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 M&S 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 M&S 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 M&S 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 M&S 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 M&S 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 M&S 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 community’s 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 CountyTotal PopulationNonprofit EmploymentPrivate EmploymentPercent Nonprofit Employment Taylor12112369544406915.6 Bell23797489116788213.1 McLennan21351790468060711.2 Tom Green1040103302345629.6 Lubbock2426288301937618.9 Nueces31364583691171807.1 Jefferson2520516800976257 Cameron3352275958901486.6 Tarrant1446219329306040435.5 Travis812280209114006795.2 Harris34005788259015895735.2 Bexar1392931265705371224.9 Potter1043122891643844.5 Dallas22188995247912746164.1 Galveston2501582388595294 Williamson2499672804707454 El Paso67962278171939194 Midland1265551840474073.9 Fort Bend3544522813807333.5 Hidalgo56946348911448053.4 Montgomery2937682543772023.3 Randall116009519167873.1 Ector1135461169418722.8 Brazoria2417671539604072.5 Collin49167537211770812.1 Denton43297621271053952

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 CountyPopulationTotal Orgs.Organizations Per Capita Orgs. FilingTotal RevenueTotal Assets Motley14262618.276933763920698 Briscoe17902212.3399608270041 Dallam62227011.3242369759432194590 King356411.2310220475454 Hemphill33513711.01640655797784614 Oldham21852310.55489756573226 Collingsworth32063310.3141435737631853235 Hall3782369.511576560543117 Cottle1904189.54360667763688 Roberts88789.0387455331003 Garza4872428.614203711311072878 Sterling1393128.6245733211049 Glasscock1406128.51204926373266 Donley3828328.498775863153687 Dickens2762238.398442901116066 Stonewall1693148.349871281462550 Borden72968.22231452150343 Upton3404288.26292604223591 Lipscomb3057258.26333079745667 Kent85978.13124944552816 Wheeler5284438.1916934162071459 Armstrong2148177.9618037742415799 Runnels11495877.61047541394497203 Sherman3186237.2105952281760883 Floyd7771546.9192606786949133102 Hansford5369376.993888432560076 Fisher4344296.762621533852662476 Ochiltree9006606.7262363400846704188 Crosby7072476.69171085769107317 Reagan3326226.64477984245583

54. Organizations Per Capita Population >10,000

55. Organizations Per Capita Population < 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 CountyTotal Population Number Registered Organization s Per Capita Number Filing Form 990 Total Revenue on Form 990 Assets Reported on Form 990 Motley14262618.276933763920698 King356411.2310220475454 Garza4872428.614203711311072878 Dickens2762238.398442901116066 Floyd7771546.9192406782949133102 Crosby7072476.69171085769107317 Bailey6594406.1113146191035531795 Hale366022025.56896232881145545543 Lubbock24262812485.148112091463941802949691 Lynn6550324.9654198288123434903 Lamb14709714.8163245202544426379 Terry12761614.8924381951199849 Yoakum7322344.675567311270950 Cochran3730174.65164826223997 Hockley22716944.1255297120632222723

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