strategic Planning is the process of deciding on objectives of the organization, on changes in these objectives, on the resources used to attain these objectives, and on the policies that are to govern the acquisition, use and disposition of these resources. Management Control is the process by which managers assure that resources are obtained and used effectively and efficiently in the accomplishment of the organization's objectives. Operational Control is the process of assuring that specific tasks are carried out effectively and e f f i c i e n t l y . " (Anthony, R.N. (1965) pp. 16 - 18) Schick points out that every budget system, even rudimentary ones, encompass planning, management and control processes. Operationally these processes are often indivisible. In the context of budgeting, "Planning involves the determination of objectives, the evaluation of alternative courses of action, and the authorization of select programs". Planning is closely linked- to budget preparation under PPB, and one of the major aims of the approach is to convert the annual routine of preparing - 48. -a budget i n t o a conscious a p p r a i s a l and fo r m u l a t i o n of f u t u r e goals and p o l i c i e s . Management i n v o l v e s the programming of approved goals i n t o s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t s and a c t i v i t i e s , the design o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s to c a r r y out approved programs and the procurement of necessary resources. The management process i s spread over the e n t i r e budget c y c l e , and i d e a l l y , provides the l i n k between goals made and a c t i v i t i e s undertaken. Con t r o l r e f e r s to the process of b i n d i n g operating o f f i c i a l s to the p o l i c i e s and plans set out by t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . C o n t r o l i s predominant during the execution and aud i t stages, although the form o f budget e s t i -mates and a p p r o p r i a t i o n s i s o f t e n determined by c o n t r o l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . The assorted c o n t r o l s and r e p o r t i n g procedures that are ass o c i a t e d w i t h budget execution - p o s i t i o n c o n t r o l s , r e s t r i c t i o n s on t r a n s f e r s , r e q u i -s i t i o n procedures, and t r a v e l r e g u l a t i o n s , to mention the more prominent ones - have the purpose o f s'ecuring compliance w i t h p o l i c i e s made by c e n t r a l a u t h o r i t i e s . Very r a r e l y , are pla n n i n g , management and c o n t r o l given equal a t t e n -t i o n i n the operation o f budget systems and f r e q u e n t l y they have tended to be competing processes i n budgeting w i t h no d i s t i n c t d i v i s i o n o f fu n c t i o n s among the various p a r t i c i p a n t s . In a d d i t i o n , the absence of r e l i a b l e i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l systems has loaded c e n t r a l a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n s at the expense o f the planning f u n c t i o n . Moreover, these processes o f t e n r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s and generate d i f f e r e n t ways of handling the budgeting o b j e c t i v e and as the o r i e n t a t i o n o f budgeting has moved from c o n t r o l to management, there has been a s h i f t from account-ants to a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . I n i t i a l experience w i t h PPB systems, p o i n t s out - 49 -Schick, suggests that the next transition w i l l be from administrators to economists, as budgeting takes on more of the planning function. An important factor to consider, is the differential informational requirements of planning, control and management processes. Informational needs differ in terms of time spans, methods of aggregations, linkages with organizational and operating units and input-output f o c i . An appar-ent solution is to design a system that serves the multiple needs of budgeting. Historically, however, there has been a strong tendency to homogenize informational structures and to rely on a single c l a s s i f i c a -tion scheme to serve a l l budgetary purposes. For the most part, infor-mational systems have been structured to meet the purposes of control. As a result, the type of multiple purpose budget system envisioned by PPB has been avoided. Schick suggests that an examination of budget systems should reveal whether greater emphasis is placed at the central levels on planning, management, or control. "A planning orientation focuses on the broadest, range of issues: what are the long range goals and policies and how are these related to particular expenditure choices? What c r i t e r i a should be used in appraising the requests of the agencies? Which pro-grams should be initiated or terminated, and which expanded or curtailed? A management orientation deals with less fundamental issues: what is the best way to organize for the accomplishment of a prescribed task? Which of several staffing alternatives achieves the best results? Of the various grants and projects proposed, which should be approved? A control orientation deals with a relatively narrow range of concerns: how can agencies be held to the expenditure ceilings established by the legislature and chief executive? What reporting procedures should be used to enforce propriety in expenditures? What limits should be placed on agency spending for personnel and equipment?" (Schick, December 1966, p. 245) - 50 -While every budget system contains planning, management, and control features, a control orientation means that the planning and management functions are subordinate to control, not totally absent. In the matter of orientations one i s dealing with emphases, not with pure dichotomies. The c r i t i c a l issue is the balance among these v i t a l functions at the central level. Given the three c r i t i c a l functions of budgeting one might visualize an integrated budgeting and administrative process as shown below. This overall process is essentially a PPB system. Figure 7 BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS Strategic Planning Management Control GOALS - 51 -Schick notes that various attempts at budget reform have altered the planning-management-control balance, sometimes inadvertently, usually de-liberately. Three successive stages of budgetary reform can be identified. In the f i r s t stage, dating roughly from 1920 to 1935, the dominant emphasis was on developing an adequate system of expenditure control. Although planning and management considerations were not altogether absent, they were pushed to the side by what was regarded as the f i r s t priority, a reliable system of expenditure accounts. The second stage came to the fore during the New Deal and reached i t s zenith more than a decade later in the movement of performance budgeting. The management orientation was predominant during this period, and estab-lished i t s e l f in the reform of the appropriation structure, development of management improvements and work measurement programs and the focusing of budget preparation on the work and activities of the agencies. The third stage, the f u l l emergence of which must await the institu-tionalization of PPB can be traced to earlier efforts to link planning and budgeting as well as to the analytic c r i t e r i a of welfare economics, but i t s recent development is a product of modern informational and decisional technologies such as those pioneered by the Department of Defense. PPBS according to Schick " i s predicated on the primacy of the planning function yet i t strives for a multi purpose budget system that gives adequate and necessary attention to the control and management areas. Even in embryonic stage PPB envisions the development of crosswalk grids for the conversion of data from a planning to a management and control framework, and back again. PPB treats the three basic functions - planning, manage-ment, and control as compatible and complementary elements of a budget system though not as coequal aspects of central budgeting. In ideal form, PPB would centralize the planning function and delegate "primary" mana-gerial and control responsibilities to the supervisory and operating levels respectively." (Schick, 1966, p. 246) III Specifics of the PPBS Approach - How i t is intended to work* There are three central documents of the PPB system as applied by the U.S. Bureau of the Budget. The Program and Financial Plan (PFP), the Program Memoranda (PM) and Special Analytical Studies. The PFP of each agency should be a quantitative statement, largely in tabular form of the agency's programs, organized according to the various functions i t performs. Data should be shown for the current year and for as far into the future as i t is useful to project. Most agencies should project five years ahead but some w i l l do so only for two or three years and some w i l l go well beyond five years. The PFP should express objectives and planned accomplishments where-ever possible in quantitative physical (or output) terms. The physical description of program elements might include for example, the number of acres of recreational f a c i l i t i e s to be built in metropolitan areas, the number of youths to be trained, the number of housing units to be con-structed, and the number of children to receive pre-school training. For some programs, i t may not be possible to obtain or develop quantitative physical measures; but for them, objectives and performance should be described in as specific terms as possible. Associated with the physical output data should be financial data to *This section is drawn primarily from Page, D. (1967) op c i t , pp. 256-259 - 53 -show the cost of carrying out the a c t i v i t y . Cost data i s to be expressed i n system's terms. A l l costs that are associated with a program element should be assigned to that element and these component costs can generally be derived from e x i s t i n g appropriation and accounting categories. The PFP should serve many functions. It should reveal future i m p l i -cations of current budget decisions and group programs i n a way that f a c i l -i t a t e s comparison among these with s i m i l a r purposes. Because i t i s designed to p u l l together a l l the costs associated with decisions to carry on a given program at a given l e v e l , i t w i l l provide important data f o r decision-making. The PFP should not be seen as f i x e d . As circumstances change, so should the PFP. The second ce n t r a l document, e s s e n t i a l to the PPB system, i s the Program Memorandum. I t i s designed to: 1. describe the programs recommended by the agency f o r the time period being considered, show how these programs meet the needs of the target population, show the t o t a l costs of recommended programs and show the s p e c i f i c ways i n which they d i f f e r from current programs and those of the past several years. 2. describe program objectives, i n s o f a r as pos s i b l e i n quantitative p h y s i c a l terms. 3. describe program objectives and expected accomplishments and costs f o r several years i n t o the future. 4. compare the effectiveness and the cost of a l t e r n a t i v e objectives, of a l t e r n a t i v e programs that achieve the same as comparable objectives, and of d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of quantity within any given program category; t h i s comparison should show past experience, the al t e r n a t i v e s that are - 54 -believed to be worthy of consideration, earlier differing recommendations, earlier cost and performance estimates, and the reasons for changing these estimates. 5. make explicit the assumptions and c r i t e r i a that support recommended programs and 6. identify and analyse the main uncertainties in the assumptions and in the program effectiveness or costs and show the sensitivity of recommen-dations to these uncertainties. This is a lot to ask for and i t may be unrealistic to ask for such complete and often speculative data in practice. The Program Memoranda are not intended to be simple essays. They are to be analytic, quantitative documents that describe needs, define objectives in precise terms, analyse cost and effectiveness, and state explicit p r i o r i t i e s . Assumptions and uncertainties are to be identified as are the c r i t e r i a for choices. Emphasis in PPBS is on the findings of program analyses and evaluation to buttress decisions. These findings are presented in Special Analytical  Studies which vary not only with respect to subject matter and scope but also in the analytical methods used. They may deal with a single program component, such as housing services to recipients of old age assistance, or they may encompass a broad range of programs that are themselves components of a common social objective such as rehabilitating the poor. The Special Analytical Studies may require simple analysis of short duration or the use of a complex array of research tools, but they have one element in common: they respond to the need for information in making decisions among alterna-tive ways of achieving program objectives. - 55 -These three - the Program and Financial Plan, Program Memorandums and the Special Analytical Studies"represent the major inputs to the PPBS approach to budgeting. The overall system is designed to enable each agency to make avail-able to top management more specific data relevant to broad decisions by: 1 . stating clearly and precisely the objectives of agency programs 2 . analysing alternative objectives systematically and presenting agency heads with alternative programs to meet those objectives 3 . presenting on a multiyear basis, the prospective costs and accomplishments of programs 4. producing total rather than partial cost estimates of programs 5. evaluating the benefits and costs of programs and 6. reviewing objectives and conducting program analyses on a contin-uing year-round basis instead of on a crowded schedule to meet budget deadlines. "The potential implications of the PPBS are exceeded only by i t s demands. First and most fundamental is the need to bring together in a coherent way the planning activities of government (and agencies) within the budget process. Planning separated from  budgeting tends to be g^hreal'fstife- and ineffective;- budgeting  separated from planning tends to be shortsighted and not well  enough informed. It is v i t a l l y important that these complementary activities be linked. But for this to be possible, there must exist a serious planning effort. Each agency must develop inte- grated planning-programming-budgeting organizations charged with  the task of stating objectives, analysing alternative programs to  meet these objectives and translating these into budget requirements. Second, there is the need to develop adequate analytical staffs to help formulate objectives and analyse programs. Almost every area of federal government activity presents d i f f i c u l t and challenging problems requiring analysis. Experience has demonstrated .that good analysis can make important contributions to public policy issues and help evaluate alternative solutions to national problems. We must develop a group of employees equipped with analytical techniques and capable of creatively adapting these techniques to public programs. - 56 -Third, we must begin to develop basic quantitative program models. A model should describe the central relationships between vari-ables within the program area. A program model in education might show the relationship among basic human ab i l i t y , years and type of education, and their effect on earning capacity. Models, of course, are simplified versions of the real phenomena being described but they are badly needed i f one is to gain a clearer understanding of the effect of existing programs and of the kinds of new programs that can have the greatest effect. Adequate analysis of d i f f i c u l t subjects cannot be done immediately - in many cases i t w i l l take several years of continuing endeavour to produce a satisfactory analytic product. Fourth, and perhaps most c r i t i c a l i s the fact that good analysis requires good data and we need better data than we have now to evaluate the effectiveness of our programs." (Schick, A.,December 1966, p. 258) The primary aim of PPBS is to provide a formal and systematic means for evaluating and measuring effectiveness against costs of alternative programs. To do this, one must specify objectives and attempt to measure performance against these objectives. In so doing, the hope is to move away from decision-making on a subjective basis and toward decision-making on benefit-cost and marginal u t i l i t y analysis. It is suggested that this approach w i l l be a significant improvement over the intuitive processes of the past. IV Problems of Implementation PPBS is by no means without controversy. There are enthusiastic advo-cates and there are those who express grave doubts about i t s u t i l i t y and point out many problems. The proponents of PPBS cite the following speci-f i c benefits. - Provides a framework for accountability - Provides opportunity for long-range planning - Assists in acquiring government funds - 57 -- Provides opportunities to program staff to give their inputs in the decision-making process - Compels organizational self-study and analysis - Promotes rational decisions The more cautious and less enthusiastic point out various problems such as: d i f f i c u l t i e s in defining programs adequately: finding adequate measures of output and problems in associating costs with outputs. Of a l l the problems, however, the one most d i f f i c u l t to tackle remains that of defining units of output or products in human care services. Finally, there are the dangers of inter-agency comparisons based on cost-benefit analysis when comparability of programs is in question. It should therefore be stressed the PPBS is no panacea. It is by no means a perfected instrument but as experience builds, i t s values can be more thoroughly assessed and further refinement and innovation w i l l become possible. Allan Schick (1966), reviewing the movement of budgeting systems toward a PPBS approach asks: "In an operational sense, what difference does i t make whether the central budget process is oriented toward planning rather than management? Does the change merely mean a new way of making decisions, or does i t mean different decisions as well? .... The case for PPB rests on the assumption that the form in which information is classified and used w i l l govern the actions and decisions of budgeters; and conversely, that alternatives in form w i l l produce desired changes in behaviour. Take-away the assumption that behaviour follows form, and the movement for PPB is reduced to a t r i v i a l manipulation of techniques - form for forms sake without any significant bearing on the conduct of budgetary af f a i r s . Yet this assumed connection between roles and information is a relatively uncharted facet of the PPB literature. The behavioral side of the equa-tion has been neglected. PPB implies that each participant w i l l behave as a sort of Budgetary Man ... who whatever his situation or role in the budget process, is assumed to be guided by an unwavering commitment to the rule of efficiency; in every instance he chooses that alternative that optimizes the allocation of public resources." (Schick, A., December 1966, p. 256) - 58 -PPBS, as Schick notes, probably takes an overly mechanistic view of the impact of form on behaviour and underestimates the strategic and volitional aspects of budget making. Given the p o l i t i c a l nature of  budgeting, the participants are more lik e l y than not to seek out and use  data which suit their preferences than to alter their behaviour auto- matically in response to formal changes. This is a major problem to be encountered by any system which wishes to introduce a PPBS approach to the allocation of resources. Schick noted that "... PPB aspires to create a different environment for choice. Traditionally, budgeting has defined i t s objectives by identifying the existing base and proposed departures from i t . "This is where we are; where do we go from here?" PPB on the other hand defines i t s mission in terms of budgetary objectives and purposes. "Where do we want to go?" "What do we do to get there?" The environment of choice under traditional circumstances is incremental; in PPB i t is t e l e t i c . Pre-sumably these different processes w i l l lead to different budgetary outcomes. A budgeting system and process, which accepts the base and examines only the increments w i l l produce decisions to transfer the present into the future with a few small variations:... A budget making process which begins with objectives, however, w i l l require the base to compete on an equal foot-ing with new proposals. The decisions w i l l be more radical than those made under incremental conditions. This does not mean that each year's budget wil l lack continuity with the past. There are sunk costs that have to be reckoned and the benefits of radical changes will have to outweigh the costs of terminating prior commitment." (Schick, December 1966, p. 257). Summing up, Schick feels that to a far greater extent than heretofore, budget decisions will be influenced by explicit statement of objectives and - 59 -by a formal weighing of the costs and benefits of alternatives. Robert Millward (1968) on the other hand, points out a number of subtle and often not so subtle, shortcomings which deserve close aaten-tion in introducing a PPB approach to a budgeting process. It is sug-gested that "PPBS is not simply a proposal for the improvement of public administration or planning that i s easily defined, readily installed and promptly effective in operation. On the con-trary, from i n i t i a l concept to f i n a l implementation, the project raises d i f f i c u l t and important problems which must be anticipated at the outset. The system poses unique demands on the existing functionaries and the results are potentially far different from those produced at present." (Millward, R.E., (March 1968) p. 90) For purposes of analysis, Millward views PPBS as another attempt at "rationality" closely related to the ideal of comprehensive planning. "A rational decision i s defined as one that: 1) establishes goals and objectives after observation; 2) designs alternative means to accomplish these goals; 3) predicts a l l consequences of each alternative; and 4) selects the preferable alternative in terms of the most valued ends. The necessity of a greater rationality is underscored by the increasing complexity of government programs and the unprecedented demands upon government decision-makers. The problems are greater than ever before, and the traditional methods of allocating scarce or limited resources are often no longer adequate for the complex tasks now facing our government leaders. More rational decisions are sought because they are either more efficient, more economical, more objective, more effective or more in the public interest." (Millward, (March 1968) p. 90) The problems of implementing a PPBS approach to budgeting may be divided into two main categories - conceptual and operational with further distinctions being made as to short and long range problems. . 1. Conceptual Problems The conceptual problems are those encountered in designing the program budget and relating i t to decision-making requirements. Included here are - 60 -the fundamental questions of aims and functions of government, the kinds of problems that demand government action and the processing of data that are needed in decision-making. F i r s t , the determination of objectives i s a basic step i n PPBS and poses a unique set of problems at the outset. To begin with, societal goals are rather elusive; since ends are rarely agreed upon among indi-viduals, agencies or in government as a whole and possess dynamic proper-ties , objectives are seldom articulated even with the expenditures of vast sums of money. Moreover, societal or general goals are often sub-stantially different from individual agency goals. In short, concrete meaningful goals do not always exist, sometimes cannot be articulated and seldom are agreed upon even within the confines of a specific agency. Relating means to ends i s also a prerequisite of rationality and the PPBS approach. Even i f we had specific goals that were agreed upon, the knowledge of effective means to achieve them i s overwhelmingly inadequate. Herbert Simon examining the conceptual problems of relating means to ends points out the following: 1. the ends to be attained by the choice of a particular alternative are often incompletely or incorrectly stated through failure to consider the alternative ends, thus obscuring the comparative element i n decision-making. 2. a complete separation of the factual elements from the value elements i s impossible; 3. the role of the time element i n decision-making is obscured thus blurring the differences between short-run and long-run effects. (Simon, H.A. (1957) Chapter IV) In addition, the connections between organizational activities and ultimate objectives are not always clear, and usually cannot be so, given the complex nature of the constraints operating upon any organization. - 61 -Sometimes the means are unknown, and sometimes there are internal con-f l i c t s and contradictions among the means selected. Also, an agency may have a consensus on goals, yet have no control over the means to achieve them. Millward concludes that "decision-making in general and PPBS in particular are restricted in their applica-tion of the true rational model because means and ends cannot always be effectively compared ... One can only wonder how ends w i l l be selected, means evaluated, consequences anticipated and so forth, given the exist-ing limitations placed on a l l would be decision makers." (Millward, (March 1968), p. 90) 2. Operational Problems In addition to the inherent problems of PPBS - namely that the system requires performance never before or seldom attained in practice, another set of problems i s operational in nature, centring around managerial  implementation and acceptance in the period after adoption. A) Millward notes that " i t i s no small chore to relate objectives to specific programs, assuming that we know the objectives. The structural elements around which a program budget operates must be bu i l t . Ideally, program elements should be designed to be relatively independent but interdependencies w i l l no doubt be exposed that w i l l require continual modification. Once activities are identified as an appropriate cluster of a single program or program element, i t wil l l i k e l y be found that such activities are currently scattered through several agencies, bureaus and divisions, not to mention levels of government. To try to rearrange these into a "meaning-f u l " framework w i l l certainly encounter strong institutional  resistance." (Millward, (March 1968) p. 91) B) Another severe problem i s relating the specific programs to resource requirements and the resource inputs to budget dollars. The task is f i r s t to compare alternative programs with respect to both costs to be - 62 -incurred and gains to be achieved, and then to translate the program requirements into budget dollars projected several years ahead. The basic methodological technique i s cost/benefit analysis. Aside from some success in military planning and possibly in water resource planning, however, this technique is s t i l l in i t s infancy i n terms of quantifying a l l but the most obvious direct benefits. The indirect and intangible benefits which are often the most crucial in social service programs are extremely d i f f i c u l t to quantify and, therefore component cost elements based on cost/benefit techniques may be highly distorted and of l i t t l e use in making evaluative decisions at least i n i t i a l l y . To the extent that these techniques can be improved in the future, this shortcoming may eventually be alleviated. Cost/benefit and cost effectiveness w i l l be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter. C) The conversion of manpower, f a c i l i t i e s and other resource re-quirements into budget dollars, projected several years ahead, sounds much easier than i t i s lik e l y to be in practice. Prediction plays an important part in ascertaining needs and demands for future years. Prediction, how-ever, is based on either 1) an understanding of the dynamics of an event or 2) knowledge of past events. The second method i s the one most often used in planning and public administration, since the f i r s t i s s t i l l largely unworkable. The procedure of collecting and interpreting data for predictive purpose i s not an exact science however, and there are oppor-tunities for error existing at each stage in the process. Our a b i l i t y to actually know the past is limited and i t s relevance to the future i s often only a rough approximation of general trends. The realization that there i s really no sound method of prediction i s essential to those who expect PPBS to dramatically improve the quality of decision-making. - 63 -D) If PPBS is to be more than an exercise i n arithmetic, i t must gain acceptance by the operating agencies, governing bodies and probably numerous interest groups as well. "It is not enough to invoke the sacred words of 'economy', 'efficiency', 'better decisions' or 'total welfare'. PPBS is heralded as a revo-lutionary method of making fundamental decisions affecting the objects and magnitude of governmental financial support which means that i t w i l l be construed as a threat (either real or imagined) to existing, familiar, and manipulative institutional arrangements, and w i l l therefore incur opposition from the bureaucracy i t s e l f , as well as from outside. A key fact is that any bureaucratic institution i s going to oppose change, partly because of a desire to hang on to those things that are known. Aside from the stated goals and objectives, there is an over-riding desire to maintain and enhance the power and prestige of existing institutions. These cannot be overemphasized, for they play a crucial role in any reorganizational effort. This is not to say that major administrative innovations have not taken place, but that they encounter very strong resistance, at least i n i t i a l l y . " (Millward, (March 1968) p. 91) It i s natural for agencies and individuals to fear any kind of shift that might involve decisions less advantageous to their interests. McKean and Anshen (1964, 65) suggest three possible outcomes of a PPBS approach: 1) identification and possible removal of overlapping and redun-dant acti v i t i e s ; 2) exposure of ineffective or inefficient employment of resources; and 3) clearer illumination of the long-range cost implications of proposals with relatively painless i n i t i a l expenses and consequent bet-ter sereeningrnofisuch proposals with an accompanying higher rejection rate. Thus one might predict that the promise to provide better information that is better organized for better decision-making w i l l not always be univer-sally received. The goals of central funding bodies are not necessarily consistent with those of i t s individual components nor with individual administrators. The structure of decision-making arising from a PPBS - 64 -approach wi l l most likely not resemble the existing bureaucracy. Since the resulting realignment; and reorganization of agency functions and programs wi l l l i k e l y produce a subsequent shakeup of hierarchical re-lationships, i t is easy to see why i t w i l l not be endorsed whole-heartedly i n i t i a l l y . E) In examining potential d i f f i c u l t i e s with regard to implemen-tation, i t i s important to understand how the traditional budgetary process works. Wildavsky (1964) has described the federal budget process as "incremental, proceeding from a historical base, guided by notions of fa i r shares, in which decisions are fragmented, made in sequence by specialized bodies, and coordinated through repeated attacks on problems and through multiple feed-back mechanisms. In short, i t is the anti-thesis of long range, comprehensive, goal-oriented planning and budgeting. Rather than focusing on policy implications the traditional approach is more interested in hiding them. Log ro l l i n g and bargaining are integral aspects of most expenditure decisions. The conflict or argument is over incremental changes in last year's request and there is also almost no consideration of the relative merits of entire programs. Although major changes are possible, our institutional framework tends to favor incre-mental steps. In fact, the mitigation of conflict is a widely shared value among participants in the p o l i t i c a l process, and compromise has become an indisputable part of the North American p o l i t i c a l system. A PPBS approach would force more overt considerations of policy and specific programs by elected o f f i c i a l s (and boards of directors) requiring "yes" or "no" commitments. Few politicians are willing to accept the possibil-i t y of being voted out of office by endorsing an unpopular long-range expenditure. - 65 -"The resistance of the public bureaucracy and elected o f f i c i a l s may be reinforced by opposition from "clients" served by and benefiting from existing budgetary arrangements. These clients may be special interest groups of many varieties which would stand to lose i f the switch over to the programmed budget were accomplished. It is also possible, however, that some special interest groups would support PPBS, since i t would open up the budgetary process to more scrutiny, increase the discretion of the executive and the agency heads to make decisions, and restric t the opportunity of other groups to make their detailed expenditure decisions without general approval." (Millward, (March 1968) pp. 92 - 93) F) In addition to generating acceptance, which may be accomplished over a period of time, an even more immediate need is to develop the analytical staffs to help formulate objectives and analyse programs. Extensive education efforts and strengthening of staff capabilities w i l l be required in the executive departments. Summing up, Millward states: "One must conclude that PPBS has many shortcomings although i t s attempts at normative decision-making may be desirable. There is no disagreement about the need for new decision-making tools, only a caution that the PPBS framework alone wi l l not solve the immense problems facing us. It is hoped that working with PPBS wil l result in a greater awareness of ends, means, consequences, needs and resources, a l l of which wi l l f a c i l i t a t e decision-making within agencies. Its attempt at quantification of costs and benefits may lead to more sophisticated comparative efforts, particularly the use of mathematical models. Perhaps the basic advantage of PPBS is in the forced examination of ongoing activities in problem terms, in direct contrast to the present approach of incrementation, where we do not evaluate what has already been approved and is operational. Such an examination is bound to reveal problems heretofore unrecognized." (Millward, (March 1968) p. 93) In his memorandum on the introduction of PPBS into the Department of State, Thomas Schelling made some important observations on the managerial prerequisites for PPB's success. "PPBS, backed up by a competent analytical staff, can hardly f a i l to be helpful to a decision-maker who insists on making his own decisions and on understanding how he makes them; i t can be a seductive comfort and in the end an embarrassment, to a lazy executive who wants his decisions to come out of a process in which - 66 -hiw own intellect does not participate. PPBS can be a splendid tool to help top management make decisions: but there has to be a top management that wants to make decisions." (Schelling, Thomas, March/April 1969) This observation restates one of the oldest verities of business and pub-l i c administration; namely, that "good staff services alone do not a good decision-maker make". Often the activities of a competent analytical staff can by i t s e l f lead to paralysis by analysis. Excessive attention to the development of formal calculational capabilities can divert scarce resources from the equally important tasks of building action capabilities. Moreover, even though i t be a small group with a small budget, any ambitious new PPB staff inevitably locks horns with the defenders of the programs they question, with old guard budget staffs, or with rivals for positions of strategic influence. The extent to which such conflicts are constructive or destructive depends largely on the wisdom of top manage-ment . Michael Teitz (1968) notes that PPBS promises to be a visible means for carrying rational calculation into many realms of public effort and expenditure. Its ideas and techniques are seductive both for their power and generality and for their demonstrated applicability in attacking in-credibly complex problems. Despite this, successful adoption of PPBS wil l depend heavily upon the analytic capabilities of local governments for generating and evaluating programs. Teitz points out that new methods often f a i l to make the d i f f i c u l t transition between levels of government, often with good reason. Many methods are technically inappropriate at widely differing levels; others are unacceptable because of variations in p o l i t i c a l style. It might be argued, however, that a good part of the failures stem from the fact that - 67 -diffusion and transition are frequently accompanied by coarsening of understanding, formalization, and routinization of procedures, along with dependence upon weaker technical staff. The result is often adoption of form but not substance and outputs are poor. Thus, as PPBS is diffused into local governments, these influences w i l l l i k e l y threaten i t s adoption. The successful implementation of PPBS and i t s component parts -program structure, program elements, analytical comparison of alterna-tives in terms of cost and effectiveness - presupposes both a sophisti-cated understanding of the technical nature of particular systems and methods for their manipulation and analysis. Teits suggests that "although cost or benefit analysis of projects has been carried out in federal and state agencies for a considerable time, most agencies especially in local government, do not have analytical and systems design capabilities ... nor have they been under the same kind of pressure to create new alternatives. They have had less money and less operating freedom, faced less rapid change and been less able to evaluate results of new programs.'-Thus, even i f good analysts are found to put PPB into local agencies, information gaps wi l l remain. Without a good deal of basic work on the technology and economics of public services, PPB could turn into an empty r i t u a l . Unless significant advances occur in basic urban housekeeping functions, including social services, PPB w i l l be hardly worth the effort." (Teitz M.B., (September 1968), p. 304) The unifying theme of PPBS is i t s style of attack upon problems. The core of the approach lie s in the attempt to describe any problem in relation to a total structure of objectives, costs and benefits. The analyst typically looks at his system not as an end in i t s e l f but as a means toward the achievement of certain objectives of some broader entity within which he is working. In order to do so he must be able to specify - 68 -those objectives operationally and relate the outputs of alternative systems to the achievement of objectives. "The requirement of operationality is crucial. It i s not enough to say for example, that a particular set of a c t i -vities promotes education. We must define what we mean by educational achievement, specify how i t is observed and measured, show how the outputs of the activities are re-lated to i t , and demonstrate that those activities w i l l in fact have the effects attributed to them." (Teitz M.B., (September 1968), p. 304) The process of definition and specification of objectives i s d i f f i -cult and painful. In the provision of public services, the specification of objectives is rarely adequate and typically display two kinds of weaknesses. Fi r s t , objectives may be specified, but in terms so broad and vague that i t i s impossible to t e l l how well the system is doing to-ward their achievement. Such objectives as health, safety, education and f u l l e r citizenship are important goals, but require operational definitions for measuring the effectiveness of alternative systems for their achievement. A second weakness has been to establish objectives in input rather than output terms. Public services are particularly prone to this be-cause of the d i f f i c u l t y in specification and measurement of their output. Objectives tend to be set up as standards for the provision of certain classes of inputs, and the quality of the system's performance then comes to be measured in input terms. They measure what is being put in, not what is coming out. Measures of this type are particularly attractive in situations where the system outputs are diffuse and the objectives imprecise. Because these things are hard to pin down, the attraction of easily measurable inputs becomes overwhelming for the hard pressed admin-istrator who must run his agency and secure a budget for his operations. - 6 9 -The use of input measures as objectives leads to distortion of goals away from the social.ends for which the agency was established, toward internal organizational and administrative ends. Empire building with-in organizations i s a familiar example of such a distortion. 3. Determining Costs and Effectiveness The relative quantities of different outputs produced and their distribution among competing recipient groups depends in large part upon the form of allocation procedure adopted. For commercial enterprises and some public and quasi-public products i.e. telephone services, the price system allocates output among consumers on the basis of their own preferences and the distribution of income. For some public products, there is no differential allocation, and for other some e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a are adhered to. In the social service f i e l d , where a price mechanism to allocate output does not exist, some other procedure must be adopted. Tradition-all y , this process has been a mixture of p o l i t i c a l , administrative and professional judgement. During recent years, however, there have been attempts to increase the amount and quality of information upon which such decisions may be based. Foremost among those have been efforts to quantify both the costs and the benefits stemming from alternative governmental actions. Through the use of cost-benefit analysis (or benefit-cost analysis) attempts have been made to quantify both sides in dollar terms and every effort has been made to include not only direct immediate costs and benefits, but also indirect or spillover costs and benefits accruing to others not directly related to the service or program in question. - 70 -Through the use of cost-benefit analysis, i t is possible to quantify objectives toward which actions are directed, and to devise measures of the cost and benefits of alternative actions or systems with respect to those objectives. If such measures are available, i t should be possible to form a good idea of the relative costs of achieving a marginal gain in one direction as opposed to another. In contrast to cost-benefit, cost- effectiveness analysis allows the use of multiple measures on the benefit side. It does not solve the problem of incorporating a l l of them into a single benefit measure in dollar terms but rather allows the decision-maker to see clearly the cost of achieving specified gains in each of a variety of measures related to any objective. For activities such as social services in which quantification is d i f f i c u l t and dollar evaluation of direct and indirect benefits subject to arbitrary assumptions, this procedure can offer a useful approach toward improvement of information for decisions. CA) Cost Analysis Costing is relatively straightforward and for any configuration of outputs one should be able to develop the total cost of producing them under the assumed system structure and production relationships. The process is not without d i f f i c u l t y however. Perhaps the most d i f f i c u l t in the case of urban services i s the specification of outputs and the under-standing of technical relationships. Defining outputs for any service or program constitutes a major problem.both of general understanding and of specific measurement. This problem manifests i t s e l f in the confusion between activities and objectives. It is usually relatively easy to find some measure of - 71 -activity going on but the real trick is to find a measure appropriate to the objectives for which the agency or organization was created. The second d i f f i c u l t y relates to understanding technical relation-ships. In order to produce costs, (both total and by output category) of alternative output configurations, one must be knowledgeable about the important technical relationships that determine what can be pro-duced by any given set of inputs. A costing model should also allow for variations in input proportions in order to take advantage of substitu-tion of inputs whose prices and productivity d i f f e r . This would imply a costing model that i s capable of producing a minimum cost input solution for any output set. This is not a simple task, for even i f one knows how outputs are to be defined, delivery of public social services usually involves complex organizational structures and the effect of organiza-tionafaalternatives on output is rarely known. Studying an existing organization may not reveal cost/output relationships sufficiently to determine whether i t is producing eff i c i e n t l y . While techniques for allocation of resources such -as linear program-ming and simulation have been widely adopted in private industry, they have hardly penetrated the social service sector. The failure to use them has been due, in part, to their i n i t i a l cost and the necessity for skilled personnel, and in part from a failure to recognize their poten-t i a l value. Cost analysis is particularly relevant i f an organization's output structure encompasses programs directed toward specific ends. However, there are always some components in any agency that are d i f f i c u l t to allocate to outputs with precise objectives. Typical of these is the is the overall management function. Major d i f f i c u l t i e s arise in agencies where large expenditures are unallocable. The cause of this may l i e either in the nature of the work performed or the attitude of the agency to i t s own activity. Any agency that looks at i t s e l f primarily through inputs and internal arrangements rather than outputs w i l l be d i f f i c u l t to analyse. (B) Effectiveness Analysis Effectiveness analysis deals with the relationship between the structure of output and the achievement of broader objectives. Since the main concern centres on the use of resources in the production of public services, i t seems reasonable to measure those resources by their price. The other side of the coin, outputs and benefits, i s more d i f f i c u l t to quantify i n dollar terms. One reason for this i s the absence of a market and price system to allocate what is produced, and thus no obvious valuation procedure based on people's subjective demands presents i t s e l f . Often public goods are produced by government or voluntary bodies simply because any such price allocation is inconceivable or because the idea of valuation i s meaningless. Systems analysts have attacked this question through attempting to measure effectiveness - that is relating the output characteristics of any activity or system to the achievement of broader objectives. This approach is not without d i f f i c u l t i e s and abuses however. For example, one might use the dropout rate, as a measure of the effectiveness of various manpower retraining programs. But a low dropout rate might simply reflect or induce a tight screening process for admission in one - 73 -program as compared to another. Candidates in the worst straits could be cut off from help by i t s use as a measure of effectiveness. If one applies a broader criterion for effectiveness - the total number of participants benefitting, the most effective program as measured by the increase in individual s k i l l s may also be the most costly in that i t reduces the numbers involved to a point where the total impact of the program on the problem i t i s attacking becomes t r i v i a l . If one can find no one single program evaluation measure, then the next best thing may be to find the incremental relationship of each to cost. Clearly, the selection of effectiveness measures calls for s k i l l , judgement and a f u l l understanding of both the alternatives being analysed and the problem which they are designed to deal with. Teitz observes that: "Measures of effectiveness in the production of government services are rare. Typically, they are replaced by two kinds of devices, performance measures and standards. Performance measures relate to the problem of administrative control of operations where the output is poorly defined. Usually they are specified on some sort of activity basis so as to give an estimate of work performed. Thus the effectiveness of a welfare worker may be assessed by the number of case f i l e s he can process or a policeman by the number of t r a f f i c tickets he can issue. Naturally, controversy exists over this sort of performance measure and i t s doubtful relation-ship to the ultimate output toward which the work is directed. The performance measure tends to be a control device designed to detect variations in work levels and allow management to respond accordingly. It may in fact have l i t t l e relation to f i n a l output or conceivably result in effects opposite to what was intended." (Teitz M.B., (September 1968), p. 309) The problem of performance standards is much broader and one can dis-tinguish between technical performance standards and generalized system standards. Technical performance standards exist throughout industry and give a v i t a l measure of uniformity and interchangeability, together with - 74 -confidence of performance. In government they perform a similar function. Detailed housing standards may insure uniformity in wiring and plumbing, but they also imply the protection of certain occupational groups from innovation. Generalized system standards are somewhat similar but they tend to be specified for the entire system or some major part of i t , and are commonly couched in input terminology. System standards are very common whereas output and effectiveness measures are d i f f i c u l t to find. Teitz notes that: "... i f the standards are established by knowledgeable people, they w i l l reflect the technology of the system and aid i n establishing some minimum levels of service. But their formu-lation in terms of input quantities rather than desirable output levels may lead to misallocation of resources in situations that are not average. More important they may divert the attention of the agency from what i t i s supposed to be doing toward a concern for meeting input requirements and from there lead naturally to the evaluation of performance in input terms. The danger in this attitude l i e s i n cutting o f f an agency from i t s mission, a sort of loss of contact with re a l i t y . Concern with internal organizational aims becomes overriding to the eventual detriment of the agency i t s e l f and the community at large. To the extent that the existence of effectiveness measures offsets this tendency alone, they may be well worthwhile." (Teitz M.B., (September 1968), pp. 309- 310) The need for good measures of effectiveness in the provision of social services is unanimously agreed by a l l in the f i e l d , but the form of these measures cannot be entirely analogous to those used elsewhere. Social services are provided principally for the population at large or selected groups therein, and therefore any pattern of production and distribution implies not only cost efficiency and effectiveness in response to declared objectives but also the question of equity in the distribution of both costs and outputs. - 75 -4. Measurement and Information Development The question of measurement of inputs and outputs is c r i t i c a l to the PPBS approach. PPBS and the systems approach searches constantly for operational definitions and the a b i l i t y to measure becomes and impor-tant constraint on operationality in the analysis of problems, the speci-fication of objectives and the evaluation of programs. Very often the way in which one decides to measure variables significantly influences ones view of the variables themselves. Furthermore, the a b i l i t y to measure some variables more easily than others may lead to a bias i n favour of those which one can measure and objectives most closely associ-ated with them. The measurement problem on the cost side is somewhat eased by the use of dollars as. the uniform unit of measure. The principal problem i s to ensure the accuracy of the measurement of any specific cost and by the inclusion of a l l relevant costs under any specific heading. There is considerable experience in this area in the cost accounting f i e l d that i s readily transferrable to the social service f i e l d with minor modifications. The major area of d i f f i c u l t y i s in allocating unallocatable costs that cannot be pegged to any one service or program and in developing appropri-ate units to develop unit costs. The measurement of effectiveness presents problems of a different order. Without any specific units of measure and without any a p r i o r i reasons for selecting some measures of effectiveness over others, the choice of measures is bound to be a process of interaction between what one would like to be able to measure and what one can measure with a - 76 -reasonable degree of accuracy. The only real test of a measure of effectiveness i s i t s a b i l i t y to reflect the achievement of the agency's objectives. One danger however, i s the temptation to select measures of effectiveness because one has the a b i l i t y to measure them even though one may not know their relationship to system wide objectives. Without such a relationship any measure of effectiveness must be regarded as subject to criticism. To date two types of measurement have emerged in the area of effectiveness measurement; absolute.and ratio measures. Absolute measures are necessary in order to retain a perspective on the magnitude of opera-tions and output implied by any particular system. Ratio measures are useful in analysing distributive consequences of particular systems and as measures of efficiency in the use of inputs. Examples of the two kinds of measure might be total number of young people 5 to 15 years of age served in a particular community by a recreation project, and the number of young people 5 to 15 years per 1000 aged 5 to 15, served in the commun-it y . The f i r s t i s an absolute measure while the second i s a ratio related to the total number in the population that f a l l in the specified age range. Considerable evidence suggests that both kinds of measure should be used simultaneously in order to avoid bias and distortion. One of the crucial tasks in PPB is the development of measures of effectiveness needed for program evaluation. Seidman (May 1970) suggests that such measures can be set out in a hierarchical order with the low end containing concrete measures of the administrative effectiveness of specific projects and programs, primarily of use for short term admini-strative control. Examples of these are the number of clients enrolled - 77 -(absolute measure) or the proportion of a target group reached by a program (ratio measure). At the high end are measures of the actual benefits of the program, generally in terms of changes in the overall status of a community or a nation with respect to certain important attributes. Such measures have a high level of "i n t r i n s i c significance". Examples of these are decreases in the infant mortality rate and in the crime rate. A characteristic of each of the higher level measures i s that they have normative values; that i s , i f the particular measure changes in the "right" direction while other things remain equal, then there can be agreement that the condition of society has improved. Thus, figures on mortality rates or crime rates qualify, but statistics on numbers of doctors and policemen do not. The reason for this relates to the dis-tinction between inputs and outputs. Doctors and policemenfmust be con-sidered as inputs into a process intended to improve the outputs of health status and crime prevention. They have significance only as they affect these and other outputs or objectives. To i l l u s t r a t e these hierarchal concepts, Seidman considers a specific set of evaluation measures that relate to family planning programs. "Level 1 - Project Administration Measures These are to be measured on individual family planning projects and aggregated to national totals. They include such factors as total numbers of women and of new women seen per year; percent of unwed and high risk mothers enrolled, cost per patient year; and the like . Level 2 - Sampling Survey Questions These are asked of persons in the target area of a family planning project or in a more general area such as a city. They are intended - 78 -to determine what impact a family planning project is having in a community i n terms of knowledge, attitudes and practice. The surveys seek changes in the percentage knowing of family planning and of the specific family planning project, approving the con-cept of family planning, practicing family planning, and similar questions. Level 3 - Basic Output Measures It i s assumed here that the basic objective of a family planning program is preventing of unwanted and untimely births. Therefore, basic output measures include total number of births averted; changes in f e r t i l i t y rates; costs per birth averted; and the like . Some of these measures such as f e r t i l i t y rates, can be obtained directly and routinely; others may have to be partially inferred - such as births averted. Level 4 - Measure of Benefits This i s the highest level of significance and corresponds to the level of social indicators. Measures of benefit could include such things as changes in infant mortality rates, selected infant morbidity rates, abortion rates or deaths attributed to abortions, illegitimacy rates, number of families avoiding poverty (because of smaller family size), increased family income due to a b i l i t y of the mother to work, and the l i k e . " (Seidman, (May 1970) p. 176) Ascribing the higher level measures of benefit to any program is a d i f f i c u l t inference to make and this i s one reason why at the lower level, more clearly causally related measures are used to assist in evaluating specific programs. The lower level measures are also frequently used as a step in the estimation of benefits. For example, expected decreases in poverty because of smaller family size can be inferred by using a factor of say $500 additional income needed per child to stay out. of poverty and multiplying this by the estimated decreases in family size. The use of various s t a t i s t i c a l techniques such as multiple regression, step-wise regression and discriminant analysis can be used to analyse more complex inferential chains and determine the extent to which each of several independent variables affect a selected benefit measure. For - 79 -example, "a multiple regression analysis of infant mortality, done on individual maternity records could indicate the extent to which age, number of children and pregnancy interval relate to infant mortality rates. From our knowledge of changes caused in these independent variables by family planning one can estimate the effect of a specific family planning program on infant mortality". The above example demonstrates the need to develop and experiment with mathematical models in many program areas. This w i l l be more d i f -f i c u l t in some program areas than in others. One d i f f i c u l t y is in appreciating the complex causal linkages between the variables of human behavior. Another d i f f i c u l t y is in not having even basic data with which to make a beginning. Some program areas, such as those in the physical health f i e l d have considerable data that is maintained on a systematic basis. Other program areas, such as those in the social welfare f i e l d , have precious l i t t l e data, and severely handicap more sophisticated analysis and manipulation of variables. In many cases the c r i t i c a l vari-ables, both dependent and independent are not known let alone measured. If the development and implementation of- PPBS in the social welfare f i e l d is to emerge beyond the theoretical and conceptual stages a major invest-ment w i l l have to be made in the area of basic data collection. A hierarchy of measures similar to those described above should be developed for each program. While there w i l l not always be the same types or number of levels, such a hierarchy should prove useful by providing a range of measures for evaluating different aspects of a program's operation. - 80 -" For programs consisting of projects with similar objectives, evaluation measures for the program can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of individual projects. For example, the evaluation measures for family planning can and should be used at the project level. Their use w i l l be helpful in several ways: (1) i t w i l l help individual project direc-tors compare themselves with other projects and analyse where their strengths and weaknesses l i e ; (2) i t w i l l assist federal and state program managers to determine where significant d i f f i c u l t i e s exist in projects; (3) i t w i l l help program managers to determine what techniques are and are not effective and to demonstrate and promote proven effective methods among other project directors; and (4) i t w i l l provide much more concrete evidence to program managers in reaching and justifying decisions that certain project grants should be suspended or terminated." CSeidman, (May 1970) p. 177) Elizabeth Drew, analysing the experience of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States in attempting to implement PPBS notes that, "the generally.inadequate information upon which to base a pro-gramming planning study is one of the factors that has led to revised estimates of what PPB can accomplish, at least in the short run. Program planners now have a heightened appreciation of the unmeasureable, and of the limitations on their a b i l i t y to establish honest measures of commensurability between pro-grams. In addition, i t was found that precious l i t t l e informa-tion existed as to how many and whom existing programs were reaching and whether they were doing what they were supposed to do. If the purpose of an adult basic education program is to teach people how to read and write, the Office of Education might reasonably be expected to know how many people thereby actually learned how to read and write, but does not." (Drew E.B., 1967, pp. 9-24) In similar fashion, those working on an income maintenance study found that the welfare administration could not t e l l them very much about the public assistance caseload - who was on welfare, where they came from, why they were on i t , and what they needed in order to get off. Concluding, Drew suggests that, "More attention w i l l have to be turned to gathering data which wi l l lead to more te l l i n g evaluations. The process of analysing and comparing selected programs revealed that the information - 81 -available about their effectiveness was shockingly inadequate. Only very rough judgements about their relative effectiveness could be reached. Information on costs per participant was often unavailable and had to be estimated. Data on the characteristics of participants (even in some cases, their age and sex) were inadequate. Information on what happened to the participants during and after the program - gains in educational attainment, employment experience, earnings history and so forth - was extremely limited. Estimates had to be pieced to-gether from a variety of sources. Information about control groups - for example, equivalent members of the work force who did and di not receive vocational education - was virtu a l l y non-existent." (Drew E.B., 1967, p. 185) 5. Personnel and Analytical Capabilities Harry Hatry (1971) suggests that a major reason for the dearth of analysis effort has been the lack of qualified personnel to do the work in state and local governments. This holds equally in Canada. In addition, at least part of the reason why the analytical approach has not made faster headway i s that i t is unfamiliar to many government o f f i c i a l s and they do not see the value of pursuing i t or of obtaining qualified people to perform analytical functions. Thus far, most of the personnel involved in PPBS approaches have been persons transferred from within in-dividual governments or existing organizations. Only in a relatively few cases has any significant use been made of outside personnel such as those from universities or private consulting firms. In most cases "local and state governments have used a get-it-alone approach. Although this ensures that staff are familiar with the internal government, other specialized analytical approaches essential for PPBS have not been suf-f i c i e n t l y available. Qualified analytical staffs, even small ones, gen-erally have not been obtained." (Hatry, 1971, p. 185) On the other side of the coin; highly qualified professional, analysts have displayed d i f f i c u l t i e s of their own which act to prevent good tech-nical work from becoming useful and relevant. These include (a) the - 82 -tendency to "optimize" - to search for the one best answer rather than satisfice when the policy maker needs estimates of many alternatives and trade offs; (b) the failure to consider implementation f e a s i b i l i t y when analysing a broad spectrum of alternatives including possible legal, financial organizational and p o l i t i c a l factors; and (c) the in-a b i l i t y to summarize findings in ways that are concise and understand-able for decision-makers. David Novick (August 1971) analysinggsome of the d i f f i c u l t i e s of implementing PPBS in the United States notes that many organizations have encountered problems developing the required program analysis capa-b i l i t i e s . The search for goals, objectives and meaningful programs has lead some organizations to recognize that analytical capabilities are important to management. To establish objectives requires analysis of what the organization wants to accomplish and developing programs means looking at activities now carried on, creating possible alternatives and then deciding upon a future course of action in program and program ele-ment terms. A l l this requires systematic analysis and the trained staff to carry i t out. Novick suggests that one reason for the failure to develop analytical capabilities i s the lack of demand for good analysis on the part of managers and directors. "Analysis related to the decision managers must make is not sought for a simple reason: they have no occasion to want such assist-ance unless there is a c r i s i s which threatens their control . .. Most chief executives do not want a strong independent group of directors and the majority of chief executives look for a rubber stamp board. That is they do not want to be appraised or be held accountable. In addition, managers strive to maximize their own autonomy, to do their own thing, to ignore past mistakes and have l i t t l e tolerance for uncertainty. They have no obvious reason to want to change the existing system which is the one that - 83 -brought them success. Thus in the absence of a c r i s i s or threat to his leadership, the manager has l i t t l e or no incentive for self examination." (Novick, D. (August 1971) pp. 4 - 5 ) Summing up her experiences in the Department of Health Education and Welfare Drew reaches the conclusion that: "How well PPB has worked, agency by agency has depended more than anything on how.seriously the man at the top has taken i t , how hard he worked to attract good people to do the job, and how much he lent his authority to the adoption of a system of hard analysis." (Drew, E.B., op. cit.) On the whole, there has been a great deal of interest expressed in the PPBS approach and i t s concepts and a great variety of effort has been expended. While progress toward the substantive policy analysis and formulation aspects of PPBS has been disappointing and while there have been and s t i l l are many unresolved conceptual and operational weaknesses, the issue today i s not whether i t has been a success or a failure. The question is whether the analytical values of PPBS can be sufficiently implemented to.be a long run trend toward considerably greater use of the substantive parts of PPBS. This relates primarily to beginning attempts to develop information for decision making, to identify problems, to develop objectives and formulate programs, and to evaluate the results of these programs. In many cases such activities are carried out in isola-tion of one another. The real challenge i s to integrate these activities into an integrated system of planning, programming and budgeting. - 84 -CHAPTER III A Proposed Approach to Operational!zing a PPB System I Introduction While a great deal has been written concerning the conceptual and theoretical principles of PPBS, l i t t l e has been put forward which deals with an approach to operationalizing such a system. This section and the following one w i l l propose a method of opera-tionalizing and implementing a PPBS approach in the social welfare f i e l d . The particular setting of this application w i l l be the United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area as described in Chapter I. In appreciating what w i l l be put forward in this and the following chapter, one should refer to pages 17, 18, 19, and 20 of Chapter I to become familiar with the present system of allocating funds at UCS. It w i l l be noted that UCS attempts to allocate funds to agencies on the basis of funding specific services which are deemed to have priority for i t s support. To do so, agencies must submit service budgets which indicate the items of income and expense associated with each service, the expected number of service units to be delivered and unit cost figures. A sample budget form is found in Appendix III. To assist agencies to identify, budget and account for their services, and budget review and pri o r i t i e s committees to carry out their tasks, specific definitions and units of service have been developed for each service. - 85 -While the service approach to developing pr i o r i t i e s and allocating funds has proven useful to UCS and i t s member agencies in gaining a greater appreciation of the various functions i t was funding and perform-ing, the system is not without some dysfunctions. Experience has also shown that i t is not totally compatible with the demands of a PPB approach. The following operational problems have been identified with the present service approach to allocating funds to agencies. - Some agencies have reported that the present method of accounting and budgeting by fixed categories of service is restrictive and unrealis-t i c in terms of what they are actually doing. - The comparison of services based on fixed service definitions across agencies is sometimes d i f f i c u l t and can result in misleading conclusions. This problem has been encountered by budget review committees and was reported by Wallin {1972) i n his study of Family and Individual Counsel-ling. - Individual agency employees have found i t d i f f i c u l t to record their time correctly among the services they deliver while administrators have found i t d i f f i c u l t to allocate items of income and expense to specific services. It has been suggested that i t would be more appropriate to group services under major programs. - Since agencies are required to describe their activities in terms of the service categories developed by UCS there has been considerable "shoe horning" of activities to f i t the definitions. This has created problems for comparison and analysis and also inhibited the use of service budgets by agency administrators. - 86 -- The time period between priority and funding decisions and actual service delivery has been considered to be too long to have the immedi-ate impact that i s required. II Assumptions In approaching the problem of operationalizing a PPB system that would be capable of implementation at UCS while at the same time attempt-ing to overcome some of the problems with the present method of budgeting and allocating funds, the following assumptions have been made. - UCS wishes to maximize on a priority basis the effective allocation of i t s limited resources to areas of greatest need in the community with-out duplicating the activities of other service systems. - UCS seeks to be accountable to the public and to perform a responsible stewardship role in allocating voluntary dollars. - UCS wishes to encourage innovation in meeting community problems and to foster effective service delivery. It is also assumed that: - the Financially Participating Agencies of UCS wish to remain autono-mous and control their own destinies. - the Financially Participating Agencies of UCS have a high degree of s k i l l , expertise and experience in identifying problems, needs and concerns in the community and are able to develop viable programs to respond appropriately to them. - While the Financially Participating Agencies of UCS agree with the general principles and roles required in 1, 2, and 3, their primary concern is continuity and stability in a.complex and changing environment. - 87 -From the foregoing i t is apparent that any practical development of a system of fund allocation must provide for maximum autonomy, p a r t i c i -pation and innovation on the part of participating agencies on the one hand and maximum information for decision-making and influence by UCS regarding service delivery on the other. III Constraints of the Proposal A number of constraints have been accepted in putting forward this proposal. These include the following: 1. Preserve the basic chart of accounts of the UCS functional account-ing system. 2. Suggest a proposal that w i l l be acceptable to UCS, i t s financially participating agencies and other funding bodies such as the City of Van-couver and the Province of British Columbia. 3. Preserve agency autonomy, participation and s t a b i l i t y . 4. Develop a proposal that provides for f l e x i b i l i t y , innovation and rapid response to community needs. :5. Design a system of fund allocation that f a l l s within the general context of a general PPBS model such as that presented on pages 8, 9, and 10 of Chapter I. 6. The United Way campaign must take place in the f a l l of each year. IV Proposed System - Program Budgeting The basic reason for suggesting an alternative budgeting and fund allocation system is that several d i f f i c u l t i e s have been identified with the present method. These d i f f i c u l t i e s have been discussed in some detail - 88 -earlier. Two of the more serious problems are that: 1. The timeperiod between the generation of pr i o r i t i e s and funding decisions and their actual implementation is too long and does not per-mit rapid and flexible responses to new community problems and needs as they emerge. 2 . The present system of functional accounting and budgeting which is based upon fixed categories of services i s f e l t to be restricting by the agencies and therefore they sometimes do not provide UCS with data for valid comparison and analysis across agencies providing the same services. In addition the present allocation process is an involved and detailed one as shown in Figure 8. A c r i t i c a l examination of the present system of fund allocation of UCS has resulted i n three general patterns of alternatives. The f i r s t alternative set called for no controls or expectations whatsoever to be imposed by UCS upon i t s member agencies with respect to their service delivery or the manner in which they choose to spend their funds. The second alternative suggested complete control by UCS over the management, administration and service delivery activities of agencies receiving voluntary dollars. The third alternative attempts to derive the benefits and minimize the drawbacks of the f i r s t two alternatives and suggests a system of budgeting which provides for maximum autonomy, participation and innovation on the part of the agencies on the one hand and maximum information for decision-making and influence by UCS regarding the over-a l l pattern of service delivery on the other. The f i r s t two alternatives clearly violate the assumptions and constraints set out earlier while the I n t e r f u n c t i o n a l C h a r t P r e s e n t UCS Budget A l l o c a t i o n P r o c e s s F i g u r e 8 Date Agency Techn i caI D e c i s i o n U.C.S. T e c h n i c a l D e c i s i o n Jan.73 Dec. 73 Feb.74 Mar. 74 Apr/May 74 Aug.74 Dec.74 Dec.74 1) A g e n c i e s r e c o r d s p e n d i n g by s e r v i c e s f o r 1973 a c t i v i t i e s 2) M a i n t a i n S t a t i s t i c s 3) Review Trends 4) Respond t o Community needs AI l o c a t e 1973 do I l a r s t o a g e n c i e s f o r s e r v i c e s 1974 Approved Budget Determine 1975 S e r v i c e P r i o r i t i es 1975 Budget P r e p a r e d • A g e n c i e s d e c i d e on program f o r 1975 and pr e p a r e Budgets AI l o c a t e 1974 do I l a r s t o a g e n c i e s f o r S e r v i c e s E s t i m a t e 1974 Campaign Take | T r a n s l a t e Expected $ Take t o s e r v i c e s ( T e n t a t i v e ) -j 1975 Budgets R e c e i v e d . | T r a n s l a t e agency budgets t o s e r v i c e p r i o r i t i e s itie P r e p a r e gui d e l i h s f o r review Committees-Re-A g e n c i e s A g e n c i e s P r e s e n t 1975 Budgets t o Review Committees D i s t r i b . agency budgets among S e r v i c e s f o r each agency  P r e l i m i n a r y Not i f i c a t i o n of 1975 A i l o c a t i o n P r e l i m i n a r y N o t i f i c a t i o n o f 1975 Budget a l l o c a t i o n .Goal Reached-Fi naI not i f i c a t i o n of 1975 S e r v i c e B u d g e t s " Adjustments Made i n Budgets  1 Budget Reviews & T e n t a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n s f o r t o t a l a g e n c i e s 1974 Campaign Goal S et Campaign R e s u l t Goal Not Reached Approve a d j u s t m e n t s H n Agency Budgets - 90 -third appears to offer considerable potential for application and is the one that is proposed. Several years of detailed work and consultation with various agencies together with other developments in the social welfare f i e l d has led to the belief that an effective PPBS approach to fund allocation requires two distinct levels of funding. Program Funding should be the major means of financing agencies while Emergency Need and Demonstration  Funding should be used to finance problems and needs that arise outside the normal planning, programming, budgeting cycle. 1 Program Funding The f i r s t level of funding suggested relates to the financing of specific programs that are proposed by member Financially Participating Agencies. It is porposed that agency budgets should be presented in a program format which encompasses the basic activities of services that are essential components of each distinct program area. Programs that are presented for funding should be developed and defined in a fashion that capitalizes on the unique expertise, experi-ence and s k i l l s of each agency and should be addressed to meeting one or more specific problems or needs deemed to have priority in the community. It i s f e l t that implementation of a "program" format w i l l allow a great deal of f l e x i b i l i t y in that i t w i l l permit agencies to develop and define the program strategies that they feel represent effective ways of u t i l i z i n g their particular s k i l l s and experience. Such an approach w i l l also result in the minimum imposition of controls placed upon agency activities by UCS. - 91 -While the programs developed by individual agencies w i l l , by their very nature, be unique and provide l i t t l e basis for clear comparison in terms of dynamics and activities (since services are mixed and matched in unique combinations) the common point of comparison w i l l be the par-ticular problem to which the programs are directed. Indeed, one would hope for and encourage, different program approaches to similar problems. Such diversity w i l l make i t possible to compare and assess the differen-t i a l effectiveness of alternative program approaches to similar problems. Such a state of affairs w i l l enable both the agencies and UCS to become more discriminating in developing and funding program proposals. H.A. Wallin•(1972) in his study of Family and Individual Counselling made a recommendation which was very similar to the above proposal when he suggested that UCS fund programs rather than services and that decisions as to which programs to fund should be based upon adequately conceptualized proposals which request support for new or continuing social service programs. Walling pointed out that: "The major working committees of UCS ... find i t increasingly d i f f i c u l t to make very informed decisions because details concerning the content of programs or services being funded are frequently lacking or vague. Data concerning the effective-ness of those programs and services are vir t u a l l y non-existent. Committees have had to rely upon a system-wide service classification scheme to get some notion about the precise content of the services and programs each agency i s offering and upon statements of belief to get some sense of the effectiveness of those offerings." (Wallin, 1972, op. cit.) In addition to the above, i t was suggested that the current reliance upon fixed service definitions is dysfunctional since what is designated as a service by one agency i s significantly different from that designated by another even though the same service heading or definition is used by - 92 -both. In addition, many of the present service definitions are more closely related to program components than they are to mutually ex-clusive service a c t i v i t i e s . Given the above discussion i t i s suggested that a program budgeting  format that is based upon the current functional accounting service definitions be adopted. Each year a Priorities Report containing a detailed analysis of each problem of concern should be prepared by UCS and widely distributed to community and client organizations as well as to member agencies for use in formulating their program proposals. It is suggested that attempts should be made to complete the Priorities Report by May 1 s t of each year and that agency program proposals should be submitted to UCS by October 1 s t . (See Timing of the Allocation Process). The program proposals developed should follow the standardized format (Appendix II) and should identify the following. -The problem or need to which the program i s addressed (following a set typology) - A brief analysis of the problem as seen by the agency - The target population and i t s geographic location - The objectives of the program - Basic program dynamics, methods and techniques - Special requirements - staff, equipment etc. - Previous research and/or experience to support the proposed method - Proposed method of evaluation and maintenance of statis t i c s •Detailed budgets for proposed programs should follow the basic chart of accounts of UCS and should be consistent with the format set out in Appendix III. - 93 -Funding commitments for acceptable program proposals could be given for up to three years with a review-of progress taking place at the end of each year. This would ensure some agency st a b i l i t y and a sense of security should programs be operating as expected. a) Program Budgets It i s suggested that each program proposal should focus upon one or more problems and be centred around one basic service as currently defined. The inclusion of other services in the program should be seen as ancillary to and supportive of the basic service of the program. The basis of program identification should be the present service defi-nitions. An agency would, therefore have the choice of identifying a basic service (such as Day Care) or a program based on a core service but containing elements of other services which would be identified but not individually costed. Many of the present service definitions are more closely related to program components than they are to mutually exclusive service a c t i v i t i e s . The agency would also identify the problem(s) to which the service or program i s intended to respond. The rational for this proposal i s that many agencies feel that attempting to identify discrete services does not accord with actual practice as they provide a combination of services (referred to as a program) to respond to the clients' needs. An example is Day Care. The day care service is by definition concerned with taking care of a child for the major portion of the day while the parent or parents are at work or are unable otherwise to discharge their usual daytime responsibili-ties. In practice, however, i t i s f e l t by many that this is purely a - 94 -custodial service and not an adequate response to the family's or child's needs and that components of other services such as counsel-ling, development, adjustment, and enrichment are essential i n provi-ding a day care program. Clearly certain services, (e.g. family and individual counselling), may form an ancillary component of a number of programs, and may also appear as separate services where appropriate. Each agency should therefore group services into programs, so as to accord with their operational practice. Each program should then be identified by the number of the core service (i.e. the main service around which the program is designed) and prefix the number with the letter "P" to distinguish i t from a single service. Thus, a day care program would be labelled "P/20" and the numbers of the ancillary services would be l i s t e d . A simple day care service would simply be identified by the number 20. Forms B7A and B7B are the budget forms that are suggested for use in developing a program budgeting approach at UCS. In the space on Form B7A, above that provided for identifying the service or program,the numbers of the ancillary services making up the program should be in-serted (Appendix III). In this case the f i r s t program P/20 is a day care program which is enriched by the ancillary services 18 - Family and Individual Counselling, 54 - Nursery School Services, 25 - Group Work Services, Social Adjustment and 29 - Groupwork Services, Social Develop-ment. Above this, several spaces have been provided to identify the problem or problems to which the program i s directed. A synopsis of community needs and problems has been developed and given unique code numbers (in Appendix V). Each problem has also been - 95 -defined in a separate document. The coding w i l l enable the agencies to indicate the problem or need to which each program or service i s designed to respond. Where a program responds to more than one problem agencies should indicate the relative proportions of problems to be dealt with as shown in the example (Appendix III) . Here the day care program P/20 responds in 75% of the cases to 410 - Delegated Parental Responsibility (Day) and 420 - Personal Development (Pre-School Children); in 15% of the cases to 580 - Developmental Lag (Social) and in 10% of the cases to 230 - Family and Individual Social Malfunction. The budget forms and the way they should be set up for this example are presented in Appendix III. The units for each program should be those suggested for each core service. Appendix IV sets out the units applicable to each service. b) Ongoing Programs vs New Programs Agencies will be given the option of submitting - completely new proposals to meet new problems and needs or those that have existed for some time; or - programs that have been in operation for one or more years. If ongoing programs are presented, evaluation reports produced by the sponsoring agency should be submitted together with a program descrip-tion to the appropriate Program Review Committee to justify i t s continued funding. c) Program and Service Statistics In addition to the basic "units of service" delivered, standard statistics should be developed for each problem or need in the synopsis - 96 -and be maintained on an ongoing basis. In addition, i t i s suggested that, where appropriate, agencies submitting budgets to UCS should adopt the Common Caseload Reporting System that i s being developed, tested and refined by a special committee of the PPBS Project. This reporting system w i l l be discussed later in Chapter IV. Two essential statistics that should be maintained in order to satisfy the needs of the allocation process are: 1) The amount of program resources expended on each problem for a specified period of time (budget year). 2) The average quantity of resources used to solve or deal with each problem. It i s also suggested that some form of Statistical Audit, similar to a financial audit should be implemented to establish the r e l i a b i l i t y of s t a t i s t i c a l data presented. 2 Emergency Need and Demonstration Funding Since emergency needs and community problems do not emerge according to fixed budget schedules, i t is proposed that UCS adopt an on-going funding procedure which w i l l provide the freedom and encouragement to member agencies to develop and demonstrate new programs to meet new needs as they arise in the community. This proposal w i l l avert the current problem of not being able to respond to new situations after the normal budgeting process has been completed. Presently i t is contended that the time period between priority and funding decisions, and actual service delivery, i s too long to have the immediate impact that i s required. Program proposals developed to meet new needs or demonstrate new - 97 -approaches to existing problems should be developed as suggested under the Program Funding section and should identify the need, target popu-lation, objectives, program dynamics, method of evaluation and main-tenance of s t a t i s t i c a l data. The maximum term of Emergency or Demonstration programs should permit adequate demonstration before the program i s placed in the cate-gory of a "program" under the annual Program Review. At the annual Program Reviews, agencies should have the option of presenting their new programs along with their other program proposals, or dropping them because of unsatisfactory results or a decrease in the need situation to which they are directed. Emergency Need and Demonstration funds should be administered by a special committee composed of the chairman of the Program Review Com-mittee, the chairman of the Management Review Committee, and two members of the Priorities Committee. The proposed Emergency Need and Demonstration Fund should be re-stricted to UCS Financially Participating Agencies. In order to provide for the pos s i b i l i t y of funding projects presented by non-member organi-zations, the present Demonstration and Development Fund should be retained but possibly at a reduced level. V Setting Program Objectives The setting of specific program objectives has been a much neglected area in most PPBS schemes and frequently program objectives are not form-ulated even with the expenditure of large sums of money. Indeed, i t has been the problem of setting objectives that has proven to be one of the major stumbling blocks in implementing a PPB approach. - 98 -Well formulated objectives are of c r i t i c a l importance in providing a referent with which to evaluate the output of a program, and to deter-mine whether the program or service has had the expected impact upon the problem or situation i t was designed to meet. In many cases a single objective for a program cannot, and should not, be specified and i t i s more appropriate to specify multiple objectives. Two major d i f f i c u l t i e s can be identified when setting program objectives. 1. Frequently they are stated in terms so broad and vague that i t is impossible to determine how well the program is doing in achieving them. 2. Objectives are often stated in input rather than in output terms because i t i s frequently d i f f i c u l t to specify and measure the outputs of the program. W.S. Reddin's (1973) publication "Effective Management by Objectives - The 3-D Method of MBO" is particularly helpful in gaining an apprecia-tion of how to set out objectives for major program areas. Reddin approaches MBO from the concept of "managerial effectiveness", which he defines as "the extent to which a manager achieves the output requirements of his position". This can apply equally as well to a supervisor, direct service worker or a total program. Great emphasis is placed upon four basic concepts which Reddin feels must be understood in order to set sound objectives. These four concepts are as follows: - 99 -I Effectiveness - The extent to which a person achieves the output requirement of his position. II Effectiveness Areas - The general output requirements of a position. III Effectiveness Standards - The specific output requirements and measurement c r i t e r i a of a position. IV Objectives - Effectiveness standards which are as specific, as time bounded, and as measurable as possible. While the idea of objectives i s central to MBO, the other three concepts represent the basic foundation upon which objectives are set. The following represents an adaptation of Reddin's concepts. The concept of Effectiveness Areas i s based upon the view that a l l programs are best seen in terms of the outputs that are associated with them. For example, the effectiveness areas of a sales manager could in-clude 1) Sales Policies, 2) Sales Levels, 3) Sales Costs-and 4) Line P r o f i t a b i l i t y . Similarly the effectiveness areas of a multi-service social agency could include 1) Neglected children, 2) Young offenders, 3) Single parent families and 4) Unemployed employables. Every necessary program has effectiveness areas associated with i t and these general areas define the true function of the program in the organization. The process of identifying effectiveness areas can be assisted by probing the following questions with respect to each program in the organization. 1) What i s the program's unique contribution? 2) Why i s the program needed at all ? 3) What would change i f the program were eliminated? 4) Where does asking "why?" lead? 5) What would change i f the program were highly effective? - 100 -Three simple rules are suggested when specifying effectiveness areas: 1) Use from one to four words 2) Avoid directional indicators such as "increase", "decrease", "maximize". 3) Avoid quantities and timing When formulated each effectiveness area should 1) Represent output not input 2) Lead to associated objectives which are measureable 3) Be an important part of a program 4) Be within the actual limits of authority and responsibility The most typical error i s identifying input areas rather than output areas. Inputs are what a program does or is to do, rather than what i s achieved or to be achieved. For example, Family Counselling i s an input area, whereas Family Stability is an output area. Effectiveness Standards are subdivisions of effectiveness areas which incorporate measurement c r i t e r i a either explicitly or implicitly. For example, effectiveness standards for the effectiveness are Young Offenders might include the following: 1) Recidivist Rate, 2) Social Adjustment, 3) School Performance. Objectives are essentially effectiveness standards that have numerical values and time limits attached to them. After effectiveness areas and standards for a program are established they are conferted into objectives which are as specific, time bounded, and as measureable as possible. They are highly specific statements about what istobe accom-plished, and when, for each particular standard. A single effectiveness - 101 -standard usually produces a single objective. Objectives are only attainable i f they can be measured and i f they are not measurable i t is impossible to determine whether they have been achieved. To summarize, a good objective should be measurable and specific, rather than general so that what i s being measured i s unambiguous. It should focus on results or outputs rather than activities or inputs and i t should be time bounded with clear limits for completion. In addition, i t should be seen as being r e a l i s t i c and attainable. The concepts of effectiveness areas, effectiveness standards, and objectives can be related in the following chart which depicts a social agency with one basic programswhich deals with young offenders. Effectiveness Area Effectiveness Standard Objective Recidivist Rate Decrease recidivist rate by 60% for cases dealt with during 1973 Young Offenders Personal Adjustment Improve Personal Adjustment as object-ively measured by the Glueck scale in 75% of the cases dealt with in 1973 School Performance Improve the grades of 50% of cases dealt with by 20% in 1973 It w i l l be noted that the objectives of the above program are very specific and couched in output terms which lend themselves to specific measurement and evaluation. It w i l l be noted that a program can have a - 102 -number of effectiveness standards or areas of measurement, each of which has an objective associated with i t . This should assist in taking into account the multi-dimensional aspects of many programs. It is suggested that agencies set clear, specific and measurable objectives as a c r i t i c a l component of the program proposals that they put forward for funding. This w i l l assist them in monitoring and evalu-ating the effectiveness of programs on an ongoing basis and i t w i l l assist Program and Review Committees to make more reasoned decisions as to which programs should be supported. - 103 -CHAPTER IV Suggested Approach to Implementation Given the content of Chapter III which proposed a method of operation-alizing a PPBS approach within United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area (UCS), this chapter w i l l suggest a method of implementing the proposal. It w i l l focus upon the committee structures and decision-making procedures that are f e l t to be necessary for effective implemen-tation. I Committee Operations Figure 9 presents the suggested relationships between the various committees that are f e l t to be necessary to f u l l y implement the proposal. The following w i l l outline the suggested mode of operation and tasks the committees should follow i n allocating funds to member agencies, a) Priorities Committee Given the proposal (Chapter III) that UCS adopt a program budgeting format, i t i s suggested that the Priorities Committee of UCS change i t s focus from a service orientation to one that i s based upon problems and needs. Under this orientation, the Priorities Committee would focus i t s attention upon community problems and needs of concern to UCS rather than upon services. The current procedure of indicating which services should receive increases, decreases and n i l funding from UCS provides limited direction both to agencies and review committees. The questions that immediately arise are as follows: - 104 -Committee Relationships for Financing UCS Financially Participating Agencies Figure 9 Priorities Committee Priorities based on Problems £ Needs Emergency Need and Demonstration Fund Committee Allocations Committee Distribute $ to Priority Problems § Needs Management Review Committee Program Review Committees Assess Program proposals and tentatively^ allocate funds to programs Agency Review Committees make fin a l recommended overall allocations to agencies \ t \ \ I Emergency § Demonstration Program Budgets Agency Program Budgets - 105 -- "What does a special increase, or decrease mean?" "Relative to what and how much?" - "Where should a service be increased or decreased?" - "To what target groups with what problems in what areas of the community?" - "Are the services which agencies are delivering homogeneous one with the other for any given service category?" The Wallin Report and general experience suggests that they are not. (i.e. Family and Individual Counselling) These and other factors result i n less than optimal guidelines for both agencies and UCS. In order to overcome these d i f f i c u l t i e s i t is proposed that a stan-dardized typology or synopsis of problems and needs be developed and modified with experience and use. An i n i t i a l Synopsis of Problems and Needs which might be considered as a starting point has been developed but must be f i e l d tested, refined and modified as required. This is found in Appendix V. It is suggested that the Priorities Committee should examine each problem or need in the synopsis with regard to a) i t s incidence in the community, b) i t s rami-fications, c) i t s geographic location, and d) i t s importance for UCS and the voluntary sector. The report of the Priorities Committee should contain a complete analysis of each problem of concern to UCS and should be widely di s t r i b -uted to agencies, UCS Committees and other community groups as a guide for generating and evaluating program proposals. The Priorities Committee should be broadly representative of community, client, agency and government constituencies and should meet on an ongoing basis. - 106 -Objectives - To identify and document community problems and needs - To guide the allocation of UCS funds to the various proglems and need areas of concern to UCS. Functions - Analyse and document community problems and needs specifying their incidence, ramifications, geographic location, character-i s t i c s of persons affected, and relevance for UCS and voluntary sector - Develop a yearly report for distribution to UCS agencies, client and community groups, and government bodies. b) Allocations Committee It i s proposed that an Allocations Committee, composed of the Table Officers of the Agency Operations Committee of UCS (TOFF), should use the report of the Priorities Committee as a guide in allocating sums of money to problems deemed to be of concern to UCS. This allocation pro-cess would set the upper limit of funds available for programs proposing to deal with each specific problem of concern to UCS. Objectives To develop and implement an approach to allocating funds to major problem areas of concern to UCS that takes into account the findings of the Priorities Committee, assessments of the effectiveness of various program approaches in dealing with various problems, and the appropriate pattern of government and voluntary financing. Functions - Review and analyse the data and recommendations prepared by the Priorities Committee. - 107 -- Receive and analyse p r e s e n t a t i o n s from agencies, community s e l f -help and c l i e n t groups. - Review data r e l a t i n g to the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a l t e r -n a t i v e program approaches i n d e a l i n g w i t h problems of concern to UCS. - Develop and adopt a general approach to a l l o c a t i n g sums of money to major problem areas which r e f l e c t the above inputs as w e l l as the appropriate p a t t e r n of government and v o l u n t a r y f i n a n c i n g . - Recommend annual a l l o c a t i o n s to major problems; t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the recommendations of the P r i o r i t i e s Committee, pr e s e n t a t i o n s from agencies, community, s e l f - h e l p and c l i e n t groups, assessments of the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f various approaches to meeting s p e c i f i c problems, and the p a t t e r n o f government and vo l u n t a r y f i n a n c i n g . c) Program Review Committees In order to implement a program format to budgeting at UCS, i t i s suggested that Program Review Committees be e s t a b l i s h e d around each major problem or need area r a t h e r than around agency groupings. At the present time, review committees are based upon groupings o f agencies. This pro-vides a l i m i t e d b a s i s upon which to examine the t o t a l set of agency a c t i v -i t i e s or programs d i r e c t e d toward a given community need or problem. I t i s suggested that at l e a s t 9 Program Review Committees be estab-l i s h e d , each one o f which would s p e c i a l i z e i n program proposals focussed at meeting the general problem area which they are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r . The general areas of need around which each Program Review Committee should be e s t a b l i s h e d are set out i n Appendix V which i d e n t i f i e s a - 108 -suggested synopsis or classification of problems and needs. Some of the general problem areas are quite large and may require more than one committee to handle the volume of proposals generated while others might be combined under one committee. Objectives - To analyse, evaluate and select for support, program proposals that are focussed on community problems and needs deemed to have priority for UCS funding. Functions - Review program proposals submitted and in particular: - Evaluate the a b i l i t y of agencies to carry out the proposals they submit (assisted by the report of the Management Review Committee). - Tentatively allocate i t s available funds (as determined by the Allocations Committee) to program proposals that meet basic c r i t e r i a and have some potential for dealing with specific problems in specific areas of the community. - Recommend for each program proposal, a guideline allocation which would influence the decisions of Agency Review Committees. - Establish in consultation with agencies, recipients and others, qualitative and quantitative measures for each problem. - Review by problem areas the effectiveness of the programs of various agencies. It is expected in a short period of time that the members of the Program Review Committees wi l l develop expert knowledge in assessing and evaluating the potential of program proposals. - 109-d) Agency Review Committees In order to maintain continuity and coordination, i t i s proposed that Agency Review Committees be established to examine and evaluate total agency budgets and make fina l allocations to each agency as is the current practice. They should have the recommendations of the Program Review Com-mittee as basic information and the report of the Management Review Com-mittee. Each agency wi l l be required to appear before only one Committee which can deal with i t s overall operation. Obj ectives - To review and evaluate total agency budget submissions and recommend a total allocation to each agency. Functions - Review and evaluate total agency budget submissions in the light of the reports and recommendations of the Pri o r i t i e s , Allocations, Program Review and Management Review Committees, and formal presentations by agency representatives. - Make an overall allocation to each agency, based on individual allocations to programs presented in the budget. e) Management Review Committee To ensure that standards of management and administration are main-tained at an acceptable level in UCS Financially Participating Agencies i t is proposed that a Management Review Committee be established. The com-mittee should be composed of volunteers with special interest and/or expertise in agency management and administrative practices. The committee should assess and report upon the standards of manage-ment and administrative practice in each financially participating agency - 110 -of UCS at l e a s t once every 3 years. The r e p o r t s of the Management Review Committee should be used by the Agency Review and Program Review Committees and the Emergency Need and Demonstration Fund Committee as a source of in f o r m a t i o n to a s s i s t i n judging the a b i l i t y of agencies to c a r r y out the program proposals that they put forward. A guide f o r assessing the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and managerial c a p a b i l i t i e s of s o c i a l s e r v i c e agencies i s found i n Appendix V I . Should an agency f a i l to meet acceptable standards i t should be given a s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d of time, and the needed a s s i s t a n c e to s a t i s f y requirements. Ob j ectiv.es - To develop c r i t e r i a f o r assessing agency management and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . - To encourage and a s s i s t agencies i n management and or g a n i -z a t i o n a l improvement and to review t h e i r progress. Functions - Conduct programs to encourage and a s s i s t agencies i n the improvement of t h e i r management and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r a c t i c e s and performance. - Obtain the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n to provide a b a s i s f o r r e -viewing and e v a l u a t i n g agencies on t h e i r management p r a c t i c e s and performance. - Develop mechanisms and processes by which agencies may be reviewed on t h e i r management p r a c t i c e s and performance. A suggested schedule adapted from s e v e r a l sources w i l l be found i n Appendix V I . - I l l -- Prepare recommendations and a brief report on the overall management effectiveness of each agency that w i l l influence the allocation of funds for specific program proposals. The need for periodic administrative review of agencies has also been put forward by H.A. Wallin: " In the interest of accountability to the community from which the voluntary dollars come, UCS and i t s member agencies should continue their efforts to upgrade the quality of the network in which they together are the primary constituents. Agencies need to have a clear notion as to what i s currently held to be 'an adequate structure and functioning'. It is important therefore to re-examine the minimum basic c r i t e r i a upon which membership in the network is f i r s t granted and later maintained. So that the community can be assured that i t s voluntary dollars are being distributed only to adequately functioning agencies, some attention should be given at an early date to assessing the adequacy of existing machinery for undertaking periodic reviews of the structure and functioning of each of the member agencies." (Wallin, op. c i t . pp. 67 - 68) f) Emergency Need and Demonstration Fund Committee To ensure reasonable spreading of the onerous tasks and consistency of funding, a separate Emergency Need and Demonstration Fund Committee should be established. It should meet on a regular basis throughout the year, or as neces-sary, to deal speedily with project submissions. Its approach and opera-tions should be flexible and i t s membership should represent a l l levels of the program budgeting process: the Priorities Committee, the Program Review Committees, the Allocation Committee and the Management Review Committee. The reports of these committees should provide a valuable resource i n evaluating proposals. - 112 -II Timing of the Program Budgeting Process The timing of the present process in determining pr i o r i t i e s and allocating funds to agencies has been frequently c r i t i c i z e d on the grounds that there is a long period of time between the formulation of prio r i t i e s and the funding of services, and actual implementation in the community. The following changes in scheduling are suggested. a) Campaign Goal Setting One of the reasons for the current timing of the budgeting process (budget in April/May '73 for application Jan-Dec. 74) i s to establish a needs figure to be used in determining the campaign goal for October each year (e.g. 1973). Figure 10 shows that the needs figure arrived at and the campaign goal actually established bear l i t t l e relationship to each other. More important, however, is the fact that the amount of funds actually raised bears no-relationship to either the needs goal or the actual target set. It i s therefore suggested that the campaign goal be set on a different  and more r e a l i s t i c basis. It i s suggested that the campaign goal could be set more r e a l i s t i c a l l y on the basis of economic forecasts and internal divisional quota or objec-tive setting. This would obviate the need to establish a needs figure in May to influence the October campaign goal. b) Program and Agency Reviews If the above proposal is accepted, i t would not be necessary to hold budget reviews in April and May 1974 to influence funding for 1975. It is suggested that Program Reviews should take place in October each F i re 10 4, 700 ee nec I N ee< is 4, 60 0 4, 50 0 4, 40 0 r. 1 Est ab L i : »he d ( 1 ,—J / 4, 30 ) Jt / / / • / f 4, 20 ) /' V V / / f • / 4, 10 ) • • \ k / y un t—I :-a-i se< J X 1 N. ,. - — 4, 00 D \ 1 > / "\ -« 3, 90 D / y +— 1 3, 80( 3 3, 70( 3 s — A.n il-) s i S-C Cai ipc i g . Fl-I :es Hi- :s 3, 60( 3 </ r 3, 50( 3 V / 7 3, 40( 3 S 4 u /— • r 3, 30( — r— / / i _ 6 7 69 . 7_ 0 71 I Z2 - I l l -year, that total Agency Reviews take place during the month of November and that agencies be informed of their program budgets on December 1 for application on January 1 the following month. Figure 11 outlines the proposed sequence of the Program and Agency Reviews. c) Priorities Report The Priorities Report should be completed in May each year and be circulated as a guide to agencies and other UCS committees. It should be used by the Allocations Committee in October when i t makes allocations to problem areas, and by the Program Review Committees in October when they review agency program proposals. Implementation of the Priorities Report w i l l become functional on January 1st the following year. This wi l l result in a six month time lag between pri o r i t i e s formulation and actual implementation. d) Emergency Needs and Demonstration Funding Program proposals designed to meet emergency needs or demonstrate new program approaches should be dealt with on an ongoing basis as is the current procedure of the UCS Demonstration and Development Committee. This w i l l allow f l e x i b i l i t y and rapid response to need situations arising between the formulation of pr i o r i t i e s and the program budgeting processes. e) Management Reviews It i s suggested that management reviews of agencies should take place on a continuous cycle with each agency being reviewed once every three years. The orientation of the Management Review Committee should be one of encouraging the development and maintenance of sound management and administrative capabilities within agencies. Agencies with resources and/ or capabilities not being f u l l y u t i l i z e d should be encouraged to generate Figure 11 In t e r f u n c t i o n a l Chart Proposed UCS Program Budget A l l o c a t i o n Process Agencies Jan/75 May/75 Sept/75 Oct/75 Nov/75 Dec/75 Technical Agencies record spending of 1975 budgets for pro-grams 6 record s t a t i s t i c s ] Decision Agencies present Program Budgets f o r 1976 1976 Program Budgets Confirmed UCS Technical Analysis § Synthesis of data re Problems § Needs Agency Program Budgets Received by UCS Program proposals sorted and screened Decision 1975 Program Budgets Approved Dec/74 i P r i o r i t i e s Ctee. Pre-pare 1976 P r i o r i t i e s Report May 76 - pro-v i d i n g analysis of Problems S Needs A l l o c a t i o n Committee al l o c a t e s funds to Problem § Need areas r e , P r i o r i t i e s Report Program Review Ctees. Assess Program Pro-posals 6 make recommendations I Agency Review Ctees. a l l o c a t e funds to agencies re recommen-dation of Prog. Rev. Ctees. - 116 -new proposals for emergency need and demonstration funding. To summarize the suggested timing of program budgeting process i t is proposed that a new schedule should be considered. Its main features would be: 1. The Priorities Committee Report would be available by May 1. 2. Agencies would submit program budgets by October ; 1. 3. The Program Review Committees would consider program proposals during the month of October. 4. Agency reviews would take place in November. 5. Agencies would be notified of their allocations in December. 6. The Management Review Committee would operate continuously. 7. Emergency Needs and Demonstration Committee would meet when necessary. It w i l l be noted that the determination of agency needs in a spring budget process enabling a budget needs figure to enter into campaign goal-setting w i l l no longer occur. This fact must be carefully considered by any United Fund contemplating the adoption of this rescheduling. The merit of the proposed schedule i s that the time between the formulation of pr i o r i t i e s , the funding of programs, and their actual delivery is reduced to a minimum. I l l The Distribution of Funds Between Funding Levels Once the campaign target has been set, the following procedure is suggested to distribute provisionally the available monies between the two levels of funding: 1. $200,000 or some other agreed amount is reserved for Emergency Needs and Demonstration Projects. - 117 -2. The balance i s the amount available for program budgeting. 3. This balance i s distributed by the Allocations Committee to the various problem fi e l d s . Should the campaign f a i l to meet i t s target, the amount reserved for the Emergency Need and Demonstration Fund may be reduced so that the original allocation for program funding can be preserved. - 118 -CHAPTER V Information for Decision-Making: Sources and Potential Uses The essence of the PPBS approach has been described as the relation-ship of various levels of decision-making and the provision of appropriate information at each level. To satisfy the process described, a basic data system should provide the information to: 1. Identify actual and potential social problems and needs in the community; 2. Evaluate and assist in the identification and articulation of problems and needs by client and community groups, as well as agencies; 3. Identify and rank community pr i o r i t i e s on a geographically specific basis; 4. Formulate major policy and broad courses of action; 5. Define broad system objectives and evaluate the degree to which these objectives are achieved over time; 6. Select appropriate services and program strategies to achieve defined objectives; 7. Facilitate internal agency control and planning as well as case management; and f i n a l l y • « . 8. Provide the data necessary for the detailed research and evaluation required to determine the program dynamics and techniques, most appropriate i n meeting the problems addressed by the total system and i t s component agencies. Many of these requirements can be satisfied by developing the following major sources of information: - 119 -I Standard- Caseload Reporting The development of a common (standard) case reporting system i s a v i t a l component of the Vancouver PPBS Project and has obvious advan-tages for both agency and broader systems planning in implementing a PPBS approach. The rationale for developing a common caseload reporting system i s : - A profile is needed of the various cases and problems handled by the total system of agencies in the Vancouver area. This becomes possible when agencies report i n a common format using standard categories. Without standardization there is l i t t l e basis for comparison, analysis or synthesis. - Identification and evaluation of alternative intervention techniques applied to various problems i s necessary for effective planning and fund allocation. - Planning, in some instances, requires the development of client profiles in order to identify patterns of need, program require-ments and requirements to be met. For many agencies, the required system should serve as a basic plan-ning and management tool at three functional levels: - At the total social service systems level, i t should permit the identification of basic client characteristics, problems dealt with, and intervention techniques employed on a broad basis. At this level individual client identification i s not desired and appropriate safeguards should be developed to ensure that the confidentiality of individual clients and reporting agencies is respected. - 120 -- At the individual agency level, i t should help identify problems presented, case characteristics, intervention techniques employed and their success in.achieving the organizations' objectives and the need of i t s clients. - At the worker level, the system should provide an up-to-date l i s t i n g of cases together with significant case movement, goals and c r i t i c a l review points. Ideally, the system should identify and maintain: - Salient client characteristics, backgrounds and geographic location compatible with the basic demographic data provided through Statistics Canada. - Presenting problems and needs and, for some, a diagnosis and a prognosis for each case. - Case goals and treatment plans, services provided and review dates. - Case movement as evaluated by the worker, supervisor and client. More knowledge of the causal factors of social problems such as family and individual breakdown, and of the dynamic variables associated with program to ameliorate these problems w i l l improve decision-making and service delivery. At the present time, we have limited information upon which to base decisions, to build practice theory, or to evaluate results. Much fundamental "action" and "practice" research i s required and i s only possible i f data become available. Such data can largely be provided from a basic reporting system. In an attempt to develop a common caseload reporting system that would have the potential to meet the above expectations a special Task Force of the Vancouver PPBS project was formed to work on the development - 121 -of an appropriate system. The members of the task force were as follows: Ward Moir - Family Service Centres Ruth Chisholm - Children's Aid Society Ken Levitt - Jewish Family Services Virginia Langdon - Y.W.C.A. Art Rippon - Dept. of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement Cy Toren - West Vancouver Social Service Dept. Roger Patillo - Staff, Vancouver PPBS Project George Weldwood - Student, School of Social Work The task force worked for several months identifying the variables that were f e l t to be important for planning, administrative and case manage-ment purposes. Following this, a coding form and instructions were developed. • 7 Appendix VIII, pages 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, and 190 presents the instructions together with the coding form upon which the case of Mary Q. Sample has been coded. Page 191 in Appendix VIII shows how the data for Mary Q. Sample's case appears in the print-out form. Page 192 is another example of how a case profile i s presented. For each case, the worker completes a separate coding form and receives back a separate profile print-out. Cases are updated by submitting new coding forms on which only those variables to be updated are coded. Page 193 of Appendix VIII is an example of a summary of the case-load of Jean. Here, Jean's caseload is grouped by case type and within each grouping she i s able to have the values of the variables she is most interested in, printed out. The program w i l l output this type of summary statement for each worker who uses the system. For supervisory, administrative and planning purposes a variety of cross-tabulations can be developed using the variables that are maintained - 122 -in the system. Pages 10 through 14 are examples of the types of cross-tabulations that can be produced. To demonstrate the procedure and make the necessary refinements, the West Vancouver Social Service Department was selected as the i n i t i a l test agency. This organization was selected because i t had a manageable case-load which represented a l l types of cases, and approaches to services, that are dealt with and delivered by the Department of Human Resources of the Province of British Columbia. In addition, the workers of the agency are well trained, experienced, competent and willing to try new approaches. There are s t i l l some refinements to be made in this reporting system. When they have been made and the procedures are functioning smoothly, the system w i l l be recommended to a l l agencies of UCS who deal with clients on a case basis. When more agencies report their service activities and caseload characteristics in a standardized fashion into the system i t w i l l provide a large base of data upon which to base program and funding decisions, and carry out detailed research studies. Computers and Privacy Since i t i s suggested that a number of agencies report their a c t i v i -ties and caseload characteristics into a central data processing system and since the basis of this reporting w i l l be individual client records, a number of important questions concerning client, agency and worker confidentiality are raised. The computer program that we are using provides for a number of con-fid e n t i a l i t y levels to be set depending upon the nature of the variable in question and the desired level of confidentiality. It i s proposed that any identifying information concerning the client be placed under the - 123 -highest level of confidentiality. This would mean that only the report-ing agency wi l l be able to retrieve client specific information. On the other hand i t is important to be able to draw upon the f u l l set of cases in the system for planning, and administrative purposes, for example, the characteristics and service approaches used for a l l cases i n the system exhibiting a particular problem. To guard against abuse we have developed the following statement dealing with computers and privacy. "Computers linked together through high-speed telecommunications networks are destined to become the principal medium for making, storing, and using records about people. Innovations now being discussed throughout government and private industry recognize that the computer-based record keeping system, i f properly used, can be a powerful management tool. Its capacity for timely retrieval and analysis of complex bodies of data can be of in-valuable assistance to hard-pressed decision makers. Its a b i l i t y to handle masses of individual transactions in minutes and hours rather than in weeks or months, as was formerly the case, makes possible programs of service to people that would have been unthinkable in the manual record-keeping era." (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1973) p. V) Is we embrace this new technology i t is essential that we appreciate the fact that the tremendous potential benefits which can be realized from data processing are not without their attendant costs. We are deter-mined to take action on this issue. While our system of data collection and processing is primitive by comparison with some systems, we are nevertheless aware that the type of system we propose, (where each b i t of data i s associated with a name), i s inherently one of the most threatening to the privacy and rights of the individual. Personal data associated with names would be of invaluable assistance to those who would wish to control or coerce data subjects. - 124 -In order to protect the rights of the data subjects, we propose, as a f i r s t attempt, to adopt many of the suggestions set out in the report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems. (July 1973) To wit: 1. The purpose of the data is that i t i s to be used. Data w i l l not be collected on such premises as "more is better than less" or that "since we have the system we had better use i t " or that "we want to reduce unit costs and that can be achieved by u t i l i z i n g the system more". Such attitudes generate information which i s of l i t t l e value but has the potential for misuse. Also unre-strained requests for information may discourage people from taking advantage of the services of an organization, and could reduce the effectiveness of the relationship between the client and the organi zation. 2. Only when i t i s absolutely necessary w i l l the data be person-alized (i.e. have a name attached to i t ) . 3. The client w i l l be informed as to which data is a pre-condition of receiving service (mandatory data) and which data is not. 4. The data subject w i l l be made aware of a l l uses to which this personalized data i s put. 5. The data subject w i l l be made aware of a l l users of his person-alized data. 6. The data subject w i l l have the right to challenge the accuracy and appropriateness of the data. - 125 -7. A particular social service agency wi l l be able to obtain person-alized data only on those persons who are clients of that particular agency. 8. There w i l l be no "hook-up" with other data systems without the prior consent of the data subjects in our system. 9. There w i l l be a separation of the data for administrative and research purposes. Thus, when the data i s to be used for, say, planning purposes, personal identifiers w i l l be removed wherever possible. II Census Statistics The second major source of information i s the basic demographic and socio-economic data provided by Statistics Canada. This i s fundamental for broad community planning and individual agency decision-making. Basic census data which include the demographic, family, household and labour force characteristics of the population are essential i n developing a general profile of the community. We are most enthusiastic about the type and format of information that is available from Statistics Canada and the 1971 census. We are particu-larly interested i n the new geo-coding program. This program makes i t possible to obtain basic tabulations and cross-tabulations from the 1971 census for virtually any geographic area of interest. The a b i l i t y to obtain cross-tabulated information i s a major development in the use of census material by planning bodies, agencies and individuals. Tabulations can be produced for any area in Canada. The geo-coding program automatically selects small spatial building blocks to which census data records have been coded and aggregates these to each area specified by - 126 -the user. In the 14 largest urban centres i n Canada, the basic units of the system are street block faces, defined as one side of a street between two intersecting streets. In other parts of Canada, census enumeration areas are used as the units for user specified areas. In addition to basic and more detailed information in tabular form, i t i s also possible to request map plots. For example, i f an agency or planning body wishes to know the best place to locate a new day-care centre, i t could request a map showing the number of single and two parent families, in which there are children under six years of age and in which there is also a working mother. This information could also be broken down by levels of income to determine the need for subsidies. Maps 1 and 2 are examples of how the types of data can be presented. Map 1 shows for each of the specified areas of Vancouver the percentage of children 0-14 who have only one parent at home. Map 2 presents the same information by census tract. This basic data should be incorporated with other data into a statis-t i c a l information system, providing a frame of reference within which to view and evaluate client characteristics, problems, expressed and unexpressed needs, potential gaps in service delivery, and agency program proposals. I l l Address Conversion The third source of information i s the wealth of unused data developed by other service systems. This includes information maintained by City, Municipal and Provincial Welfare Departments, Hospitals, School Boards, Police Departments, Medical Insurance Agencies, Probation and Parole Departments, Family and Children's Court, Adult Court, Workmen's Compensa-tion Board, Manpower and many others. - 127 - 128 WITH ONLY ONE PARENT AT HOME LCCCND * I s o l i n e (contour) map based on data p o i n t s at the approximate geographic centres of the census t r a c t s . Data p o i n t s are i n d i c a t e d by blank squares. - 129 If available, this information would have great use in planning effective service delivery. The problem is gaining access to i t and inte-grating i t with the other information available from the census and a case management system. The one consistent item of information that is maintained by almost a l l agencies i s the client's address. The address conversion component of the geocoding program of Statistics Canada places addresses within any specified geographic area and codes and plots them directly. We are cur-rently cooperating with Statistics Canada, who have made their programs available to our project and we are adapting them to meet our needs. It wi l l be soon possible from a l i s t of client addresses of any agency to obtain sets of tables or maps of clients' locations i n the community pro-viding another major component of the information that i s required for effective planning, program delivery and coordination. Figure 12 sets out the essence of the proposed adaptation of the programs of Statistics Canada. The fin a l modifications are currently being made to the programs and when completed we w i l l encourage service providers to use them for their own purposes. This cooperation w i l l expand our a b i l i t i e s to identify problems and needs in the community and to see the impact and relationship of other service systems. For example, i t now appears to be possible to have a more accurate picture of the location of crime and delinquency in the community i n terms of reported crimes, arrests and convictions; to deter-mine the areas where family and mental breakdown is located; and to develop a profile of the distribution of school dropouts, truancy, absenteeism, child neglect and those in need of special education classes, always Figure 12 SUGGESTED USE OF ADDRESS CONVERSION PROGRAM OF THE GEOCODING DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS CANADA User Areas Defined Area Master File (Statistics Canada) Address Conversion Program (Statistics Canada) Address Centroide User Area Tables and/or Maps for each User Area as Defined o (Option). User Address f i l e s (Variable) Census Data - 132 -respecting the confidentiality of the individual. It cannot be too  strongly emphasized that overall profiles and not individual information  are involved. IV Community, Client and Agency Opinion It i s f e l t that the information developed by UCS should be available to a l l agencies and organizations in the community in order to allow them to more effectively identify and document the problems and issues that concern them directly. It is also f e l t that such information should not be the sole source of data used for decision-making. Statistics by them-selves are sometimes seen as cold and st e r i l e , are subject to time lags and differing interpretations and do not provide the f u l l complement of information required for effective decision-making. There should be inputs from citizens and client groups, government bodies and agencies directly concerned with community problems. These sources w i l l always be of c r i t i c a l importance. The demographic, client and service statistics described provide a framework within which to iden-t i f y and evaluate needs, and assist in determining progress in responding; given the limited resources available. V Financial Data The f i n a l source of information v i t a l to rational decision-making in allocating funds is standard financial data. Before the start of the present PPBS Project, a computerized functional accounting system and functional budgeting procedures were developed and implemented to meet the needs of a wide range of health, welfare and recreation organizations. - 133 -Functional accounting is a form of cost accounting. It examines in detail the items of income and expense for each function, service or program offered by an organization and permits the development of accurate unit costs: for example, the cost of an hour of family counselling, the cost of a patient hour of psychotherapy, or the cost per child-day of residential treatment. The computerized functional accounting program provides financial statements covering a total agency, statements for each branch and state-ments for each service or program, in addition to a general ledger and balance sheet. By implementing the standard functional accounting program and devel-oping program budgeting procedures i t becomes possible to clearly identify the exact amounts of money spent by agencies on programs in the community, individually and collectively. The budgets can then be analysed and eval-uated by Agency and Program Review Committees in terms of the programs that are proposed and the general efficiency of the agency. Functional accounting procedures have already shown their value in that many agencies have been able to clearly identify program and service costs and to negotiate with government and other funding bodies by offer-ing their services and programs at r e a l i s t i c prices. The above types of information should go a long way i n assisting the type of decision-making that is demanded under the PPB approach to.budget-ing that is proposed herein. - 134 -CHAPTER VI Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Study I General Conclusions Perhaps the single most important conclusion that has been reached in developing this thesis i s that a standard, classical PPBS model cannot be simply transferred and applied to an existing organizational system. The standard PPBS approach must be adapted and modified to reflect the basic nature, tasks and environment of the organizational network to which i t is to be applied. It is very d i f f i c u l t to apply the classical PPBS model to the social service f i e l d where the identification of problems and needs is in i t s infancy; where the measurement of program benefits, results and costs i s s t i l l in the beginning stages; and where reliable social st a t i s t i c s or social indicators are unavailable. These d i f f i c u l t i e s are compounded in an organizational network such as United Community Services where there are over 60 independent and autonomous agencies to which funds are distributed. The conclusion reached, therefore, i s that the concepts and overall s p i r i t of the PPBS approach should be preserved, while modifying their exact nature and application to reflect the needs and characteristics of the system to which they are to be applied. It is suggested that attempts to implement PPBS, regardless of the setting (be i t in the health, welfare, education or commercial fields) must give consideration to the necessity to make special adaptations to reflect the basic nature of the system to which the approach i s to be applied. This - 135 -conclusion relates not only to the introduction and implementation of PPBS but to other management approaches as well. Many d i f f i c u l t i e s are encountered by attempting to transplant a standard or established management approach from one organization or service system to another without making the appropriate modifications and adaptations to reflect the special characteristics of the organizations to which they are to be introduced. The approach taken in this thesis has been to give consideration to the special nature and characteristics of United Community Services and to design a PPBS approach that w i l l have the potential for immediate application and later refinement, as technological and analytical exper-tise i s developed both within UCS and i t s member agencies. While the proposed approach to operationalization and implementation has several areas of weakness which w i l l be discussed later, i t does represent a practical approach that reflects the basic nature and operating con-straints of the organization. It also attempts to reflect the present stage of development of the social service f i e l d and provides a basis for refinements and the gaining of greater understanding and sophistication in the future. As more experience i s gained in developing, assessing and funding specific programs designed to meet specific problems or needs in specific areas of the community and as more data becomes available re-garding the nature, characteristics, and incidence of social problems, as well as the efficacy of alternative program approaches, i t w i l l be pos-sible to incorporate more sophisticated decision-making processes into the proposed system. It is hoped that the introduction of cost-benefit techniques w i l l be one such future development. - 136 -The proposed approach put forward in this thesis contains the essential ingredients and concepts of the general PPBS model that has been used as a guide for this project. Referring to the general model (Figure 1) (Pages 8, 9, 10); information w i l l be developed from a variety of sources and w i l l be stored, synthesized and made available to the Priorities Committee, the Allocations Committee and the Program Review Committees, to assist them in their deliberations. Information sources and their potential uses have been dealt with in Chapter V. The Priorities Committee using information from the data system and reviewing information presented by agency, community, client and self-help groups w i l l identify and document community problems and needs of concern to UCS. The report of the Priorities Committee should present a detailed analysis of each problem of concern to UCS and should outline the priority problems and needs that UCS and i t s member financially par-ticipating agencies should focus upon during the next planning, program-ming, budgeting cycle. Using the Priorities Report and other information, the Allocations Committee w i l l allocate sums of money to each problem area of concern. These allocations can be regarded as the overall objectives of UCS with respect to the problems or needs i t wishes to address i t s e l f to over the next period. Given the objectives set by the Allocations Committee, the task of the Program Review Committees i s to select the most promising program proposals presented for funding by the agencies. The operating object-ives of each program proposal w i l l be specified in their program budget - 137 -proposals (Appendix II) and w i l l be used as one criterion for evaluating outcomes in each problem area. The objectives of each individual program proposal recommended for funding by the Program Review Committees and Agency Review Committees should be consistent with the expectations of the Allocations Committee. This stage is equivalent to the "Program  Strategies Set" component of the general model. Agencies operating approved programs should maintain basic s t a t i s t i -cal data that w i l l enable them to evaluate their performance and effect-iveness of each program. They w i l l also submit s t a t i s t i c a l information to UCS for assessment of the overall performance of the total set of programs funded in each problem area. The two essential statistics re-quired by UCS are described on Page 96. When properly tested and refined, i t i s suggested that agencies adopt the common caseload reporting pro-cedures that are currently being developed. This w i l l standardize the data submitted. Statistics and evaluation results w i l l be maintained and synthesized for use by the Pr i o r i t i e s , Allocations, and Program Review and Agency Review Committees as they examine the performance of the total system over the past period and plan for the next planning, programming, budget-ing cycle. It w i l l be noted that the proposed process is consistent with the general PPBS model and offers many of the advantages of rational, syste-matic decision making while imposing minimum controls and restrictions upon agencies. Agencies w i l l be given every opportunity to participate i n the process and w i l l be called upon to develop program strategies which best capitalize on their s k i l l s , expertise, experience and insights. A - 138 -great deal of further research and experimentation is required at a l l stages in the proposed system from the collection and synthesis of data to the appropriate mode of operation of the various committees. It i s fel t that the model proposed provides the basis for such development and experimentation. II Areas Requiring Special Consideration Some of the areas that w i l l require special consideration before f u l l operationalization and implementation can proceed smoothly are as follows. a) Development of Suitable Data for Decision Making The development of suitable data for decision-making at various levels is perhaps the most c r i t i c a l problem confronting the successful implementation of PPBS in general and this proposal in particular. In order for the proposed Priorities Committee to function at an acceptable level i t must have properly synthesized data relating specifically to each problem or need in the proposed Synopsis of Problems and Needs (Appendix V). Such information should include the number of people affected by the problem; their geographic location; the impact of each problem upon others; the effect of known approaches dealing with each problem; the level of resources currently directed toward solving each problem and the causal factors related to each, to mention only the more obvious. The development of such information i s l i k e l y to be no small task and w i l l require considerable manpower to maintain and synthesize on a systematic basis. In addition i t is questionable whether a Prior-i t i e s Committee wi l l be able to properly assimilate and order the large - 139 -amount of data that they will have to deal with unless i t is properly condensed and summarized. The systematic collection of data from agency, community, client and self-help groups w i l l also present d i f f i c u l t i e s . These d i f f i c u l t i e s w i l l l i k e l y centre around deciding how to assess the valid i t y of agency versus community or client group opinion where there i s divergence. For some problems, the development of data w i l l be easier than others and this w i l l also create d i f f i c u l t i e s since there may be a tendency to give a high rating to those problems for which data i s available and a lower one to those where data i s non-existent due to conceptual or measurement problems. It is suggested that considerable effort w i l l have to be expended in developing suitable standardized data for each problem or need i n the synopsis. This w i l l have to be properly synthesized and ordered to enable the Priorities Committee to make consistent and rational, decisions. The Allocations Committee wi l l require specialized data in addition to that required by the Prio r i t i e s Committee, i f i t i s to reasonably allo-cate sums of money to problem and need areas. Two suggested statistics that might assist in this process are 1) the average amount of resources required to solve each problem and 2) the amount of resources spent on each problem i n the time period. These two statistics appear deceptively simple but i t w i l l take considerable effort to develop them on a systematic basis for each problem presented in the synopsis. Several d i f f i c u l t i e s are anticipated. F i r s t , there i s the problem of determining when in fact a problem has been solved. Is a problem solved when the bearer i s discharged from an agency's - 140 -services? If this is the basis of solution, i t could lead to consider-able manipulation. Can a problem be deemed to be solved in the short run or does i t take a period of time to determine i f this i s really the case? Who determines the nature of the problem? Is i t the one presen-ted by the client or the one diagnosed by the worker? In addition there i s the problem of determining what is the client's major problem since people in d i f f i c u l t y usually exhibit multiple rather than single problems. To some degree the development of these statistics w i l l be f a c i l i -tated by the adoption of the Common Caseload Reporting System proposed earlier but for many problems and needs other approaches w i l l have to be developed. The data required by Program Review Committees i s expected to be developed by the agencies who present program proposals. In addition to this, the various committees should have available and be conver-sant with pertinent research related to their areas of responsibility. It w i l l take a major effort to accumulate and order such information in a fashion that can be readily assimilated and applied by these committees. b) Committee Operations The decision-making processes used by the various committees pro-posed i n this proposal is an area that w i l l require special study and consideration. The traditional model of decision-making used is con-sensus oriented, in which the committee members present their points of view and then vote to arrive at a majority decision. It is suggested that a variety of decision-making approaches should be explored with a - 141 -view to selecting the approach that best meets the nature of the par-ticular committee's tasks. The Delphi method of successive rounds of voting with individual committee members explaining their reasons for voting a particular way after each round unt i l reasonable consensus is reached may offer many advantages to the operating procedures of the proposed Pr i o r i t i e s , Allocations, Program, and Agency Review Committees. This, approach permits individual committee members to bring their expertise, insights and experience to bear on the eventual decision and to influence their fellow members in an orderly fashion. It i s a demanding method, however, in that i t requires that individual committee members defend their position in voting a particular way, but i t encourages the maximum exchange of information. c) Allocating Funds to Problems It has been proposed that the Allocations Committee should allocate sums of money to each problem or need of concern to UCS. This w i l l set the dollar constraints that Program Review Committees w i l l have to work with. The procedure by which this w i l l be done must be developed and tested in practice. It w i l l be necessary to test f u l l y the procedure that is ultimately developed and modify i t as required until i t operates smoothly. It i s suggested that the procedure adopted be experimented with several times on a t r i a l basis before i t is actually put into practice. d) The Development of Program Proposals It has been proposed that agencies should develop program proposals that best capitalize on their unique s k i l l , expertise and experience and - 142 -which respond to specific problems deemed to have priority for UCS. The development of program proposals designed to meet specific problems in specific areas of the community should be set out as explic-i t l y as possible and should follow the outline presented in Appendix II. This element of the proposed system parallels quite clearly the Program and Financial Plan and the Program Memoranda employed by the U.S. Bureau of the Budget and should provide considerable information for Program and Agency Review Committees. Several problems are l i k e l y to be encoun-tered in handling and assessing this data i n i t i a l l y , owing to a variety of factors. These relate to 1) the inexperience of agencies in develop-ing specific and concrete proposals; 2) the inexperience of Program and Agency Review Committees in dealing with and assessing program budgets; and 3) the volumee of data that must be manipulated during each budget-ing period. It is expected that these potential d i f f i c u l t i e s w i l l be resolved after one or two years experience and that the logistics prob-lems of assessing and manipulating the data contained in program propo-sals w i l l be solved. I l l Assessment of the Proposed Approach to Operationalization In a recent ar t i c l e , James E. Frank (1973) outlined several factors contributing to the successful development and implementation of PPBS. These factors w i l l be used to assess the proposed approach that has been put forward in this thesis. The f u l l implementation of PPBS involves changes in data configuration and in analytical procedures which can be classified as follows. - 143 -1) Data displayed by program category 2) Multiyear presentation of data Data configuration aspects 3) Inclusion of indirect costs 4) Measurement of outputs § effectiveness Analytical aspects 5) Examination of alternative programs 6) Examination of goals and objectives PPBS attempts to be an alternative data configuration and analytical system within the context of a larger political-bureaucratic system of decision making. Within the data configuration realm, two major factors are l i k e l y to influence the successful introduction of PPBS: a) the amount of necessary modification in the information network and b) the amount of modification in the types of ..information passing through the network. Generally i t can be asserted that the fewer modifications re-quired in the way information is accumulated, reported, and compared, the smoother w i l l be the introduction and implementation of PPB. In the analytical realm two major areas affect successful implemen-tation. The f i r s t relates to the state of the art or technology govern-ing the production of analytical information. This is likely to affect a) the degree of d i f f i c u l t y encountered in specifying needed information; b) the development of research instruments and evaluative techniques for the acquisition of that information; c) the resources necessary to fund the analytical process; and d) the administrative s k i l l required to organize, direct and coordinate the analytical effort. Frank Suggests that "To the extent that the PPB system recognizes the very real, technical d i f f i c u l t i e s presented by the production of - 144 -certain kinds of analytic information, i t s chances of success w i l l be enhanced." (Frank, J.E., Dec. 1973, pp. 527 - 543) The second causal factor in the analytical area relates to the compatability of the analytic cycle with the budgetary decision cycle. In many cases the analytic cycle is longer than necessary' for PPBS to succeed as an analytic tool. In addition to purely technical problems there are also p o l i t i c a l and bureaucratic elements to deal with in the successful implementation of PPB. " I f PPB is successful to any significant degree, i t w i l l re-sult, in most cases, in alterations in the political-bureaucratic ele-ments of the larger decision system, including the rearrangements of roles, stakes, resources, and strategies of actors within that system." CFrank, Dec. 1973, p. 533) Three c r i t i c a l factors can be suggested that w i l l have an impact on the smoothness of these alterations. The f i r s t two involve the source of pressure for change in the decision system and the mechanism for assisting that change. The source of change or change catalyst, must be one of the key factors i n the system. The third factor relates to the adaptiveness of the organizational system to which PPB is to be appliced. Generally speaking the more flexible and adaptive the system the more readily w i l l a PPB approach be accepted. Relating the above factors to the proposal put forward in this thesis w i l l assist in identifying where special consideration should be given in the implementation effort. 1) It has been suggested that successful implementation of PPB is closely linked to the modifications required in the information - 145 -network, and the type of information originating in the reporting units. In general, the degree of congruence between organizational structures and program structures w i l l influence the amount of modification required. If the organizational structures of reporting organizations are relatively functional there is l i k e l y to be a high degree of congruence between organization and program structures, thus necessitating very minor adjust-ments. This is l i k e l y to be the case with the agencies presenting program budgets to United Community Services, since several years have been devoted to i n i t i a t i n g and refining functional or service accounting and budgeting procedures, and this proposal suggests that program budgets be developed around major service a c t i v i t i e s . This should present l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y for most agencies at least in preparing their budgets in a program format. 2) Success in implementing PPBS is also v i t a l l y related to how d i f -ferent the new reporting information is from the old. This proposal calls for some new form of information which have not been systematically col-lected or prepared before. This relates to program characteristics, target populations, objectives, expected outcomes, and major problems to be addressed in addition to problem service units. It can be expected that i t w i l l take a period of time for the agencies to develop and present such information in a consistent fashion. Some experience with the UCS Demonstration and Development Fund, which requires detailed proposals to be presented i n a format similar to that suggested herein indicates that the above requirements are not unrealistic. It is suggested that staff assistance be extended to agencies requiring assistance in developing f u l l program proposals consistent with the format presented in Appendix III. - 146 -3) PPB tries to develop several kinds of quantitative measurement to improve information in the budgetary decision process. The degree of development of measurement systems and the general level of this technology at the time that PPB i s implemented i s a c r i t i c a l factor in successful adoption. This is important in a) specifying the output or effectiveness measures which usually involves negotiations between reporting agencies and the central budgeting organization, b) developing suitable instruments with which to produce the specified outputs or effectiveness measures, c) acquiring the necessary personnel and other resources to carry out the tasks of specification and instrumentation where these are not within the capacity of existing resources; and d) directing, organizing, and coordinating the entire process over time. This proposal recognizes that the current state of the art of measurement is in i t s embryo stage of development and attempt to present a framework through which this weakness can be addressed. United Com-munity Services and i t s member agencies have had considerable experience and have developed some expertise in developing and maintaining financial and s t a t i s t i c a l data relating to specific services. The proposal for program budgeting should cause l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y since service compon-ents (originally monitored) w i l l be grouped into program ac t i v i t i e s . The measurement of program objectives, outcomes and effectiveness, however, is an area where few precedents exist and where considerable experimentation • and analytical effort is required. Agencies should, therefore, be en-couraged to develop techniques and approaches for specifying and measur-ing their program objectives, expected outcomes and effectiveness. The measurement of community social problems and needs on an ongoing basis i s - 147 -also an area where analytical methods are weak and where a major effort w i l l have to be made by UCS and i t s constituent member agencies. It is suggested that agencies be encouraged to develop the technical capacity to monitor their own program activities and carry out their own program evaluations. This could be facili t a t e d by providing special consulting services to agency staff, and coordinating special workshops and seminars. 4) The problems of PPB installation are considerably magnified when attempts are made to analyse alternative programs. This occurs for several reasons, the major factor being the problem of specifying and developing alternative programs to meet pre-specified goals. A problem here has been the inab i l i t y of the program unit to envision alternative strategies. This may involve a search for alternatives such as programs employed by similar agencies in other cities or a creative process of generating new, untried alternatives. Frank (1973, p. 536) suggests that the problem of establishing alternatives i s one that operating personnel in existing programs are relatively i l l -equipped to handle. To a large degree the proposal put forward in this thesis attempts to overcome this problem by suggesting that agencies should be encour-aged to use their insights, expertise and experience to develop pro-graim'proposals which wi l l be designed to meet specific problems in specific geographic areas of the community, and to monitor them on an ongoing basis. This i s li k e l y to result i n a number of alternative program proposals being generated to deal with each major problem area. It i s suggested that i n i t i a l l y the program review committees should do - 148 -their best to fund a l l alternatives that meet minimum acceptable standards. In subsequent years the results of these program alterna-tives should be assessed with a view to determining the strengths and weaknesses of each. The results should then be circulated to agencies operating similar programs together with encouragement to revise their programs to reflect the strengths. This should be a major task of the Program Review Committees. The proposed approach would thus obviate the search "for alternatives for alternatives sake". 5) "The analysis of objectives within a PPBS framework is neces-sary to provide a f o i l against which systematic program analysis takes place. Without the analysis and explicit statement of goals and objectives, judgements about the efficiency of existing or recently designed programs cannot be made. It i s only i n the light of articu-lated goals and objectives that the remainder of the PPB process is j u s t i f i e d . " (Frank, 1973, p. 537) The development and analysis of objectives must take place at several levels and ideally result in a hierarchy with lower level objectives contributing to those at higher levels. Given the current state of the art, this proposal shows certain weaknesses and tries to get at the issue of goals and objectives "through the back door". This is done by suggesting that the allocation of sums of money to major problem areas w i l l be equivalent to setting objectives. This is admittedly a severe weakness but one that may be r e a l i s t i c given the current level of conceptualization and the nature of UCS. Since UCS is but one minor funding body in the network of fund-ing sources in the community, i t i s unrealistic to suggest that i t could - 149 -set specific objectives with respect to juvenile delinquency, family breakdown or child neglect. The most that can be expected is that i t identify the problems and needs that i t wishes to play some role in influencing and specify the fashion in which i t hopes to do so. It is suggested that this might be accomplished by allocating sums of money to problem areas where UCS feels i t has some specific role to play and then funding program proposals that have objectives consistent with this role. The specification of goals and objectives should be much easier for agencies since they may be able to formulate their objectives in terms of the clientele to whom their programs relate. For examples: "To improve the knowledge and attitudes of a l l persons participating i n the XYZ Sex Education Program as measured by an objective sex knowledge and attitude inventory." Such an objective would provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the program. It i s suggested that this i s an area where considerable research and experimentation is required in order to approach the f u l l potential of PPBS. 6) Another determinant of the successful implementation of PPB is the a b i l i t y of the installing unit to recognize and accommodate the fact that the analytics of program analysis may have a cycle time in-herently different from the budgetary cycle time. The lead time neces-sary for program design often exceeds the normal three to six months warning which program units are given between the c a l l for budgets and submission dates. The danger in not recognizing the difference between analytic cycle time and budget cycle time i s that individuals who are - 150 -expected to provide in depth, expert analysis based on hard data are forced to make estimates which have no basis in policy research. The approach taken in this proposal and within the Agency Opera-tions Department of UCS is to recognize that budgeting decisions must be made each year regardless of the assessed quality or quantity of the information currently available. While every effort is made to develop as much information as possible in order to f a c i l i t a t e decision-making, the information pro-cess and the information available at the time of budgeting must be used as i t i s for deciding upon allocations for the period. Weaknesses identified in the information are noted and hopefully r e c t i f i e d before the next budgeting period. While this appears to be a very pragmatic approach i t i s a necessary one to take since budget decisions must be made. The suggestions regarding the proposed timing of the analytical information gathering and budget review processes should assist in co-ordinating and synchronizing these cycles reasonably well. 7) A fi n a l factor that should be considered in implementing a PPB approach relates to the inevitable changes and alterations that w i l l take place in the p o l i t i c a l bureaucratic elements of the organizational system including the rearrangement of roles, stakes and strategies of actors within organization network. Some of the requisites to the successful introduction of PPBS in any organizational system is an awareness of the need for change sufficient to stimulate movement toward adoption, and the availability of a change agent or mechanism to assist with the installation. - 151 -The need to develop and implement a PPB approach within United Community Services has been recognized and steps have been taken to develop the various components of the PPB approach over the past several years. This began with the development of a service based prio r i t i e s report and was followed by the i n i t i a t i o n and implementation of service or functional accounting and budgeting. These two develop-ments stimulated the need to produce better information for decision-making and to f u l l y integrate the activities of planning, programming and budgeting within a common system. The demand for change and for better information relating to needs, outcomes effectiveness has come primarily from the budget section of the organization and from the member agencies of UCS. The PPBS project of UCS which has received major funding from the Federal Government, has acted as a change agent in i n i t i a t i n g and implementing PPB in UCS and i t s member agencies. It i s hoped that the proposed approach presented herein w i l l assist in the movement toward the development of a f u l l y operational Planning-Programming-Budgeting System within UCS in the future. There are s t i l l many unknowns and countless technical and analytical d i f f i -culties w i l l arise as implementation proceeds. The proposed model contains the essential ingredients and s p i r i t of PPB and should provide a sound basis for further research, refinements and modifications. It is also hoped that the general approach and specific components pre-sented w i l l be of use to other fund allocating systems i n the Health and Welfare f i e l d at local, provincial and federal levels. - 152 -APPENDICES I - VIII Appendix I ANALYSIS OF AGENCY INCOME - 1973 MUNICIPAL PROV. FEDERAL Activators Society 7,000 Big Bros, of BC - Lower Mainland Chapter 35,000 Boy Scouts of Canada, Burnaby Region 1,300 Boy Scouts of Canada, Vane. Coast Region Boys* Clubs of Vancouver 10,000 BC Medical Research Foundation CM.H.A. - BC Vancouver Branch CM.H.A. - North § West Vancouver C.N.I.B. (i n c l . Burnaby § Richmond) Catholic Charities Catholic Family § Children's Service Children's Aid Society Children's Foundation Crisis Centre 15,000 Disabled Veterans Association Elizabeth Fry Society Family Planning Association Family Service Centres 82,000 First United Church Summer Camp Girl Guides Association, Burnaby Gi r l Guides Vancouver Council Health Centre for Children - Research Jewish Family Service Agency John Howard Society 8,000 Kiwassa N'hood Services Assoc. 6,000 Nasaika Lodge Neighbourhood Services Assoc. Gr. Vane. 95,000 North Shore Neighbourhood House 52,550 Retarded Children's Assoc. - B.C. " " " - Burnaby " " " - Vancouver St. John Ambulance - Burnaby 10,000 10,000 40,000 10,800 96,000 3,880,989 7,806,700 10,000 29,100 706,650 56,714 8,000 4,190 55,000 120,000 3,940 20,000 303,794 67,000 19,800 160,068 20,900 OTHER UCS TOTAL 16,648 6,732 50,200 6,694 22,602 64,296 15,818 14,132 31,250 91,030 62,370 153,400 112,633 146,025 325,372 5,000 7,920 : 52,920 9,350 55,935 76,085 3,500 8,761 12,261 307,514 91,486 495,000 85,645 40,887 126,532 24,500 81,810 3,987,299 3,800 66,935 7,885,435 4,800 18,315 23,115 11,207 43,767 79,974 1,290 19,404 20,694 163,077 13,632 209,999 70,580 3,663 74,243 132,500 303,930 1,225,080 20,650 12,375 33,025 1,499 5,841 7,340 12,137 7,294 19,433 74,254 38,610 112,864 9,275 26,730 36,005 7,487 41,913 232,400 21,418 20,483 51,841 54,796 7,276 82,072 73,473 284,473 757,161 60,246 47,718 227,514 152,222 30,938 202,960 6,950 15,593 22,543 166,135 53,460 400,563 2,700 2,920 5,620 St. John Ambulance - Vancouver Council Seafarers Society of B.C. Vancouver Housing Association Vancouver Indian Centre Vancouver Jewish Community Centre Vancouver Neurological Centre: B.C. Parkinsons Disease Society Children's Rehab. § Cerebral Palsy Myasthenia Gravis Fnd. of B.C. Vancouver Epilepsy Centre Vancouver Second Mile Society Vane. Vets Service § Welfare Bureau V.O.N. Burnaby Branch V.O.N. North Shore . V.O.N. Vancouver (incl. Richmond) Vocational Couns. Service for B.C. Volunteer Bureau of Gr. Vancouver Western Institute for the Deaf Y.M.C.A. Burnaby Y.M.C.A. of Greater Vancouver Y.W.C.A. Boys Clubs of Canada Boy Scouts Prov. Council BC & Yukon B.C. Borstal Association CARS - BC Div. (inc. Bby. £ Richmond) Children's Hospital MUNICIPAL PROV. FEDERAL OTHER UCS TOTAL 29,000 29,205 58,205 71,700 25,000 96,700 1,325 4,306 5,631 15,000 20,000 55,750 1,700 14,454 106,904 164,318 40,887 205,205 1,350 4,000 3,005 2,425 10,780 4,300 25,200 15,165 37,063 81,728 1,700 2,000 222 2,425 6,347 3,500 1,250 8,457 38,820 52,027 900 15,147 16,047 14*379 5,451 19,830 5,000 12,700 48,012 15,345 91,062 15,129 12,000 71,886 30,195 129,210 48,000 256,048 287,790 80,000 671,838 14,400 35,902 5,841 56,143 30,195 30,195 102,679 20,745 49,005 172,429 37,500 19,473 56,973 242,686 146,124 388,810 39,904 51,367 50,605 743,259 188,051 1,073,186 6,400 6,400 19,800 58,130 19,478 97,408 3,600 10,800 10,686 22,644 47,730 253,000 742,572 125,898 1,121,470 81,025 199,648 77,635 358,308 449,333 14,070,087 342,184 4,537,640 2,635,818 22,035,062 - 155 -Appendix II Suggested Outline for Developing Program Proposals I General Introduction and Summary of Proposal A. Brief description of the basic nature and focus of the agency submitting the proposal l i s t i n g b r i e f l y a l l programs offered and proposed. B. Brief description of the problem or need situation to which the specific program is directed. C. Brief summary description of the nature of the specific program proposal. II The Problem or Need A. Detailed description of the problem or need, together with relevant stat i s t i c s and supporting information. B. Actual or estimated number of individuals affected by the problem or need. C. Special characteristics of those affected by the problem. III The Proposed Program A. Goals and Objectives 1. Major goals and objectives of the proposed program 2. Subordinate goals and objectives 3. Expected outcome of the proposed project B. Target Group 1. Description of the population or group to whom the proposed program wi l l be directed. 2. The geographic location of the proposed target group. C. Mode of Operation, Dynamics and Strategies of Proposed Program 1. Proposed method, techniques or dynamics of proposed program 2. Relevant research and/or experience to support the proposed method and techniques of the program. - 156 -D. Special Requirements 1. Staff, f a c i l i t i e s , resources, equipment 2. Detailed income and expenditure budget Proposed Method of Evaluation and Maintenance of Statistics A. Proposed method of evaluation B. Statistical data that w i l l be maintained to monitor the program and to carry out evaluation -157 -Appendix III Form B7B-75 F O R U C S U S E O N L Y Average Gross Unit Cost Average UCS Request Unit Cost — * A G E N C Y No . . . A G E N C Y N A M E : E X P E N D I T U R E 1100 Salaries of Agency Staff .1200 Lrcfcyse Bersfits frpsnse 1300 Suit ing Occupancy U0G Office E»pense iSGG Recruitment and Education 1500 Promotion and Publicity 1700 Purchased Service—Non-Med 3100 Transportation •3200 Boarding Rate Payments 3300 'Health and Allied Services 3400 food Services 3500 Clothing and Personal Needs 3600 fin. Asst., Leans. Grants 3700 R£Cf»j»io.ial and Educ. Progs.. 4700 Inj-jstrial and Craft Work 4S00 Purchase for Resale 4900 Miscellaneous Expenditures 5700 Research Allocations 5999 Proration of Admin. Eipenses (Serv. 99)... 6998 TOTAL EXPENDITURE (1975) 63?3 SERVICE (SURPLUS) OR DEFICIT 6933 TOTAL EXPENDITURE OS74) 1010 UCS ALLOTMENT 11974) Percentage Proration — * s = 1973 Actual Units • 1974 Budg. Units • 1975 Est. Units • 1974 Total 1975 Total Serv. 99 Serv^SO Serv..^S. Serv Serv Serv... $ S $ $ UNIT INC. $ UNIT INC. $ UNIT INC. UNIT INC. $ UNIT INC. $ UNIT INC. ill - 159 INDEX OF SERVICES AND UNITS OF SERVICE DELIVERY Service Number Service Title or Name Units of Service Delivery 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 29. 33. 35. 36. Community Planning, Coordination Community Development Research-Medical Research-Welfare & Recreation Information & Referral Services Intergroup Relations Services Recruitment, Training, Placement and Supervision of Volunteers Adoption Services Blood Transfusion Services Camping Services — Day Camping Services — Extended Volunteer Parental Substitutes Disaster Services Education and Training of the Handicapped Environmental Sanitation Family & Individual Counselling Family Life Education Day Care of Children-Group Day Care of Children — Foster Family Day Care of Adults Foster Home Care Friendly Visiting — Agency Sponsored Groupwork Services (Social Adjustment) Groupwork Services (Social Development) Health Education Homemaker Services Housekeeper Services Paid Professional Staff Hrs. Paid Professional Staff Hrs. Paid Professional Staff Hrs. Paid Professional Staff Hrs. Number of Inquiries Participant Hours of Direct Service Provided Number of Placements Adoptions Completed Pints of Blood Provided Camper Hours Provided Camper Days Provided Child Hours of Direct Service Provided Hours of Direct Service Provided Client Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) Paid Professional Staff Hrs. Client Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) Client Hours of Direct Service (in groups) Provided Child Hours of Direct Service Provided Child Hours of Direct Service Provided Client Hours of Direct Service Provided Child Days Care Provided Direct Hours of Visiting Provided Client Hours of Direct Service (in groups) Provided Client Hours of Direct Service (in groups) Provided Participant Hours of Direct Service Provided Client Hours of Direct Service Provided Client Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) To Clients and/or Collaterals 7 Service Number Service Title or Name - 160 Units of Service Delivery 37. Homes for Aged — Nursing & Patient Days Care Provided Rest Homes 38. Housing Services Number of Persons Served 39. Informal Education — Client Hours of Direct Service Personal & Social Development (in groups) Provided 40. Institutional Care-Dependent Child Days Care Provided Children (Group) 41. Institutional Care-Emotionally Patient Days Care Provided Disturbed and Mentally III 42. Institutional Care-Mentally Patient Days Care Provided Retarded 44. Legal Advocacy and Counselling Client Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) 45. Maternity Home Care Client Days Care Provided 46. Medical Care, Out Patient: Patient Hours of Treatment Dental Services Provided 47. Medical Care, Out Patient: Patient Hours of Treatment Medical & Surgical Services Provided 48. Medical Care, Out Patient: Patient Hours of Treatment Psychiatric Services Provided 49. Medical Care, Out Patient: Patient Hours of Treatment Rehabilitation Services Provided 50. Medical Social Services Client Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) 51. Medical Supplies Number of Persons Served 52. Audiological Assessment Number of Assessments Completed 53. Interpreting (Non-Verbal) Client Hours of Direct Service Provided 54. Nursery School Child Hours of Direct Service Provided 55. Physical Fitness Programs Participant Hours of Direct Service Provided 56. Probation, Parole and Correction Client Hours of Direct Services/Juvenile Service Provided (1) 57. Probation, Parole and Correction Client Hours of Direct Services/Adult Service Provided (1) 58. Protection Services for Children Client Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) 61. Public Health Nursing - General Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) 62. Home Nursing Care Patient Hours of Treatment Provided 63. Meals on Wheels Meals Provided 64. Recreational Services Participant Hours of Direct Service Provided 65. Residential Facilities Occupied Bed Nights Provided (1) To Clients and/or Collaterals 8 - 161 Service Number Service Title or Name Units of Service Delivery 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 72. 73. 74. 75. 75. 75. 76. 85. 86. 99. Resident Treatment Centres for Emotionally Disturbed Children Shelter Care for Homeless and Transients Sheltered Work Emergency Aid Transportation Services for Disabled and Aged Vocational Counselling Services Vocational Training Services Job Placement Services Medical Care, In-Patient: a) Acute and Convalescent Medical Care, In-Patient: b) Long Term Medical Care, In-Patient: c) Rehabilitation Educational Consultation Food Services — Commercial Residential Service — Commercial Administration Child Days Care Provided Occupied Bed Nights Provided Client Hours of Work Provided Number of Persons Served Number of Persons Served Client Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) Client Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) Client Hours of Direct Service Provided (1) Patient Days Care Provided Patient Days Care Provided Patient Days Care Provided Hours of Consultation Provided None Required Occupied Bed Nights Provided None Required (1) To Clients and/or Collaterals 9 - 162 -Appendix V SYNOPSIS OF NEEDS AND PROBLEMS Problem Relevant Ref. No. Problem Services 100 COMMUNITY 110 Community Planning Deficiency - 1, 2 Overall and Local 120 Citizen Incapacity for System Relationships 2 150 Absence of Adequate Knowledge -Non-Medical 4 160 Social Discrimination 7 170 Insufficient Resources (Emergency - Disaster) 15, 10 180 System Lack of Human Resources 8 190 Insanitary Conditions 17 200 FAMILY 210 Family Stress - General 19 230 Family § Individual Social Malfunction 18 235 Societal Maladjustment - Pregnancy 45 280 Housekeeping Incapacity 35, 36 300 PARENTAL 310 Parental Incapacity (Permanent) 9 320 " " (Long-term) 23, 40 330 " 11 (Short-term) 40, 23 340 " " (Emergency) 40 350 " " (Absent Partner) 14 370 Neglect or Abuse of Children 58 - 163 -Problem Relevant Ref. No. Problem Services 400 CHILDREN 410 Delegated Parental Responsibility (Day) 20, 21 420 Personal Development (Pre-School Children) 54 440 Behavioural Problems (Children) 40 470 Delegated Parental Responsibility (Day-Special) 20 475 Emotional Maladjustment (Handicapped) 76 500 INDIVIDUAL 510 Personal and Social Development 11,12,29,39,64 520 Incapacity for Individual Leisure-time Utilization 64 540 Social Isolation 24, 70 550 Lack of Knowledge- of Resources (General) 5 555 Lack of Knowledge of Resources (Specific) 38, 44 560 Insufficient Resources (Long-Term) Social Assistance 562 " " (Medium-Term) 65 564 11 11 (Short-Term) 65, 67 566 " *' (Emergency) 65, 67, 69 568 " " (Special Needs) 38, 44, 51 . 580 Developmental Lag - (Social) 25 590 Adjustment of Convicted Offenders 56, 57 600 GERIATRIC 610 Geriatric Incapacity (Partial) 22, 70 650 " 11 (Full) 37 - 164 -Problem Relevant Ref. No. Problem Services 700 EMPLOYMENT 710 Employment Incompatability 72, 74 740 " Incapacity 73, 16 770 Unemployability except in Sheltered Environment 68 800 PHYSICAL HEALTH 810 Medical Need (Hospital) 75 820 " " (Non-Hospitalization) 46,47,49,52 830 Medicament, Appliance and Prosthetic Needs 51 835 Inadequate Blood Supplies 10 840 Paramedical Need (Non-Hospital) 49, 62 850 Social Incapacity (Physical Disability) 49, 16, 70 855 Communicative Incapacity (Oral and Aural) 53 860 Impediment in Acceptance of Personal Medical Implications 50 870 Non-Attainment of Physical Potential 55 880 Lack of Knowledge of Preventive Health Measures 33, 61 885 Nutritional Deficiency 63, 61 890 Absence of Adequate Knowledge (Medical) 3 - 165 -Problem Relevant Ref. No. Problem Services 900 MENTAL 910 Mental Retardation (Severe) 42 920 Mental Illness (Children) 41, 48 925 11 11 (Adults) 41, 48 930 Emotional Disturbance (Children) 41, 48, 66 935 " " (Adults) 41, 48 950 Social Incapacity (Mental Disability) 49, 70 980 Addiction 18 Appendix VI A Guide for Determining the Management Effectiveness of Social Service Agencies  This guide for determining the management effectiveness of social service agencies has been developed to assist in assessing and evalu-ating management and administrative practices. It has been designed as a l i s t of statements which w i l l permit the analysis and evaluation of selected aspects of agency operations. The topics covered here are by no means exhaustive and i f the statements lead to additional avenues of investigation, these should be followed and reported. Beside each statement is space for making a general rating of agency performance as well as additional comment. The rating system i s based on a five point scale as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Excellent - No changes required at present time. Adequate - L i t t l e improvement needed. Fairly Satisfactory - Some improvement needed. Weak - Considerable improvement needed. Lacking - Much improvement needed. The guide, i f properly used should form the basis for writing a concise and reasonably brief report (3 paragraphs) on the general state of management and administrative practice in any given agency. Any given statement should be seen as a starting point for discussion and evidence should be provided by the agency to assist in making a rating. The statements f a l l under the following headings: 1. Structure and Formal Organization. 2. Board Operations. 3. Purposes, Goals, Objectives and Programs, 4. Organizational Control. 5. Fiscal Administration. 6. Personnel Administration. 7. Communications, Participation and Coordination. 8. Leadership and Direction. 9. Staff and F a c i l i t i e s . 10. Community Relations. -Structure and Formal Organization 1. An organization chart is available which outlines the formal structure of the agency together with the line of authority and the pattern of relationships. 2. The agency's formal structure i s congruent with the performance demands of the agency and encourages maximum staff performance, effect-iveness, accountability and coordin-ation of effort i n achieving agency objectives. 3. Each department of the agency i s organized around the achievement of one or more major functions for which a single person is held f i n a l l y responsible and accountable. 4. The agency's staff know exactly what they are responsible and accountable for, to whom they report, what are their sources of advice and channels of communication and the standards of performance that they are expected to achieve. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 Board Operations 1. The agency has a broadly based member-ship which elects the Board of Directors, receives reports and generally inter-prets the agency's work to the public. 2. The Board of Directors meet regularly, set policy and guide the overall direction of the agency. 3. The Board of Directors are properly in-formed as to their duties and responsi-b i l i t i e s before they accept membership on the Board. 4. New Board members participate in a planned program of orientation. 5. The Board of Directors have appropriate committees to guide the overall direction and policies of the agency, e.g. Executive, Finance, Program, Personnel, Nominating, Property Management and Public Relations. 6. Meetings of the Board of Directors and special committees are well planned in advance with appropriate agenda. 7. Inactive Board members are replaced when their term expires. Rating Comments •5 4 3 2 1 Board Operations 8. The Board and special committee members are familiar with trends and develop-ments in the community that may have implications for the functioning of the agency. 9. The Board and special committee members are familiar with the programs and functions of the agency. 10. The Board and special committee members concentrate their attention on policy matters and the overall performance of the agency. They refrain from becom-ing overly involved in day-to-day management and administration which i s the role of the Executive Director. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 Purposes, Goals, Objectives and Programs 1. The agency has a well defined statement of purposes and policies which are con-gruent with the needs of the community. 2. These are reviewed at regular intervals. 3. The agency has a well defined statement of objectives which reflect i t s purposes and policies. 4. The objectives of the agency are ex-pressed in quantifiable "output" terms which lend themselves to analysis and evaluation. 5. The agency's objectives are translated into concrete programs. 6. The agency's objectives are reviewed periodically and are adjusted and modified as required. 7. The program strategies adopted are appropriately investigated and docu-mented and specify: - Specific objectives to be achieved - Time period for achievement - Resources required - Program dynamics - The nature of the target population 8. The agency's programs are effectively monitored to determine their progress in meeting objectives and appropriate statistics are maintained. Rating Comments 5 I 3 2 1 Purposes, Goals, Objectives and Programs (cont'd) 9. Programs and services that do not prove to be effective in achieving objectives re meeting community needs are discontinued or revised. 10. New and revised programs are developed on an on-going basis to improve the quality of service and to f u l f i l agency objectives more effectively. 11. Emerging community and agency problems and needs are foreseen and long and short range plans are prepared to meet them. 12. Long and short range plans include: - An analysis of the problem or need to be addressed - Specific objectives for the planning period - A statement of the priority of objectives - Time schedules for achievement - Alternative program approaches for the achievement of objectives - Consideration of the characteristics of the target population to be served 13. Plans developed by the agency are designed so as to permit adequate monitoring, control and evaluation. 14. The agency can flexibly adjust to unexpected internal and external changes affecting i t s operations. 15. The agency has a reasonably detailed plan as to where i t wishes to go in the future. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 Organizational Control 1. Organizational and functional charts, time schedules and other basic controls are maintained to monitor the progress of programs in meeting their objectives. 2. Periodic Reports are prepared which satisfactorily portray the operating results of the total agency and i t s various programs. 3. These are used as effective management tools i n evaluating and adjusting pro-gress toward the achievement of obj ectives. 4. Statistical and management control systems and progress reports are d i -rectly related to the established objectives of the agency and to specific programs. 5. The agency employs effective and e f f i -cient methods and procedures in the preparation and maintenance of st a t i s t i c s , reports and records. 6. The st a t i s t i c a l information maintained by the agency adequately reflects what is happening in various programs and in the total agency. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 Fiscal Administration 1. A detailed budget of income and expenditure i s adopted o f f i c i a l l y each year by the agency's Board of Directors. 2. The budget is used as a management tool to guide the operations of the agency. 3. Variances from budgeted expenditures are analysed on a systematic basis and adjust-ments are made where necessary. 4. The agency uses functional budgeting and accounting procedures that are consistent with the standards set by the Community Funds and Councils of Canada. 5. The agency maintains a satisfactory set of financial records which are audited annually. 6. The agency maintains an efficient internal financial control system over liquid assets. 7. Financial statements are prepared for each major division of the agency and are used as a management tool to guide the total agency. 8. Regular reviews of potential sources of funds are conducted and documented to keep abreast of changes in funding patterns. 9. New approaches are developed and investi-gated to generate new sources of funds. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 Personnel Administration 1. There i s a well defined job description for each position in the agency, outlining qualifications, duties, responsibilities, conditions of employment, which has been discussed with each incumbent. 2. The qualification standards for each position in the agency have been described in terms of the specific knowledge, s k i l l s and personal qualities required, and they are used to effectively select and promote staff. 3. There i s a position evaluation process in operation in the agency in which duties and responsibilities are defined in terms of the objectives of the organization. 4. Employee performance is reviewed annually, at a l l levels in the agency, and is used for promotions and salary increases. 5. The agency has a written set of personnel practices which are periodically reviewed and revised as necessary and communicated to a l l appropriate staff. 6. The agency has a well developed procedure for handling employee grievances. 7. The agency has a formalized orientation program for new employees, Board members and volunteers. Rating Comments 5 '4 3 2 1 Personnel Administration (cont'd) 8. J. Salary standards have been developed in terms of position classifications, grades and pay ranges applicable to every position in the agency and these are f u l l y understood by staff. 9. The compensation standards are competitive in maintaining staff of high calibre. 10. The agency has a satisfactory system of employee benefits including sick leave, vacation pay, pension plans, health and disability insurance, etc. 11. A l l staff advancements are made upon the basis of merit performance and established documented standards. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 VII Communications, Participation and Coordination 1. There is consensus among the staff and Board of the agency regarding purposes, policies, objectives, programs, plans and schedules. 2. Lines of communication are well developed across a l l levels in the agency. 3. The impact of changes in the environment or in the agency's policies or objectives is effectively interpreted to the staff 4. Subordinates are given opportunities to participate in the formulation of object-ives, programs and service activities and see themselves as important and integral parts of the agency's operation. 5. A balance is maintained between the specializations of various departments and the needs of the agency as a whole. 6. The activities of the agency are effect-ively coordinated by the executive director so that the best results are achieved for the total agency. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 VIII Leadership and Direction 1. The agency fosters conditions and circumstances which encourage the staff to maintain high levels of performance. 2. The agency recognizes the self-development needs of i t s staff and plans work assignments and opportun-i t i e s for advancement accordingly. 3. The agency appraises the need for staff improvement throughout the organization and plans developmental programs as required. ^ 4. The senior management staff are skilled in conducting problem-• solving conferences and group meetings. 5. The agency has a "management develop-ment" program designed to meet the needs and improve the performance of a l l key personnel. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 Staff and F a c i l i t i e s 1. The staff of the agency are effectively u t i l i z e d and are provided with proper supervision. 2. The educational and experience background of the staff is adequate to carry out the agency's programs. 3. Staff quality i s maintained through in-service education and training programs, staff meetings and individual consulta-tion. 4. The agency has sufficient full-time pro-fessional staff to provide supervision and direction to part-time and volunteer staff members. 5. The f a c i l i t i e s of the agency are adequate in terms of their contribution to the overall image and programs of the organization. 6. The agency's f a c i l i t i e s are effectively u t i l i z e d and maintained to acceptable standards. 7. There i s good rapport between staff and administration. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 Community Relations 1. The agency involves people from a broad cross-section of the community on i t s Board of Directors and in committees and programs. 2. The agency works closely with the community groups and other agencies in dealing with social problems and issues. 3. The agency has an organi zed program to publicize and interpret i t s programs, purposes and achievements to the public. 4. The staff of the agency participate in multi-agency planning activities related to the effective delivery of coordinated services. 5. The services and programs of the agency are accessible to the client population to whom they are directed. Rating Comments 5 4 3 2 1 General Comments - 181 -Appendix VII': Caseload Reporting System  Coding Form and General Instructions (1) The basic form with information on a l l variables should be completed once - usually when the client becomes a case. (2) At the end of each month, a form for each active client should be completed. This form should identify: A) The client's case number, agency number and worker number. B) The time spent in providing services to the client. C) Any changes in the client's status. (3) Coding the case number - This should be completed for every entry Code-- (First four letters of the surname + last digit of century + year, month and day of birth + two i n i t i a l s + 2 tie breaking digits) eg. (1) Reg. C. BROWN b« (2) D.F. BROWN born (3) W.A. BROWN born (4) Ronald C. BROWN (5) E.E. BROWN born Codes: (1) B R O W 9 3 3 0 (2) B R O W 9 3 3 0 (3) B R 0 W 9 3 3 0 (4) B R 0 W 9 3 3 0 (5) B R O W 8 8 3 0 irn January 3, 1933 January 3, 1933 January 3, 1933 born January 3, 1933 January 3, 1883 1 0 3 R C 1 0 3 D F 10 3 W.A 1 0 3 R C 0 1 1 0 3 E E (4) Service or Program - #13 - A maximum of 3 services or programs can be coded using the code sheet. These are services or programs that are being employed to meet the needs of the client. The primary service or program should be listed f i r s t with subsidiary or ancillary services following. (5) Presenting Problem(s) - #14 - Using Code #5, code the problem(s) presented by the client. The major or most important problem should be coded f i r s t , the second most important i s to be coded second and the third most important third. (6) Diagnosed Problem - #15 - Using Code #5, code the client's problem as diagnosed by the worker. The coding procedure used is similar to that for the presenting problem(s) with the most important problem coded f i r s t . - 182 -(7) Case Goal - #17 - The o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s f o r case goals are: (1) Improvement: The c l i e n t ' s norm of f u n c t i o n i n g i s at l e s s than a d e s i r e d l e v e l , and c l i e n t i s considered to have the p o t e n t i a l to achieve a higher norm. (2) Maintenance: The c l i e n t i s f u n c t i o n i n g at an acceptable l e v e l but r e q u i r e s s e r v i c e s input to prevent d e t e r i o r a t i o n . (3) R e s t o r a t i o n : The c l i e n t ' s usual norm of f u n c t i o n i n g i s acceptable, but h i s present f u n c t i o n i n g i s unacceptably l e s s than t h i s norm. Services input i s r e q u i r e d to r e t u r n c l i e n t to the previous norm. (4) Enrichment: The c l i e n t ' s norm of f u n c t i o n i n g i s acceptable. He seeks t o improve h i s p o s i t i o n . (8) Hours o f S e r v i c e Provided - #21, #22, #23 - The d i r e c t , i n d i r e c t and t o t a l hours of s e r v i c e provided to each c l i e n t should be recorded each month. Time should be recorded to the nearest h a l f hour e.g. 10.5 h r s . Time Sheets - I t i s suggested that a simple record of time spent ( d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t ) on each c l i e n t each day should be maintained. At the end of each month, add up the time spent f o r each c l i e n t and enter t h i s f i g u r e on the coding form. (9) Local Area - #27 - This i s an o p t i o n a l coding used to l o c a t e the c l i e n t g e o g r a p h i c a l l y . A s i x l e t t e r code i s used which i s a short form f o r the geographic area. The code can be found by r e f e r r i n g t o the d i r e c t o r y f o r the appropriate m u n i c i p a l i t y . Coding Convention For key punching purposes one must d i s t i n g u i s h between "0", the a l p h a b e t i c character and " ) " , the numeric character and between "Z", the a l p h a b e t i c character and "7", the numeric chara c t e r . The convention i s to put a s l a s h / through the alpha characters as shown: 0 = the a l p h a b e t i c character = e.g. T0P % = the a l p h a b e t i c character = e.g. /EN - 183 -Codes for Variables 1, Reason for Closing - Variable 8 1 = Client did not continue 2 = Service completed 3 = Worker terminated 4 = Referred to other agency 5 = Transferred 6 = Other 2. Source of Referral - Variable 11 1 = Self 6 = Court 2 = Relative 7 = Lawyer 3 = Friend 8 = Medical 4 = School 9 = Church 5 = Other agency 0 = Other A = Police/Prob. 3. Type of Case - Variable 12 1 = Family Service 2 = Social Allowance - Single 3 = " " - Couple 4 = " " - Two Parent Family 5 11 " - One Parent Family 6 = " 11 - Child with Relative 7 = " " - Mincome 9 = Adoption Home - Pending A = Adoption Home - Approved B = Child in Adoption Home C = Foster Home - Pending D = Foster Home - Approved E = Child in Care F = Unmarried Parent G = Health § Institutional Service H = H P I A 0 = Other 4. Service or Program This is an abbreviated l i s t of the services most frequently used by the Department - a f u l l l i s t of a l l services i s found on the last page: 5 = Information § Referral Services 8 = Recruitment, Training, Placement £ Supervision of Volunteers 9 = Adoption Services 18 = Family § Individual Counselling 19 = Family Life Education 23 = Foster Home Care 96 = Foster Home Care - Group Home 25 = Group Work Services (Social Adjustment) 29 = Group Work Services (Social Development) 58 = Protection Services for Children 69 = Emergency Aid 87 = Social Allowance 89 = H P I A 90 = Mincome 96 = Foster Home Care - Group Home - 184 -. Presenting/Diagnosed Problem Typology - Variables 14 § 15 1. Employment § Financial 110 Employment - Work Adjustment § Performance 120 Unemployment 130 Unemployability 140 Financial: 141 Inadequate Income 142 Lack of Income 150 Financial Management, e.g. Debt/Credit 160 Transient 100 Other 2. Physical Health 210 Medical $ Health Problems: 211 Chronic 212 Acute 220 Physical Handicap/Disability 230 Nutrition 200 Other 3. Mental Health 310 Retardation 320 Mental Disorders: 321 Chronic 322 Acute 330 Alcoholism 340 Drug Abuse 300 Other .4. Personal S Family • 410 Personal Development § Adjustment 420 Deviant Behaviour: 421 Delinquency 422 Crime 430 Premarital 440 Marital Dysfunctioning 450 Parent-Child Relationships 460 Extended Family Problems 470 Family Life S k i l l s 480 Geriatric Needs ...... 490 Child Care (Family Support): 491 In Home 492 Out of Home - Day Care 493 Out of Home - Temporary (Separati< 494 Out of Home - Permanent • 4A0 Child Desired: 4A1 Temporary (Permanent Separatic 4A2 Permanent 4B0 Child Neglect 4C0 Child Abuse 400 Other 5. 510 Leisure Needs 6. Other 610 Shelter 620 Education 630 School Adjustment 640 Legal: 641 Family 642 Debt/Credit 643 Criminal 644 Other 650 Transportation 660 Lack of Knowledge of Resources l_e - If client's problem is one of inadequate income, code = 141 If client's problem is one of need for day care out of home, code = 492 If client wishes to adopt a child, code = 4A2 - 185 -6. Case Movement - Variables 18 £ 19 1 = Considerable Improvement 2 = Some Improvement 3 = Mixed Improvement 4 = No Change 5 = Regression 6 = Unable to evaluate 8. Religion - Variable 31 1 = Protestant 5 = N/A 2 = Catholic 6 = No Religion 3 = Jewish 0 = Other 4 = Unknown 10. Citizenship - Variable 33 1 = Canadian 3 = Non-Canadian 2 = Landed immigrant  12. Schooling/Education - Variable 36 1 = None 5 = Some Univ. 2 = Elementary 6 = Univ.Grad. 3 = High School 1-2 7 = Technical 4 = HighuSchool 3-5 13. Occupation - Variable 37 1 = Manag/Prof/Tech 2 = Cler/Sales/Serv 3 = Crafts/Prod./Proc 4 = Labourer 5 = Housewife 6 = Student 7 = Retired 8 = N/A 7. Location of Client - Variable 28 7 = Hospital Adoption Home Institution 8 = Hostel Foster/Group Home 9 = Friends Own Home 0 = Other Relative A = Unknown/AWOL J a i l B = Boarding Home 9. Ethnic Origin - Variable 32 1 = Caucasian 2 = Native Indian (Status) 3 = Native Indian (Non Status) 4 = East Indian 5 = Japanese 6 = Chinese 7 = 'Negro 8 = Other [11. Legal Status - Variable 1 = Before the Court (PCA) 2 = Temporary PCA - Ward 3 = Permanent PCA - Ward 4 = Pre Sept 68 PCA Ward 5 = JDA Ward 6 = Non Ward 7 = Other Province 0 = Other (specify)  34 |14. Primary Source of Income - Variable 1 = Employment 42 2 = Unemployment Insur. 3 = Savings, Priv. Pension etc. 4 = Social Assistance 5 = Alimony/Sept. Pay 6 = Gov't Pension 7 = N/A 15. Stage in Family Life Cycle - Variable 49 1 = Couple without children - together up to 2 Family Unit, eldest child 0-30 mths. Family Unit, eldest child 30 mths - 6 yrs. Family Unit, eldest child 6 yrs. - 13 yrs. Family Unit, eldest child 13 yrs. - 20 yrs yrs and over Family Unit, eldest child 20 yrs. and over has le f t home, younger child at home 7 = Family Unit - a l l children have l e f t home - parents not yet retired 8 = Retired Parents 9 = Persons who have never had children - including couples together over 2 years A = Single B = Unable to Categorize C = Extended Family - 186 -Service or Program - Variable 13 - Full List 01. Community Planning, Coordination 02. Community Development 03. Research - Medical 04. Research - Welfare £ Recreation 05. Information § Referral Services 07. Intergroup Relations Services 08. Recruitment, Training, Placement § Supervision of Volunteers 09. Adoption Services 10. Blood Transfusion Services 11. Camping Services - Day 12. Camping Services - Extended 14. Volunteer Parental Substitutes 15. Disaster Services 16. Education § Training of Handicapped 17. Environmental Sanitation 18. Family § Individual Counselling 19. Family Life Education 20. Day Care of Children - Group 21. Day Care of Children - Foster Family 22. Day Care of Adults 23. Foster Home Care 24. Friendly Visiting - Agency Sponsored "25' Groupwork Services (Soc. Adjustment) 29. Groupwork Services (Soc. Develop.) 33. Health Education 35. Homemaker Services 36. Housekeeper Services 37. Homes for Aged - Nursing § Rest Homes 38. Housing Services 39. Informal Education - Personal § Social Development 40. Institutional Care - Dependent Children (Group) 41. Institutional Care - Emotionally Disturbed § Mentally 111 42. Institutional Care - Mentally Retarded 44. Legal Advocacy § Counselling 45. Maternity Home Care 46. Medical Care, Out Patient: Dental Services 47. Medical Care, Out Patient: Medical § Surgical Services 48. Medical Care, Out Patient: Psychiatric Services 49. Medical Care, Out Patient: Rehabilitation Services 50. Medical Social Services 51. Medical Supplies 52. Audiological Assessment 53. Interpreting (Non-Verbal) 54. Nursery School 55. Physical Fitness Programs 56. Probation, Parole, § Correction Services/Juvenile 57. Probation, Parole § Correction Services/Adult 58. Protection Services for Children 61. Public Health Nursing - General 62. Home Nursing Care 63. Meals on Wheels 64. Recreational Services 65. Residential F a c i l i t i e s 66. Resident Treatment Centres for Emotionally Disturbed Children 67. Shelter Care for Homeless § Transient 68. Sheltered Work 69. Emergency Aid 70. Transportation Services for Disabled 72. Vocational Counselling Services 74. Job Placement Services 75. Medical Care, In Patient: a) Acute § Convalescent 75. Medical Care, In Patient: b) Long Term 75. Medical Care,.In Patient: c) Rehabilitation 76. Educational Consultation 85. Food Services - Commercial 86. Residential Service - Commercial 87. Social Allowance 89. H P I A 90. Mincome 91. OAS Supplement 95. Supervision of Institutions 96. Foster Home Care - Group Home - 187 -SAMPLE CASE Client Born Worker Review Date Service Commenced Referral Source Type of Case Service Provided Presenting Problem Diagnosed Problem Prognosis Case Goal Mary Q Sample January 5, 1933 Jack Caseworker January 15, 1974 June 3, 1973 School Family Service 18 = Family § Individual Counselling 19 = Family Life Education 440 - Marital Dysfunctioning 450 - Parent Child Relationships 410 - Personal Development § Adjustment Improvement Improvement Case Movement (according to Client) 1 = Considerable improvement Case Movement (according to Worker) 1 = Considerable Improvement Hours of Service - direct Hours of Service - indirect Total Hours of Service Social Profile 36.5 12.0 48.5 4 - Own Home Location of Client Number in Family Unit being dealt with - 1 Sex 2 = Female Religion 1 = Protestant Ethnic Origin 1 = Caucasian Citizenship 1 = Canadian Marital Status 2 = Married 188 Social Profile (cont.) Education Occupation Employment Status Employability Spouse of Family Head Family Profile - General Family Structure Type of Family 5 = Some University 5 = Housewife 6 = N/A 6 = Mother with children Client i s spouse of Family Head 1 = 2 parent 1 = Nuclear Month § Yr'of birth of dependents at home - 1) 1965 Feb = 8 2) 1970 June = 3 Number of children at home under 19 4 1600 1 1 = Male Stage in Family Life Cycle Total Family Income/month Number working in family unit Family Profile - Head Sex Yr § month of birth of family head April 1930 Marital Status of family head 1 = Married Ethnic Origin of family head Religion of family head Employment Status of family head Employability of family head Schooling of family head Occupation of family head 1 = Caucasian 1 = Catholic 1 = Full Time 1 = Employable 4 = High School - 3-5 years 2 = Sales ENTRY INFORMATION 1 Case"number -. 189 -COMMON CASELOAD RF.POKTINC COniNC FORM ouvcr (repeat whore *) t\S\A\rt\f>\7\3\3\o\/\o\S\l\<P\ I IA|/« 2 Dace of Entry 3 Agency No 1 Branch 4 Worker Number 5 Agency Code for Case 6 Code 1 for new entry, blank for update 7 Case Status (1 - open, 2 - c losed, 3 - re-open, *otlier) 8 Reason for Closing (see code i) 9 Review Date 10 Date service commenced 11 Source of referral (see code 2) 12 Type of case (see code 3) 13 Service or Program (see code 4) Social Insurance Number , V I : A I ; • v •xv. D A \r\M t Al o ;>l 1 pi te £1 1 t ? n I I I I l 3 | A | 3 [^ ]g YEAR MONTH DAY <t>wi¥] DETJ rzrzie Y E A R M O N T H D A Y l l l l l l TT~I« PROGRAM - TREATMENT ANALYSTS * Case number 14 Presenting problem(s) (see code 5) 15 Diagnosed problem (see code 5) 16 Prognosis (1-lmpr, 2-no change, 3-regress ,\S\»\M\fl\ 91 313 I ol /I o\sTi^T^l 4-D/K) 17 Case goal (1-impr, 2-maintenance, 3-restoration, 4-enrichment) 18 Case movement - client (see code 6) 19 Case movement - worker (see code 6) 20 Hours of service provided (direct) 21 Hours of service provided (indirect) .22 Total hours of service provided EL 31 ft IS CLIENT'S SOCIAL PROFILE *Case number 23 Surname 24 First name 25 Maiden name; tor Christian l«l//lal*7l/7ivl name of spouse put *in boMnf' ' " I H I f< I f< I ILL J s ft n p 3 o / o .f A; 4 Cl \5\fi\n\P\L F- ? \ 3 3(. J»IAII/?UI YT * Case number 26 Residence Address Street name City/Municipality 27 Local Area il.? ft M\P\r\3\3\o\/ \o\S-\M\<?\ 1 PI It Apt. No. 3 1 f *. si Street No. A N ft p P L F G R £ £- N V y w F. 5 T V /? N C O U V e /? 6UlPl/?lolP it A Case number ,\S\fl\M\P\71 3131 o / 28 Location of client (see code 7) w 17 29 Number in family unit being dealt with /ll 1 /» 30 Sex (1-male 2-female) 31 Religion (see code 8) 32 Ethnic o'rigin (see code 9) 33 Citizenship (see code 10) 34 Legal status (child welfare only, see code 31) 35 Marital status (1-slngle, 2-marrled, 3-widowvd, 4-divorced, 5-separated, 6-common law) 36 Schooling/Education (see code 12) 37 Occupation (see code 13) 38 If student (1-general , 2-un lv . , 3-post grad, 4-tech) 39 Employment status (i-full time, 2-part time, 3- occasional, 4-uncmp, 5-retlred, 6-N/A) 40 Employabllity (1-employable: . unemplcyablc; 2-age, 3-soc/emo 4- physlcal, 3-tnental, 6-mother w.children, 7-other) 41 Monthly Income (to nearest dollar) 5 42 Pr im.iry source of Income (sea code 14) 43 (l-famlly bond , 2-spouse of I'. I i . , 3-nclthor) H e.i EI* Page 1 190 C O M M O N CASCi.iiAn R R P O I I T I . K ; CTDTNV F O R M imbs V a n c o u v e r FAMILY PROFILE INSTRUCTIONS: (A) If client is over 19 yrs and not (B)or (C)complete where relevant (B) If client isa family head complete items 44-51 (C) If client is a spouse of a family head complete items 44-62 (0) If client is under 19 and not (B) or (C) complete items 44-63 * Case number 44 Family structure (1-two parents, 2-maie parent only 3-female parent only, 4-other) 45 Type of family (1-nuclear, 2-broken, 3-blended) ''S Year & tooth of birth of dependents at home, oldest ..Son m « £ t n m« Jfri r ISI/M^I/>r>l3l3U/lol<UUI 1 Ipl, L7]/t a , , first %\c\s\ KoYz\„ "^7\o\ rsm, Jft I F * -47 Number of children at home (under 19) 48 Number of non dependents at home 49 Stage in family life cycle (see code 15) . 50 Total family income/month (to nearest dollar) 51 Number working in family unit ecu »cm n \/\6\o\ YR, , 3-widowed UJ, ,.\3 \o\«™\o\*\,., fed" * Case number 52 Sex of family head (1-male, 2-female) 53 Year & Month of birth of family head 54 Marital status of family head (1-single, 2-married 4-divorced, 5-separated, 6-common law) 55 Ethnic origin of family head (see code 9) 56 Religion of family head (see code 8) 57 Employment status of family head (1-full time, 2-part time, 3-occasional, 4-unemp., 5-retired, 6-N/A) 58 Employability of family head (1-employable; unemployable: 2-age, 3-soc/emot, 4-physical, 5-mental, 6-mother w.children,7-other) 59 Schooling/Education of family head (see code 12} 60 Occupation of family head (see code 13) 61 Monthly income of family head (to nearest dollar) 62 Primary source of income 63 Separated from family of origin (1-yes, 2-no) NOTES * Case number 63-,\s\fi\rtp\9\3\3\o\i\n\s\m\<a\ 1 lal Lzkt Sag 31 IS 3¥ I I I ? JACK .CASEWORKEfc O P E N T Y ° E : F A M . S E R V R e v i e w s 7 1 . 0115 R F P T . T : 7 3 1 2 0 4 Rrr .AM. ; 7 ? 0 6 0 3 R E F S O J : S C H O O L P R I N T E D O N : 1 2 / 0 4 / 7 3 | I MA°Y S P : H A P f Y « ; « M r > i F S E R V I C E ( S ) : C O U N S E L F A M . L F E I I S A M P O ^ 3 0 ' 0 c " 0 CAS": M O V E M E N T , C L I E N T : C O N S I O _ I M P W O P K E R : C 0 N S 1 0 _ 1 M P I A P T ? > 9 I R » P * O P I _ „ WFST V f i N r r i l V F F E N T R Y D A T E WORKER P R O G N O S I S 7 3 1 2 )<» ?JA£A CASEWORKER I M P R O V E P R O B L F M ( S ) P R E S E N T F O M A O _ O Y S F N PAP_CH_">L D I A G N O S E D P E P S _ A O J U  C A S E G O A L I M P R O V E M T S O C I A L P R T = I L E 1 F A M I L Y P R O F I L E — G E N E R A L | • F A M I L Y P R O F I L F — MP AO I C H E C K H F F E | y u c " M p r n T f L O C A T I O N NO I N F A M I L Y U N I T S E t OWN HOME 1 I 1 f F M A L F 1 F A M I L Y S T P U C T ' I P E T Y P E OF F A M I L Y YP t MO O F B H T H OF D E P A T HOME 2 P A R E N T N U C L E A R 6 5 0 2 7 0 0 6 1 S F X . | YP. r. MO P F M R T H | .MAP f TAt. 5 T A T U S M A L r ? 0 0 4 M ftp D I c 0 1 !<: F C O M I S ' F O i r~"i R E L I G I O N E T H N I C O R I G I N r i T T 7 F N ^ M T P P R O T E S T A 1 C A U C A S I A N 1 C A N A D I A N 1 N O OF C H I L D ^ F N UNDER 1 9 AT HOME NO OF N O N - O F P f N D E N T S AT HOME 2 0 | - E T H N I C P P I G J N | R E L I G I O N j p MPt 0 YM CM T S T A T U ? C A U C A S I C A T H O L K Pi II. L _T T M r 1 t 1 1 U - J L I 1 111 " O n 1 r L E G A L S T A T U S M A R I T A L S T A T U S cr»i i r A T I DM ? 1 M A P R I f D 1 S ' lMF ON TV 1 S T A G E I N F A M I L Y L I F E C Y C L E T O T A L F A M I L Y I N C O M E / M O N T H NO W O R K I N G I N F A M I L Y U N I T C H L D _ 6 _ 1 3 Y R S 1 6 0 0 1 | F M P L O Y A R I L I TY | E D U C A T I O N | f l T . U P A T IPM f>\D\ TYA p L r-H I G H , ? , " S A L c S _ r i F P I r> I p FT T IT I'" | T P n n f •> I O C C U P A T I O N E M D L O Y M F N T S T A T U S F M p i 1 Y A R I ! I TY H O U S E W I F E 1 N _ A : 1 IMF MP M O T H E R 1 | MONTHLY I N C P M E . 1 P P I M I N C O M E SOU I 6 0 0 E MPL O Y ^TNT I J^ n ' N ' | j Kjn T o HPJ.'R ' MONTHLY I N C O M E P R I M A R Y S O U R C E H F A O / S P O U S E 0 1 7 _ _ _ _ 1 S P O U S E ! I TP OATP i ; 1 .- — —— — — — — — —————— _* : — N O T E S : C 1 1 1 ' ' I D < i r . - . i s r TUS N . I . S T A T U S C A N A D I A N . : T i ' M P r : R P C A N O O F C H I L D R E N U N D E R N O U F N U N - D E P E N D E N T S S T A G E I N F A M I L Y L I F F 1 9 A T H U H t A T H O M E C Y C L E 0 0 C H L D N . LEFT " V i ' l M L iTJlUS fc::i;r.'.i " r'VtCYf'tlST STATUS f-'L-lYAHIl ITY i> INGLc N C N E N A V l > T A L F A M I L Y I N C C M E / M U N T I I N C W C R K I N G I N F A K I L Y U N I T R E L I G I O N E M P L O Y M E N T S T A T U S E M P L I I Y A B I L I T Y C A T H I L I C U N t M P L O Y U N E H P S U C E M O U 1 K E C T H O U R S P P B S EASE L O A D A N A L ' Y S I S ^ B Y ' C A ' S E T Y P ^ F O R K O R K E R J E A N J A R V I S C A S E T Y P E t A D O P T _ A P P NAME AGE SEX P R O B . P R E S R E F E R _ S O U R C E C L 1 E N T . L O C EMPLOY A B I L I T Y UtCUPAT ION S C H O O L I N G JE 41 HAL J L 35 HAL J A 38 MAL GM 40: HAL RM 43 MAL S E L F OWN.HOME OWN.KOME OWN.HOHE UWN.HOHE OWN.HOHE OWN.HOKE EMPLOYABLE EMPLOYABLE 7 EMPLOYABLE EMPLOYABLE EMPLOYABLE PR(!F_MANAG PROF_MANAG PROF.MANAG P R O F . M A N A G S A L E S ~ C L E R PROF.MANAG U N I V . G R A D TECHN ICAL H I G H . 1 . 2 _ U N I V _ G R A D H I G H . 3 . 5 U N I V _ G R A O C A S E T Y P E : A D O P T . H M E " NAME " •  - •• a r . F . F X P R O B _ P R ^ RFFFR SOURCE C L I E N T _ L O C E M PL 0YA B_I_L__T_y_—Q^CJ_P__TJ__N SJSH_jQJ.jjjG_ GF S P D E BM MS 36 MAL C D E S . P E R M S E L F AO MAL C D E S . P E R M S E L F _ " 5 5 " MAL COES_PERM S E L F 964 MAL COES_PERM LAWYER 31 HAL C C E S _ P E R H 7 _ 31 MAL CDES_PERM SELF OWN.HOHE OWN.HOKE ' OWN.HOHE OWN.HCME OWN.HOME EMPLOYABLE EMPLOYABLE EMPLOYABLE f EMPLOYABLE OWN.HOKE EMPLOYABLE S A L E S _ C L ER H I G H . 3 . 5 7 ? S A L E S _ C L E R H I G H _ 3 _ 5 7 i — PROF MANAG U N I V _ G R A D " S A L l l . C L E R H I G H _ 3 _ 5 C A S E T Y P E ^ D O P J J P E j r NAME A G E SEX P R O B . P R E S REFER_SOURCE C L I E N T . L O C E M P L O Y A B I L I T Y O C C U P A T I O N S C H O O L I N G A D J R R J OR M J 35 29 30 37 32 HAL C D E S . P E R M S E L F MAL C D E S . P E R M S E L F MAL C D E S . P E R M S E L F MAL C D E S . P E R M S E L F MAL C D E S . P E R M S E L F OWN. HOME OWN.HOHE OWN.HOME OHN.HCME OWN.HCME EMPLOYABLE EMPLOYABLE EMPLOYABLE EMPLOYABLE EMPLOYABLE PROF.MANAG PROF.MANAG PROF.MANAG P R O F . M A N A G PROF.MANAG U N I V . G R A O U N I V . G R A O U N I V . G R A D U N I V . G R A O S U M E . U N I V C A S E T Y P E * C H L O _ T N _ C NAME AGE SEX P R O B . P R E S R E F E R _ S O U R C E _ . C L I E N T . L C C _ E M P L O Y A B I L I T Y OCCUPATION S C H O O L I N G PK JA 18 17 F E M MAL C C R E . P E R M C C R E . P E R M TD 16 C L E 18 T A V 14 6" 14 15 E S J RS  "T B 0 8 SR 13 ~ M F FEM FEM MAL MAL MAL MAL " T F M " s M 16 11 0 "IE . J M G H 16 16 MAL FEM MAL FEM FF.H MAL HAL C C R E . P E R M P A P . C H . P L CDES.PERM"" N U T R I T I O N C C R E . T E M P C C R E . P E R M C C R E . T E M P C C R E . P E R M C C R E . P E R M C C H E . T E MP R E L A T I V E O T H E R . A G E N C Y CTHER.AGENC1 R E L A T I VE R E L A T I V E ?___ R E L A T I VE R E L A T I V E R E L A T I VE ' R E L A T I V E OTHER.AGENCY "RELATIVE O T H E R . AGENCY R E L A T I VE R C l A T l V C OWN.HOME U N E M P . O T H E R OWN_H0KE E H P L O Y A B L E I N S T T T U T I T J DTJEHPlOTHElT" OWN.HOKE U N E M P . O T H E R F O S T R . H O M E U N E M P . A G E ADOPT.HOME U N E M P . A G E " " I N S T I T U T I O U N E M P . A G E INST ITUT10 UNEMP.OTHER ^ N T F « T P F ~ O N E H P - A G E PR1H_LAB0R T O STUDENT STUDENT STUDENT STUDENT N_A H I G H . 3 . 5 H I G H . 3 . 5 H I G H . 3 . 5 H I G H . 1 . 2 N O N E 7 ? "3 TUDTTftT R'DR fT OWN.HOME FOST R.HUME " I N S T I T U T I O FOST R_ BO ME A D O P I . H O M E U N E M P . A G E U N E M P . A G E UNEMP.OTHER U N E M P . A G E U N E M P . A G E n u u r i.cmrv. »»••.-•••_ _ FuSTR .HUME EflPTDYAlTLT LKfc I t n r K L L O i i i c . v.-. .... -C C R E . T E M P O T H E R _ A G E N C Y F O S T R . H O M E 7 STUDENT STUDENT STUDENT STUDENT N . A "~S"Tuf)"ENT" STUDENT NONE ELEMENTRY H I G H . 1 . 2 ELEMENTRY NONE C A S E T Y P E A L L C L I E N T S BY C A S E T Y P E AND WORKER WORKER _F AM_ SE_R S A _ S I N G S A _ C P L E S A _ 2 P A R S A _ I P A R S A _ C H I L _ S A _ H I N £ A U O P f _ P ADO P T _ A A D O P T . H F O S T _ P E F O S T _ A P C H L D . I N U N M A « _ P H L T H _ I N HP I A O T H E R " ?_ EN PP KE ND" PR _C AR ST J E A N J A R V I S C O U N T C A S f c _ N O • I S 11 0 0 1 5 1 0 5 6 6 0 :7; 1 6 2 0 1 0 0 J U N E CMH.OTT C O U N T ; " C A S E . N O " 5 0 5 0 L I B B Y K E L L Y COUNT CA'S'OO '•*"'"• •" 3 9 M A R Y P A I S L E Y C L U N T C A S E . N U 10 C O U N T C A S E . N O 6 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 4 2 6 1 1 S U B T O T A L C O U N T C A S E _ N O " 6 9 4 0 1 16 0 2 0 0 0 b o l o o 3 3 9 1 5 7 8 B 5 6 3 2 8 6 1 4 1 1 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _41_ 1 1 6 1 0 1 0 4 2 4 4 1 0 0 2 6 0 1 51 1 i o o o 0 0 0 3 5 1 4 5 2 1 S U B T U T A L 8 5 1 9 1 TT9- TTT 5 0 8 I m i 3 A L L C L O S E D C A S E S BY C L O S I N G R E A S O N AND C A S E T Y P E C A S E T Y P E C L O S I N G R E A S O N O T H E R C L I E N T ! C O M P L E T E WORKER R E F E R R E D 7 S U B T O T A L C O U N T C O U N T C O U N T C O U N T C O U N T C O U N T C O U N T — C A S E . N O C A S E . N O - - C A S E . N O — C A S E ^ N O C A S E . N O C A S E _ N O C A S E _ N O F A M S E R V 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 S A . S I N G 1 8 - — 3 1 1 0 1 4 S A _ C P L E 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 S A _ 2 P A R 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 S A _ l P A R — : 1 - 4 2 0 — 2~~ 0 — - - 9 S A _ C H I L D 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 S A _ M I N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A O C P T _ P E W - : 0 - — 0 — 0 — - 0 0 0 0 A D O P T _ A P P : 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 A D O P T _ H M E ! 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 F O S T _ P E N D : — 0 ... 0 — — -0 .:• — — 0 0 0 ; 0 F O S T _ A P P R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C H L D _ I N _ C '. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N M A R - P A R T 0 _ _ 0 _ : 0 — 0 _ 0 0 0 H I T H _ 1 N S T •• 0 '! 1 0 0 2 0 3 HP I A 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 O T H E R . . „ „ . . 0 0 0 -. 0 - 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 '0 0 0 - S U B T O T A L . — - 3 — 17 i l _ _ 2 9 1 43-E L A P S E D T I M E - * - 5 0 . 8 5 6 S E C A S A P C P U TIME« 4 . 0 5 5 SfcC S O R T C P U T I M E 3 0 . 2 1 3 S E C NO E R R O R S I S S U E D . E X E C U T I O N T E R M I N A T E D A L L S O C I A L A L L O W A N C E C L I E N T S BY E M P L O Y A B I L I T Y E M P L O Y A B I L I T Y S O C I A L A L L O W A N C E T Y P E S A . S I N G C C U N T C A S E . N O E M P L O Y A B L E 4 4 U N F M P _ A G E 3 U N L K P . S C C . E H U 5 U N ' F M P _ P H Y S I C 13 U N E P P . M S N T A L 6 U N E M P . M C T H E R 0 U N E M P . O T H E R 6 7 \. ' 1 S U B T O T A L 1 7 8 S A . C O U P COUNT C A S E . N O 3 2 0 3 0 0 0 c S A . 2 P A R C O U N T C A S E . N O 2 ' • 0 1 1 0 . 6 i o S A . 1 P A R COUNT C A S E . N O 1 2 1 S A . C H I L D C O U N T . C A S E . N O 1 0 3 8 _. I 3 5 3 0 6 3 S A . M I N C C O U N T C A S E . NO 8 6 9 0 0 0 b l 0 7 0 0 2 0 8 6 O T H E R C O U N T C A S E_NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S U B T O T A L C O U N T C A S E . NO 7 0 75  9 32 7 " 3 5 -13 1 2 * 2 A L L S O C I A L A L L O W A N C E C L I E N T S BY O C C U P A T I O N O C C U P A T I O N S O C I A L A L L O W A N C E T Y P E r S A _ S I N G S A _ C O U P S A 1 2 P A R S A _ I P A R S A _ C H I L O S A _ M I N C O T H E R S U B T O T A L C O U N T COUNT C O U N T C O U N T COUNT C O U N T C O U N T C O U N T — • C A S E _ N O C A S E _ N O C A S E _ N O C A S E . N O CA SE_NO C A S E _ M J C A S E _ N O C A S E . N O P R C F _ M A N A G 2 1 1 5 1 3 0 13 S A L E S _ C L E R 2 7 :: 3 I 22 C 6 0 59 C R A F T _ P R U O 6 0 i 5 0 0 0 12 PR I M _ L A B O R • 30 2 1 0 3 0 39 H O U S E W I F E 1 2 . 0 - _. 1 22 C 34 0 59 S T L D E N T 4 0 0 3 1 1 0 9 R E T I K E D : 4 2 c I 0 38 0 45 N A M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ::.:'.";3 o 0 2 0 1 0 6 S U B T O T A L ; 78 8 ; 5 ; ? 63 2 86 0 242 A L L E M P L O Y A B L E ' S O C I A L A L L O W A N C E C L I E N T S BY U C C U P A I I U N C C C U P A T ICN S O C I A L A L L O W A N C E T Y P E P R C F _ M A h A G S A L E S . C L E R C a A F T _ P P O D PR.I M_L A eOR H C U S E W T F E S T U O t N T ; , RET I K E D N A :"'; S A . S I N G C O U N T _ C A S E _ N O 0 . 1 7 S A _ C O U P C O U N T C A S E _ N O S A j 2 P A R C O U N T C A S E _ N O 1 0 S A _ I P A R C O U N T C A S E _ N O 3 8 S A . C H I L D C O L N T C A S E _ N O 1 0 S A _ M I N C C O U N T C A S E _ N O 2 3 O T H E R C O U N T C A S E _ N O 0 0 S U B T O T A L C O U N T C A S E _ N O 7 2 9 3 2 3 0 •is 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 b c 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 b o b o o 4 27 1 0 1 0 S U B T O T A L 44 b 12 b 0 1 70 -or-- 199 -Appendix VIII Bibliography , Anthony, R. N., Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis, (1965). Association for Systems Management, Business Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, 1970. Association for Systems Management, Management Science and Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, 1972. Bateman, Worth, "Assessing Program Effectiveness: A Rating System for Identifying Relative Project Success", Welfare in Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, January-February 1968. Bauer, Raymond A., Social Indicators, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, 1966. Benson, E.S., "Budget Breakthrough: Adoption of PPB", Canadian Tax  Journal, Vol. XVI, May-June 1968. Berg, R.D., "A PPBS Overview for the School District", Management  Controls, January 1972, Vol. XIX, No. 1. Blanning, R.W., Integrated Planning Systems, Moore School of Electrical Engineering, Philadelphia, December 1971. Benson, R.E. et. a l , Information Requirements for Public Welfare Programs, Department of Budget § Finance, State of Hawaii, October 1971. Benton, J.B. and Tenzer, A.J., Program Budgeting and Executive Commit- ment, The Rand Corp., Santa Monica, California, July 1969. Benton, W.K., The Use of the Computer in Planning, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Don Mi l l s , Ontario, 1971. Boulden, J.B. and Buffa, E.S., "Corporate Models: On-Line, Real Time Systems", Harvard Business Review, July-August 1970. Brandon, D.H., Management Planning for Data Processing, Brandon/Systems Press, Princeton, New York, 1970. Buckley, Walter, ed., Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral  Sciences, Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, 1968. - 200 -Bureau of the Budget Bulletin No. 68-2, Planning Programming and  Budgeting, Washington (July 18, 1967). Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler § Weick, Managerial Behavior, Performance  and Effectiveness, McGraw H i l l , Toronto, 1970. Carlson, D., Modern Management: Principles § Practice, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1962. Caro, F.C., ed., Readings in Evaluative Research, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1971. Carter, N. § Wharf, B., Evaluating Social Development § Programs, Canadian Council on Social Development, Ottawa, 1973. Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board, Study Design  for Regional Social Services Management System, Syracuse, New York, June 1971. Churchman, C.W., The Systems Approach, Dell Publishing Co., 1968. Cohen, Alan, "Your Efficiency Rating", Canadian Welfare, Vol. 45, No. 1, January-February 1969. Coleman, J.S., Introduction to Mathematical Sociology, The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1964. Collins, B.E., Guetzkow, H., A Social Psychology of Group Processes for  Decision-Making, John Wiley § Sons Inc., New York, 1964. Dechert, C.R., ed., The Social Impact of Cybernetics, Simon § Schuster, New York, 1967. Department of Communications § Department of Justice, Privacy and  Computers, Information Canada, 1972. Deverell, C.S., Acquiring Management S k i l l s , Gee § Co. Ltd., London, 1973. Drake, A., Keaney, R.L., Morse, P.M., ed., Analysis of Public Systems, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972. Drew, E.B., "HEW Grapples with PPBS", The Public Interest 8, Summer 1967. Economic Council of Canada Eighth Annual Review, Design for Decision- Making, Information Canada, Ottawa, September 1971. Edmonton Public School Board, Educational Planning by the Systems  Approachj Department of Research, Development § Information, Edmonton, October 1970. - 201 -Elkin, Robert, "The Systems Approach to Managing Welfare Programs", Management Controls Vol. 16, No. 1, January 1969. Emery, J.C, Organizational Planning, and Control Systems Theory  and Technology, Collier-MacMillan Ltd., London, 1969. Etzioni, Amitai, Readings on Modern Organizations, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1969. Feller, I., ed., The Application of Science § Technology to Public  Programs: Papers, Recommendations and Discussion, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, August 1971. Ferman, L.A., "Some Perspectives on Evaluating Social Welfare Programs", The Annals of the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and Social Science, September 1969. Fletcher, N.C., "The Syntax of Organization", Optimum 1970, Vol. 1, No. 4. Frank, J.E., "A Framework for Analysis of PPB Success and Causality", Administrative Science Quarterly, Dec. 1973. Frei,J.W., "Practice Research in Societal Development", Paper presented at the Seminar of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, February 1969. Frei, J.W., "A Proposal for a Form-Changing Model for Social Planning  Council Organization", Paper presented to Community Funds and Councils of Canada, Toronto, March 1971. Friedman, John, Retracking America, Doubleday Anchor Press, New York, 1973. Garrett, J. § Walker, S.D., Management by Objectives in the C i v i l  Service, C i v i l Service Department, London, England, 1969. Ghorpade, J., Framework for the Measurement of Programmatic Effective-ness, Urban Observatory, San Diego, California, April 1971. Goodman, Nathaniel, "The Catch in Functional Budgeting: To What End?" Social Work, Vol. 14, No. 3, July 1969. Graese, C.E., "Managing Administration Service", Management Controls, Vol. XIX, No. 2, February 1972. Graziano, U.J., "Integrated Logistics Planning and Control", Management Controls, Vol. XIX, No. 2, February 1972. Greater St. Paul United Fund § Council, Family Unit Register, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1969. - 202 -Greenhouse, Samuel ;M., "The Planning-Program-Budgeting System: Rationale, Language and Idea-Relationships", Public Administration  Review, December 1966. Gross, Bertram M., "The New Systems Budgeting", Public Administration  Review, (March/April 1969). * Haggart, S.A., The Program Structuring Aspect of PPB for Education, The Rand Corporation, February 1971. Hakanson,:N;H., Participative Budgeting Under Uncertainty: A  Decision-Theoretic Approach, Rand Corporation, California, February 1971. Hampton, D.R., Modern Management: Issues S Ideas, Dickenson Publishing Co. Inc., Belmont, California, 1969. Harland, D., Social Indicators: A Framework for Measuring Regional Social Disparities, Social and Human Analysis Branch, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, July 1971. (second draft) Harland, D., The Content, Measurement and Forecasting of Quality of  Life: Volume 1 - The Literature, Social and Human Analysis Branch, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, October 1971. Harland, D., The Content, Measurement and Forecasting of Quality of  Life: Volume II - Index to the Literature, Social and Human Analysis Branch, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, November 1971. Harmston, F.K., § Lund, R.E., Application of an Input-Output Framework  to a Community Economic System, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, 1967. Hatry, H.P., "Status of PPBS in Local and State Government in the United States", Policy Sciences, 2, 1971. Hearle, E.E., § Manson, R.J., A Data Processing System for State S  Local Governments, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1965. Helmer, 0., The Systematic Use of Expert Judgement in Operations  Research, The Rand Corporation, September 1963. Helmer, 0., A Use of Simulation for the Study of Future Values, The-Rand Corporation, September 1966. Hirsch, Werner.Z., "Toward Federal Program Budgeting", Public  Administration Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, December 1966. Hodgson, J.S., "Planning, Programming, and Budgeting", Public  Administration, New York. - 203 -Hoos, I.R., Systems Analysis in Public Policy, A Critique, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1972. Hoos, I.R., Systems Analysis as a Technique for Solving Social  Problems - A Realistic Overview, University of California Press, Berkeley, October 1968. Humble, J.W., Management by Objectives in Action, McGraw H i l l , London, 1970. Isard, W. & Langford, T.W., Regional Input-Output Study, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971. Jaques, C.L.R., The Private and Social Rates of Discount, Unpublished Paper, 1969. Jewish Community Federation, A Measurement Model for Planning and  Budgeting, Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland, Ohio, January 1973. Kast, F.E., £ Rosenweig, J.E., Organization and Management: A Systems  Approach, McGraw H i l l Inc., New York, 1970. Kelly, J.E., Computerized Management Information System, Macmillan, New York, 1970. Kepner, C.H., Tregoe, B.B., The Rational Manager, McGraw H i l l , Toronto, 1965. Koontz, ;H., § O'Donnell, C , Principles of Management: An Analysis  of Managerial Functions, McGraw H i l l , New York, 1968. Laughlin, R., § Penney, T., An Inventory of Social Indicators, Social  and Human Analysis Branch, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, July 1971. Lee, Sang M., "Good Programming for Decision-Making § Multiple Objectives", Sloan Management Review, Winter 1972-73. Levin, R.I., § Lamone, R.P., Quantitative Disciplines in Management Decisions, Dickenson Publishing Co. Inc., Belmont, California, 1969. Levine, Abraham S., "Cost Benefit Analysis and Social Welfare: An Exploration of Possible Applications", Welfare in Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1966. Levine, A.S., "Cost Benefit Analysis of the Work Experience Program: Research Strategy", Welfare in Review, Vol. 4, No. 7, August-September 1966. - 204 -Levine, A.S., "Evaluating Program Effectiveness and Efficiency: Rationale and Description of Research i n Progress", Welfare i n  Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1967. Levine, A.S., "Rehabilitating Disabled Welfare Recipients: A Cost Benefit Analysis", Welfare in Review, Vol. 6, No. 5, September-October 1968. . Levinson, Perry, "Evaluation of Social Welfare Programs: Two Research Models", Welfare i n Review, Vol. 4, No. 10, December 1966. MacKenzie, R.A., "The Management Process i n 3-D", Harvard Business  Review, November-December 1969. Mahoney, M.W., et a l , Cost Benefit Evaluation of Welfare Demonstration  Projects: A Test Application to Juvenile Rehabilitation, Resources Management CorpoBation, Bethesda, Maryland, December 1968. McCay, R., Irby, T., Pappgo, E., Literature Survey for Possible CAP  Effectiveness Measures: Preliminary Report, Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington, D.C., May 1965. McKean R.N., £, Anshen M., "Problems, Limitations and Risks", Program  Budgeting, ed. David Novick (Washington: Govt. Printing Office 1964, 65) Chapter ix. Meier, R.C., Newell, W.T., Pazer, H.L., Simulation in Business and Economics, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1969. Millward, R.E., "PPBS: Problems of Implementation", Journal of the  American Institute of Planners, (March 1968). Northwood, L.K., Research Methods for Measuring Peoples' Needs as Used  in Open and Closed Information Systems of Planning, School of Social Work, University of Washington, July 1971. Novick, David, ed., Program Budgeting, Cambridge, Harvard University, 1965. Novick, David, Program Analysis Revisited, The Rand Cerporation, California, August 1971. Novick, David, "Long Range Planning Through Program Budgeting", Business Horizons, Vol. XII, February 1969. Novick, D., Current Practice i n Program Budgeting (PPBS), Heinemann Books Ltd: London, 1973. - 205 -O'Hara, P., "Total Systems: Operating Objectives and Planning Structure", Journal of Systems Management, November 1970. Oliphant, P., "Program Definition in PPBS", Business Quarterly, Summer, 1970. Page, D.A., "The Federal Planning - Programming - Budgeting System", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, July 1967. Perkin, S.A., et a l . , "PPBS for Education", Management Controls, February 1970. Permar, Paul A., Planriing-Programming-Budgeting System - Its Concepts, Characteristics and Objectives Internal and External to the YMCA, The.National Council of YMCA's of U.S.A., New York, (undated). Plessas, D.J., § Fein,. R., "An Evaluation of Social Indicators", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, January 1972. Pollack, J., § Taft, M., "Urban Planning: Ripe for Systems Analysis", Journal of Systems Management, January 1971. Reddin, W.J., Managerial Effectiveness, McGraw H i l l Inc., New York, 1970. Reddin, W.J., Effective Management by Objectives: The 3-D Method of MB0, McGraw H i l l Inc., New York, 1971. Reddin, W.J., "MBO and the Behavioral Sciences", Optimum 1972, Vol. 3, No. 2. Rivlin, A.M., Systematic Thinking for Social Action, The Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C., 1971. Rosenblatt, Aaron, "The Practitioner's Use of Evaluation and Research", Social Work, January 1968. Sample, William C , "The Findings on Client Change", Social Services  Review. Sayles, L.R. § Chandler, M.K., Managing Large Systems: Organizations  for the Future, Harper § Rand, New York, 1971. Schatz, H.A., Social Work Administration, Social Work Administration, New York, 1970. Schelling, Thomas, cited in Gross, B.M., "PPBS Reexamined", Public  Administration Review, (March/April 1969). - 206 -Schick, Allen, "The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform", Public Administration Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, December 1966. Seattle Model City Program, Program and Project Planning in a Socio-Political Environment: A Note and Some Useful Tools, 1971. Seidman, D.R., "PPB in HEW: Some Management Issues", Journal of the  American Institute of Planners, May 1970. Sherwood, Clarence C , "Issues in Measuring Results of Action Programs", Welfare i n Review, August-September 1967. Shonfield, A., § Shaw, S. (ed.) Social Indicators and Social Policy: Heinemann Books Ltd., London, 1972. Shull, Delbeque § Cummings, Organizational Decision-Making, McGraw H i l l Book Co., Toronto, 1970. Shyne, Ann W., "Evaluation of Results i n Social Work", Social Work, Vol. 8, No. 4, October 1968. Simon, H.A., Administrative Behavior, The Free Press, New York (1957) . Snider, E.L., The Need for Social Indicators - The Alberta Case, Paper presented at the Seminar on Social Indicators, Canadian Council on Social Development, Ottawa, January 13-14, 1972. Spindler, Arthur, "PPBS and Social Rehabilitation Services", Welfare  in Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, March-April 1969. Statistics Canada, Geographically Referenced Data Storage and Retrieval  System: A Technical Description, Methodology and Systems Branch, June 1972. Stein, Herman D., Hougham, G.M. and Zalba, S.R.'J "Assessing Social Agency Effectiveness: A Goal Model", Welfare i n Review, Vol. 6, No. 8, March-April 1968. Stewart, G., On Looking Before Leaping, Paper presented at the Seminars on Social Indicators, Canadian Council on Social Development, Ottawa, January 13, 1972. Stubbins, Henry, "In Support of Program Budgeting", Canadian Welfare, Vol. 45, No. 1, January-February 1969. Suchman, E.A., Evaluative Research, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1967. - 207 -Teitz, M.B., "Cost Effectiveness: A Systems Approach to Analysis of Urban Services", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, September 1968. Treasury Board of Canada, Planning Program Budgeting Guide, September 1969. Treasury Board of Canada, Program Forecast § Estimates Manual, August 1969. Treasury Board of Canada, Benefit Cost Analysis Guide: Fif t h Draft. Treasury Board of Canada, Guidelines for the Conduct of Analysis on  Departmental Programs, October 1969. Treasury Board of Canada, Discount Rate Guidelines and the Treatment  of Opportunity Costs for Cost Benefit Analysis, December 1969. Tri s t , ;E., ""Urban North America: The Challenge of the Next Thirty Years", Paper presented at the 1968 Annual Meeting of the Town Planning Institute of Canada (1968). Tufte, E.R., ed., The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Don Mi l l s , Ontario, 1970. United Way of America, United Way of American Services Identification  System, January 1972. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1973). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Urban 8, Regional  Information Systems, U.S. Govt. Printing Office. Van Court Hare, Jr., Systems Analysis: A Diagnostic Approach, Harcourt, Brace § World Inc., New York, 1967. Vesper, K.H. et a l . , A Quantitative Approach for Decision Analysis, University of Washington, Seattle, May 1971. Wallin, H.A., Family and Individual Counselling, United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area, 1972. Walters, D., Social Intelligence and Social Policy, Paper presented at the Seminar on Social Indicators, Canadian Council on Social Development, January 1972. Wildavsky, Aaron, "The P o l i t i c a l Economy of Efficiency: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Systems Analysis and Program Budgeting", Public Administration Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, December 1968. - 208 -Wilson, A.H., Science, Technology § Innovation, Economic Council of Canada, 1968. Wirt, J.G., Optimization of Price and Quality in Service Systems Rand Corporation, California, March 1971. Wolfensberger, W., $ Glenn, L., Program Analysis of Service Systems (PASS), National Institute on Mental Retardation, New York, 1973. Wolfensberger, ;W., Normalization: The Principles of Normalization  in Human Services, National Institute on Mental Retardation, New York, 1972. The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: The PPBS System, a Compendium of Papers, Volumes I, II and III submitted to the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, ;D.C., 20402, 1969. "A Symposium: Planning-Programming-Budgeting System Re-examined, Development, Analysis and Criticism", Public Administration  Review, April-March 1969. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099963/manifest

Comment

Related Items