Implementation

1
Implementation

• Implementation Theory

2
Implementation

• Research as well as media focus tends to focus on
  policy formulation rather than implementation
• Adherence to the politics-administration
  dichotomy
• Overhead Democracy
• However, consider what occurs during the
  implementation process
• Political Models
• Executive centered
• Legislative centered
• Bureaucracy centered

3
Institutional Theory of Administrative Policy
Making
4
Institutions and Implementation

• Executive Branch (The President)
• Control can be difficult
• More rewards in promoting new programs rather
  that monitoring existing ones
• Legislative Branch
• More rewards in legislative and
  constituent-service than in oversight
• Committee members view agencies as impenetrable
  and the costs of oversight outweigh the gains
• They have a cozy relationship with the agency

5
Policy Adoption Stage v. Policy Implementation
Stage

• Can adoption be separated from implementation?
• Adjustments are made to the policy during
  implementation
• Implementation evolves over time
• The distinction is blurred

6
What does it mean to say a policy has been
successfully implemented?

• Needs and the problem change over time
• Is the focus on outputs or outcomes?
• Output studies- Does the agency take the actions
  intended by the legislature
• Outcome studies- Does the program accomplish its
  goals
• What is the original intent of the law?
• Whose perspective (preferences) should be the
  standard?

7
When Examining Implementation, Keep in Mind . . .

• Be fully aware of the characteristics of the
  society within which implementation takes place
• Know the range of access points where
  formulators and implementers can influence the
  course of events
• Consider tractability of the problem
• Political Climate

8
Tractability

• Ease of dealing with the problem
• Tractable v. intractable issues
• Factors include
• Technical difficulties, do we have the technology
• Measurement difficulties, can we measure progress
• Target population difficulties, how
  heterogeneous, how large
• Goal setting difficulties, are we expecting too
  much change

9
Implementation

• Ability of statute to structure implementation
• Precision and Clear ranking of legal objectives
• Eliminates ambiguity for agencies
• Makes evaluation easier
• Should indicate priority for an agency

10
Implementation

• Ability of statute to structure implementation
• Validity of causal theory
• Requires that the linkages between intervention
  and goal attainment be understood
• Also requires that implementing officials have
  jurisdiction over those linkages

11
Implementation

• Ability of statute to structure implementation
• Initial allocation of financial resources
• Money matters
• The appropriations also signal political support

12
Implementation

• Ability of statute to structure implementation
• Hierarchical integration within and among
  implementing institutions
• Is there a chain of command
• This becomes problematic in federal statutes

13
Implementation

• Ability of statute to structure implementation
• Hierarchical integration within and among
  implementing institutions
• The degree of integration is determined by
• Number of veto points
• The extent to which supporters are provided with
  sufficient tools to coerce those with a veto

14
Implementation

• Ability of statute to structure implementation
• Decision rules of implementing agencies
• Can you formally state how agencies will make
  their decisions

15
Implementation

• Ability of statute to structure implementation
• Officials commitment to objectives
• Assigning to agencies strategically
• Creating a new agency

16
Implementation

• Ability of statute to structure implementation
• Formal access by outsiders
• Is access biased towards supporters of the policy

17
Implementation

• Nonstatutory variables
• Socioeconomic conditions
• Alters the perceived need
• Katrina and Environment
• There can be local variation in socioeconomic
  needs
• Can lead to flexible rules

18
Implementation

• Nonstatutory variables
• Socioeconomic conditions
• Support for many regulations wanes during
  recessions

19
Implementation

• Nonstatutory variables
• Technology
• Some things cannot be done

20
Implementation

• Nonstatutory variables
• Public Support
• Support routinely fades, but may awaken
• Can influence through
• Agenda
• Constituency opinion
• Opinion polls

21
Implementation

• Nonstatutory variables
• Attitudes and Resources of constituency groups
• While the public support often fades, the
  opposition from the regulated will be constant

22
Implementation

• Nonstatutory variables
• Attitudes and Resources of constituency groups
• They interact with the other variables by
• The level of resources they have and the amount
  of change mandated
• Their participation in the decision-making
  process
• Through studies, ad campaigns, etc.

23
Implementation

• Nonstatutory variables
• Support from sovereigns
• Amount of oversight
• Financial resources
• Extent of conflicting legal mandates

24
Implementation

• Nonstatutory variables
• Support from sovereigns
• When an intergovernmental subordinate is faced
  with conflicting directives, it will lean towards
  the sovereigns who will affect its resources over
  the longest period of time.

25
Implementation

• Nonstatutory variables
• Commitment and skill of the implementing
  officials
• Includes the ability to affectively set
  priorities
• Also looks at the ability to achieve those
  priorities

26
Implementation

• MS argue that the implementation process should
  be viewed as stages
• Policy outputs of implementing agencies
• This is where the agencies translate the statute
  into outputs
• Will mirror the intentions of politicians better
  when the goals are clear and cover is provided
  bureaucrats

27
Implementation

• MS argue that the implementation process should
  be viewed as stages
• Target group compliance with policy outputs
• This is related to the relative costs and
  benefits of compliance/non-compliance

28
Implementation

• MS argue that the implementation process should
  be viewed as stages
• Actual impacts of policy outputs
• Conformity with legal objectives
• Unintended consequences
• Alteration of the political strengths of groups

29
Implementation

• MS argue that the implementation process should
  be viewed as stages
• Perceived impacts of policy outputs
• Function of the actual impacts mediated by the
  values of the perceiver

30
Implementation

• MS argue that the implementation process should
  be viewed as stages
• Major revision in statute
• A function of
• perceived impacts of past agency activities
• changes in policy priorities among the general
  public and policy elites
• Political resources of competing groups

31
Implementation

• MS argue that the implementation process should
  be viewed as stages
• Major revision in statute
• To achieve compliance of regulation, distributive
  policy may need to be mixed in

32
Implementation

• In the end they note six conditions for effective
  implementation
• Clear and consistent objectives
• Sound theory
• Legislation that structures the implementation
• Skill and commitment of the implementing leaders

33
Implementation

• In the end they note six conditions for effective
  implementation
• Supported by constituency groups and key
  politicians
• Objectives are not undermined

34
Wood Article

• What is the purpose of the Wood article?
• To reveal the determinants of implementation for
  an important public policy.
• To determine which description of implementation
  (bottom-up, or top-down) best describes reality

35
Wood Article

• One can view federal policy structure as a
  principal-agent relationship
• Top tier
• Politicians- Principals
• National Bureaucracies-Agents
• Bottom tier
• National Bureaucracies- Principals
• Subnational Bureaucracies- Agents

36
Wood Article

• One can view federal policy structure as a
  principal-agent relationship
• Cooperation is achieved by the proper mix of
  incentives and monitoring

37
Wood Article

• Another view is that federal programs respond to
  a confluence of factors
• This seems likely when one considers state
  agencies
• They have responsibilities to the Federal govt.
• They are also responsible to their state
  principals
• They are also closer to the variations in local
  conditions

38
Wood Article

• Findings
• Federal implementation involves mutually
  interdependent relations of multiple actors
  within and across separate tiers of government
• Upper-Tier administration was Weberian

39
Wood Article

• Findings
• Lower-tier
• Responded to top-down and bottom up forces
• Responded to economic conditions
• Multiple forces determine subnational policy
  behavior, therefore it is wrong to characterize
  federal implementation as centralized

40
Wood Article

• Findings
• National agencies aggregate national preferences
  and monitor the operation of the total structure
• State agencies aggregate subnational preferences
  and mold programs to local tastes
• This makes implementation more acceptable

41
Wood Article

• Findings
• This federal scheme allows for more democratic
  representation by responding to more diverse
  coalitions
• The structure is neither centralized, or
  decentralized.

42
Keiser and Meier

• What is the purpose of the article
• To test the various hypotheses surrounding the
  successful implementation of policy

43
Keiser and Meier

• Findings
• There results are consistent with the idea that
  policy design matters
• Policy context
• The focus of the legislation
• Tractability
• The solvability of the problem

44
Keiser and Meier

• Findings
• They do not find support for
• Coherence
• Clear indications of goals
• Target population
• When the target population expanded, they were
  still successful

45
Keiser and Meier

• Findings
• They also find that the local task difficulty
  matters
• So do economic conditions
• Political conditions matters as well.

46
What is the Nonprofit Sector?

• Major theories of the nonprofit sector include
• Government failure
• Contract failure
• Market failure
• Historical evolution
• Expression of civic impulse
• Old view
• Nonprofit sector organizations provide goods and
  services that other sectors cannot or will not
  provide
• New view
• Nonprofit sector organizations provide options
  for service provision and work in partnership
  with government and business sectors

47
The Contracting State

• Purchase of Service Contracts
• Provide resources for nonprofit organizations
• Result in a variety of challenges for nonprofit
  organization leaders
• Implications
• Bringing in outside resources requires a
  nonprofit sector with a capacity to compete for
  and effectively manage federal and state
  contracts
• Of course some organizations do not desire
  outside resources
• Many nonprofits would rather rely on their own
  communitys resources (e.g., volunteers)
• In any event, nonprofit organizations are one way
  that communities get things done

48
Focus of this Study 501(c)3 Organizations

• According to the tax code these organizations
• Religious
• Educational
• Charitable
• Scientific
• Literary
• Testing for Public Safety
• Foster National or International Amateur Sports
  Competition
• Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals
  Organizations
• 501(c)3s must pass certain tests
• The Organizational Test 
• The Operational Test
• No Private Inurement
• No Substantial Lobbying
• No Electioneering

49
Nonprofits in Major West Texas Counties Percent
Employment
County Total Population Nonprofit Employment Private Employment Percent Nonprofit Employment
Taylor 121123 6954 44069 15.6
Bell 237974 8911 67882 13.1
McLennan 213517 9046 80607 11.2
Tom Green 104010 3302 34562 9.6
Lubbock 242628 8301 93761 8.9
Nueces 313645 8369 117180 7.1
Jefferson 252051 6800 97625 7
Cameron 335227 5958 90148 6.6
Tarrant 1446219 32930 604043 5.5
Travis 812280 20911 400679 5.2
Harris 3400578 82590 1589573 5.2
Bexar 1392931 26570 537122 4.9
Potter 104312 2891 64384 4.5
Dallas 2218899 52479 1274616 4.1
Galveston 250158 2388 59529 4
Williamson 249967 2804 70745 4
El Paso 679622 7817 193919 4
Midland 126555 1840 47407 3.9
Fort Bend 354452 2813 80733 3.5
Hidalgo 569463 4891 144805 3.4
Montgomery 293768 2543 77202 3.3
Randall 116009 519 16787 3.1
Ector 113546 1169 41872 2.8
Brazoria 241767 1539 60407 2.5
Collin 491675 3721 177081 2.1
Denton 432976 2127 105395 2
50
Percent Nonprofit Sector Employment
51
Number of Registered Organizations Per capita
52
Findings

• Larger West Texas counties have, on average, more
  charitable organizations than other large
  counties in Texas. This finding perhaps
  challenges the view that communities in West
  Texas are not as likely to form independent
  501(c)3 organizations because of the larger role
  of churches. These findings support studies that
  conclude that civic engagement in one area tends
  to correlate highly with civic engagement in
  other areas.
• Larger West Texas counties are, on average, more
  dependent on employment in the charitable sector
  than other large counties in Texas. This finding
  suggests that while the region tends to think of
  itself from the standpoint of independent
  entrepreneurs and farmers, a significant
  percentage of residents of West Texas make their
  living helping others through charitable
  organizations.

53
West Texas Counties Nonprofits Per Capita
County Population Total Orgs. Organizations Per Capita Orgs. Filing Total Revenue Total Assets
Motley 1426 26 18.2 7 693376 3920698
Briscoe 1790 22 12.3 3 99608 270041
Dallam 6222 70 11.3 24 23697594 32194590
King 356 4 11.2 3 102204 75454
Hemphill 3351 37 11.0 16 4065579 7784614
Oldham 2185 23 10.5 5 489756 573226
Collingsworth 3206 33 10.3 14 14357376 31853235
Hall 3782 36 9.5 11 576560 543117
Cottle 1904 18 9.5 4 360667 763688
Roberts 887 8 9.0 3 87455 331003
Garza 4872 42 8.6 14 2037113 11072878
Sterling 1393 12 8.6 2 45733 211049
Glasscock 1406 12 8.5 1 204926 373266
Donley 3828 32 8.4 9 877586 3153687
Dickens 2762 23 8.3 9 844290 1116066
Stonewall 1693 14 8.3 4 987128 1462550
Borden 729 6 8.2 2 231452 150343
Upton 3404 28 8.2 6 292604 223591
Lipscomb 3057 25 8.2 6 333079 745667
Kent 859 7 8.1 3 124944 552816
Wheeler 5284 43 8.1 9 1693416 2071459
Armstrong 2148 17 7.9 6 1803774 2415799
Runnels 11495 87 7.6 10 4754139 4497203
Sherman 3186 23 7.2 10 595228 1760883
Floyd 7771 54 6.9 19 26067869 49133102
Hansford 5369 37 6.9 9 388843 2560076
Fisher 4344 29 6.7 6 26215338 52662476
Ochiltree 9006 60 6.7 26 23634008 46704188
Crosby 7072 47 6.6 9 17108576 9107317
Reagan 3326 22 6.6 4 477984 245583
54
Organizations Per Capita Population gt10,000
55
Organizations Per Capita Population lt 10,000
56
Findings

• In 2000, there were 1,302,831 residents in West
  Texas
• In these counties, there were 6727 registered
  501(c)3 organizations
• The average county has 6.7 501(c)3s per capita
• Of the 2233 nonprofits that completed Form 990
• 3,669,820,637 in revenue
• 9,084,736,781 in total assets

57
Findings

• Twenty-two counties in West Texas report more
  nonprofit organizations per capital that Travis
  County.
• There are over two times the number of 501(C)3
  organizations per capita in several counties that
  Travis County

58
South Plains Counties Nonprofits Per Capita
County Total Population Number Registered Organizations Per Capita Number Filing Form 990 Total Revenue on Form 990 Assets Reported on Form 990
Motley 1426 26 18.2 7 693376 3920698
King 356 4 11.2 3 102204 75454
Garza 4872 42 8.6 14 2037113 11072878
Dickens 2762 23 8.3 9 844290 1116066
Floyd 7771 54 6.9 19 24067829 49133102
Crosby 7072 47 6.6 9 17108576 9107317
Bailey 6594 40 6.1 11 31461910 35531795
Hale 36602 202 5.5 68 96232881 145545543
Lubbock 242628 1248 5.1 481 1209146394 1802949691
Lynn 6550 32 4.9 6 54198288 123434903
Lamb 14709 71 4.8 16 32452025 44426379
Terry 12761 61 4.8 9 2438195 1199849
Yoakum 7322 34 4.6 7 556731 1270950
Cochran 3730 17 4.6 5 164826 223997
Hockley 22716 94 4.1 25 52971206 32222723
59
Number of Registered 501(c)3 Organizations
60
Number of 501(c)3 Organizations Per Capita
61
Total Revenue for South Plains 501(c)3
Organizations
62
Total Assets for South Plains 501(c)3
Organizations
63
Findings

• As of 2007, there were 1995 registered nonprofits
  in the South Plains region
• Of these, 1248 were located in Lubbock County
• According to NCCS, 689 organizations completed a
  Form 990 during the 24 month period prior to
  September 2007. These organizations reported
• 1,544,475,844 in revenue
• 2,261,231,345 in assets

64
Sample County Analyses

• Data mining available Form 990s
• Sample Counties in the South Plains Region
  Examined in this Study

65
Discussion

• The large number of registered 501(c)3
  organizations is an asset that should be
  cultivated
• The nonprofit sector should be made even more
  visible in these communities
• West Texans are social entrepreneurs who
  recognize social needs and problems and organize
  others for social change
• The Center for Public Service is developing an
  interactive database of 501(c)3 organizations to
  help promote understanding of the nonprofit
  sector generally and better communication and
  partnership within the nonprofit sector and with
  business and governmental sectors

66
Acknowledgements

• Thanks to Ms. Jeanette Romero who provide
  outstanding research assistance on this project

67
References