MSU

 

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to
remove this checkout from

 

 

w your record. _F_I_N_E_S_ wm
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped be1ow.

 

 

 

COORDINATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

BY

Dianne N. Long

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Political Science

1982

ABSTRACT

COORDINATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

BY

Dianne N. Long

Approaches to implementation generally consider
policy environment variables related to the problems
addressed, the policy itself, and organizational and environ-
mental factors important to explaining implementation be-
havior. Without minimizing the importance of environmental
variables, this study focuses on the individual choicemaker
to explain coordinated policy implementation--the movement
from a policy idea to joint action.

Theoretical concepts from rational choice theory,
which maintains that individuals are goal-oriented utility
maximizers and cost minimizers, form a model of implementa-
tion. The central proposition states that individuals in
the implementation process have preferences derived from
the policy environment, and that they make independent
calculations of probabilities of making a difference in out-
comes and of the costs and benefits of themselves for parti-

cipation. Individual preferences, calculations of

Dianne N. Long

contributions to outcomes, and payoffs for participation are
key variables used to explain implementation behavior.

The study tests this model in a State of Michigan
implementation effort. Five State agencies (Education,
Public Health, Mental Health, Social Services, and Management
and Budget) working through an interagency committee,
developed a model of integrated services to adolescent
parents and their young children. The Inter-Agency Committee
for Services to High Risk Children and Their Families formu-
lated policy guidelines, captured funding from the 0.8.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to purchase
staff assistance, secured legislative funding for operations,
and witnessed integrated services in selected school districts.

The results support the central proposition. Although
no single variable is dominant, coordination appears to find
its motivation in payoffs to individuals. Implementators
will individually and collectively support, oppose, or remain
passive ("ride free") in response to policy based on pay-
offs.

The State of Michigan Inter-Agency Committee efforts
began in 1975 and continue through this writing. The State
believes that the integrated services model is the only one
of its type nationwide in servicing adolescent parents and
their young children through coordination at the state level

in program develOpment and coordination through contracting

in demonstration sites.

Dianne N. Long

Interviews held June through December 1981 with
executive and management staff, Operations staff in school
districts, and legislative staff comprise the data source

for this study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people guided and encouraged me in my academic
work and dissertation research. Faculty, staff, and graduate
students in the Department of Political Science at Michigan
State University urged me to continue my pursuit of a
doctorate. My dissertation committee chairman, Dr. Gary
Miller, provided me with many ideas, referred me to sources
in the literature, and read what must have been unending
versions of the dissertation text. Dr. Charles Press of my
committee clarified concepts when they were muddy and
demonstrated great patience with my spurts and lapses in
producing a dissertation draft. I am sincerely grateful to
him for never giving up on my goals and ideas, even when
they must have seemed to others to be impossible. To Dr.
Jack Knott, I owe a debt for inspiring many ideas and for
selecting out those which did not contribute to my theoreti-
cal framework. Although I have attempted to develop a work
which would meet my committee's high standards, I appreciate
their willingness to accept what is written and to hOpe for
improved research and analysis. Other faculty also consti-
tued my committee during my academic career: Dr. Charles F.

Cnudde, who discussed initial drafts of this work; Dr. Mary

ii

Corcoran who initially served as chair of my committee; and
Dr. Frank Pinner, who continued to chart my progress. My
colleagues Dr. Susan Herble and Dr. Ada Finifter provided
encouragement when I became discouraged. Dr. Michael Altfeld
never tired of writing out equations to depict utility
theory. Dr. David Rohde, the Department's Chair, continued
to provide me with employment and to allow me to use my
office to produce dissertation drafts. Dr. Eileen Van
Raavenswey provided the inspiration for the study.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation
to my family. Each person helped out in a special way and
contributed time and effort despite moments which must have

felt like neglect and withdrawal of tender loving care.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCT ION C C O O O O C O O O C C

The Problem . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Research . . . . .
Significance of the Research. . . .
Organization of the Dissertation . .

Chapter
I. COORDINATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION. . .

Stages of Policy. . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . .

Policy . . . . . . . . . .
Implementation. . . . . . . .
Coordination . . . . . . . .
Selective Incentives. . . . . .
Payoffs . . . . . . . . . .

Concepts cf Policy Implementation . .

Implementation as Linear Progression
Implementation as a Cyclical Process

Implementation as Interactive Behavior.

The Policy Environment. . . . . .

Early Studies . . . . . . . .
Implementation as Environments . .
Intergovernmental Implementation. .
Structuring Implementation. . . .
Explaining Implementation Behavior .

Summary. . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

vii

UleH l-"

18

19
22
23

25

26
27
29
35
37

40

Chapter Page
II. A MODEL OF IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . 42

Organizing Concepts .

Pursuit of Policy Goals
Preferences . . . .

Making a Difference .

Payoffs . . . .

The Free Rider Problem

Hypotheses . . . .

Summary . . . . .

o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o

.b

\I

III. RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . 56

The Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Testing the Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 56
Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . 57
Interview Questions . . . . . . . . . 58

IV. COORDINATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION: A PILOT
STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O 6 l

The Interagency Committee . . . . . . . 62

A Patchwork of Services . . . . . . . 63
The School- -Age-Parent Task Force:

1975- 76 O O O O O O O O O O 67
Securing Funds for IAC Staff. 1977
Spring . . . . . . . 69

Staffing the IAC Summer- Fall 1977 . . . . 71
Inter-Agency Position Statements Fall

1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Inter-Agency Formation: 1976 . . . . . 74
Developing an Integrated Model of Services:

Fall 1977-Spring 1978 . . . . . . . 76
Securing Funds for Model Implementation:

Summer 1978. . . . . . . . . . 78
Appropriating Funds to Education:

1978- 1979 . . . . . . . . 81
Site Selection: Fall 1979 . . . . 83
A Reorganization in Education: 1979-1980 .
Second-Year Implementation of the Model:

1980- 81. . . . . . . . . . . 87
Third Year Implementation: 1981-82 . . . 91
Conclusions About Model Implementation . . 92
Local Level Coordination . . . . . . . 93

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Chapter Page

Preferences and Contributions . . . . . 95
Coordination and Payoffs. . . . . . . 98

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . 102
Working Toward a Collective Goal. . . . . 102

The IAC and Selective Incentives. . . . . 102
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
PrOpositions. . . . . . . . . . . 106
Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Payoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Committing Resources . . . . . . . . 110

Testing the Central Propostion and
Hypotheses O O O O O O O O O O O 111

The Proposition. . . . . . . . . . 112
Pursuing Policy Goals. . . . . . . . 112
A Free-Rider. . . . . . . . . . . 112
Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . ll3
Changing Strategies . . . . . . . . 114
Making a Difference and Valuing Payoffs. . 114

APPENDIX. C O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 117

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O I O O O O O O O C O 14 6

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1.1 Implementation as Linear Progression . . . . 19
1.2 Implementation as a Cyclical Process . . . . 22
1.3 Implementation as Interactive Behavior . . . 24
1.4 Nakumura-Smallwood Model of Implementation . . 28

1.5 Van Horn-Van Meter Model of Policy Implementa-
tion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 30

1.6 Mazmanian-Sabatier Model of Implementation . . 33

2.1 Real World States of Realizing a Collective
Goa

O O O O O O O O O O O O O 51

vii

INTRODUCTION

This dissertation is about a theory of implementa—
tion and a case study test of the theory. "Implementation"
means the movement of a policy idea into joint action. The
term "coordinated policy implementation" is used to distin-
guish the concept from the notion of simply carrying out a

decision.

The Problem

 

Implementation has been the/subject of discussion
and study among practitioners and academicians since the
early 19703 when Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky
published Implementation (1973) and analyzed Economic Develop-
ment Administration efforts in Oakland, California. By that
time, government workers, and observers of government, had
been chronicling their disenchantment with Great Society
programs. Implementation developed as a notion worth
exploring.

In the 19603 and 19705, politicians and bureaucratic
agencies sought to solve societal problems by mandating
policies which demanded the coordination of many actors and

activities in service delivery. Policy makers and decision

makers, however, were disappointed with program results.
Outcomes were not those intended. Policy articulation did
not produce the expected behavior. Assessments of complex
social programs packaged during those decades revealed that
implementation had emerged as a distinct process in the
policy making and service delivery mission of government.
There is needfifor further study of implementation.
First, there is no standard definition of the term. Second,
concepts of implementation have clung to the Weberian notion
of a hierarchical arrangement of organization where those at
the t0p make decisions and subordinates carry out the
decisions. Most recent organizational theorists, notably
Thompson, depict organizational environments, where imple-
mentation takes place, as interactive and dynamic. Third,
the joint action element of implementation is coordinative.
Studies have not focused on coordinative elements, but have
emphasized coercion, power, and influence. Fourth, there
is no agreement on which variables to use in the study of
implementation behavior. Most models encompass the entire
implementation environment instead of focusing on those

variables which explain and predict implementation behavior.

Purpose of the Research
This dissertation attempts to clarify implementation
in terms of an open systems concept of organizational be-
havior and in terms of movement to action. Second, it

posits that individuals act, in response to policy mandates,

on the bases of (1) their preferences toward policy sub-
stance, (2) their individual calculations about making a
difference in the state of the world, and (3) their calcula-
tions of costs relative to benefits of participation. This
approach models rational choice theory which assumes that
individuals are goal-oriented expected utility maximizers.
Third, it tests rational choice theoretical applications in
a State level policy implementation effort. It examines and
describes a coordinated approach by five State of Michigan
agencies to develop and to implement a model of integrated
services to a population all were servicing: adolescent

parents and their young children.

Significance of the Research

 

The research attempts to bridge concepts in the
implementation literature, to develop a theory of implemen-
tation, and to test the theory in a successful implementation
effort. The study focuses upon the State of Michigan Inter-
Agency Committee for Services to High Risk Children and Their
Families. The Inter-Agency Committee experience is a bold
attempt, and is nationally unique. It demonstrates joint
action in implementation by state agencies with overlapping
programs to improve services to adolescent parents and their
young children through coordination at the state level and
coordination by contract at the local level. These research
findings support the posited theory of implementation that

preferences of implementors, their individual calculations

of making a difference in the state of the world, and their
calculations of costs and benefits to them for participation,
are important variables in pursuing a policy goal.

The researcher conducted interviews with Committee
members representing the State Departments of Education,
Management and Budget, Public Health, Mental Health, and
Social Services, as well as with former Committee members,
agency executive staff, legislative staff, agency program
managers, and program coordinators at the local level. Con-
versations with those interviewed took place during the June
to December 1981 period--a time when the model programs which
had been developed and funded were seeking third year fund-
ing, and when the Committee reflected on its own successes
and its problems.

The Inter-Agency Committee was an outgrowth of a
School Age Parent Task Force initiated as an advisory group
to the State of Michigan Department of Education in 1975
when the Superintendent of Public Instruction requested
human service agencies to appoint representatives to the
task force. The task force was charged with making recom-
mendations about the patchwork of programs, gaps, and over-
lap of services in Michigan communities providing assistance
to adolescent parents and their young children. The task
force submitted recommendations to Education, but no means
of operationalizing them existed. With the approval of
respective agency executives, task force people continued

to meet. They developed a program model, secured funding

from the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

for personnel to coordinate model developing, obtained
funding from the state legislature for programs, and launched
programs in selected communities. Additionally, the Com-
mittee piloted a six-month trial of expanded health screening

for preschoolers in one Michigan city.

Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter I presents definitions, organizing concepts
of implementation, and the policy environment. Chapter II
offers a model of implementation. Chapter III describes the
research design used. Chapter IV explains the findings from
an intergovernmental pilot study. Chapter V provides a

summary and conclusions.

CHAPTER I

COORDINATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Understanding coordinated policy implementation is
important to understanding government action and choices of
consequence to society.

This chapter provides definitions of major concepts

concerning policy, implementation, and coordination.

Stages of Policy

 

Prepolicy stages include (1) problem definition or

 

issue formation, (2) policy demands, and (3) agenda forma-
tion. A problem surfaces. Those defining the problem and
attempting the solution have various perspectives which
become incorporated in the policy. Various sectors of the
society make demands for government action. In the bar-
gaining which takes place between actors, policy makers
create alternatives which become part of the agenda for
problem solution.

Policy adoption is the process of making decisions

 

about government direction. Adoption may take the form of

laws and regulations or of public statements of policy goals.

Policy implementation concerns the movement from

 

the policy idea to action. Numerous participants, with
different perspectives, make decisions and take actions to
pursue policy goals, to Oppose policy goals, or to remain

passive. Implementation concerns policy outputs, which

 

include clients served, guidelines issued, and money spent.
Outputs may be tangible or symbolic. Symbolic outputs

include statements of encouragement or threats. Policy out-

 

comes are the effects outputs have on society. They are the
consequences of policy in terms Of stated goals and values
in society.

Policy evaluation measures the outcomes of policy.

 

Evaluation attempts to determine whether government succeeded
or failed in terms of its performance in attaining policy

goals. In assessing policy, intended consequences (attain-

 

ment of stated goals) and unintended consequences (results

 

Of policy unforseen or unintended by policy makers) are con-
sidered. In evaluation of policy, we are concerned with

direct costs (expenditures of time, money, power, and energy)

 

and indirect costs (lost Opportunities, prestige, program
domain) (Cochran et al., 1982, p. 20).

From this perspective of stages in policy, we can
define major concepts central to a coordinated approach to

policy implementation.

Definitions

 

Policy

Policy definitions range from very precise to very
vague. Thomas Dye, for instance, maintains that public
policy is "whatever governments choose to do or not to do"
(l975:l). This definition reflects not only government
action, but choice of action as well. Policy may take the
form of a legislative mandate, or an executive decision
maker's position statement which demands actions, gives
direction, or authorizes movement in the pursuit of or away
from some outcome of consequence to society. Policy reflects
the choices made in the decision making process.

Policy outcomes are the "so what" of politics. They
are the judgments, according to Levy, Meltsner, and Wildavsky
(l974:l) by which citizens evaluate their government. They
remark:

If outputs are what governments produce, outcomes are
the grand design which citizens see behind those out-
puts. (l974:1)

In a community health program, for example, an out-
put is health screening and the outcome is improved health
or reduced disease. Likewise, in the educational environ-
ment, the output is instructional programming and the out-
come is increased literacy.

Policy itself concerns intended rather than actual
outcomes. As we have noted, unintended outcomes also occur.
For example, inappropriate health screening techniques may

be employed with no status change in the health of participants.

Or, a virus may be active in the p0pu1ation resulting in
increased disease. Or a flu vaccine may result in death

of a percentage of those receiving it, even though the
intent was improved health. In the employment arena, a
policy may be aimed at reducing unemployment, although
actually displacing unemployment to another geographic area.
Another policy may be aimed at distributing agricultural
surpluses to aid the agricultural segment of the economy,

while actually reducing hunger.

Implementation

 

Implementation is a phase of the policy process by
which policy ideas are transformed into action. Implementa-
tion is used here to imply and include the decisions and
actions Of all kinds which take place following a policy
decision and statement.

The term "implementation" has been used in a variety
Of ways. Some equate implementation with an administrative
act. Others see it simply as the carrying out of policy.
However, we find that the implementation phase contains many
activities and actors, diverse in their nature and mission,
which may or may not involve the carrying out of policy
toward intended outcomes. Agents of government may re-
negotiate goals, divert policy resources tO other uses and
functions, or act in ways which do not lead to the production
of intended outputs or the attainment of intended outcomes

(Bardach, 1979).

10

Implementation is interactive and occurs in a
pluralistic task environment. The concept of implementation
as interactive behavior is recognized by Majone and Wildavsky

in a new chapter to Implementation (1973) called "Implemen-

 

tation as Evolution." In the Majone-Wildavsky interaction
model, implementation is "the continuation of politics by
other means (1979:189). They see an interaction model of
implementation as minimizing the importance Of goals and
plans:
The interaction model of implementation carries inter-
esting evolutionary overtones. The results are not
predictable, an element of surprise is maintained, and
the outcomes are likely to be different from those
sought by any single participant. (181-2)

While the interaction model may be inadequate for
assessing the intrinsic worth of policy ideas and their
significance for policy evolution, as Majone and Wildavsky
suggest (182), the model may be helpful to us in explaining
implementation behavior. As we have learned from implemen-
tation efforts, plans and goals change, leadership and
dispositions change, social and economic conditions change.

Since implementation is dependent upon these factors, we

would expect that implementation changes too.

Coordination

 

Implementation not only means the movement from
policy idea to action but also means joint action. Joint
action necessitates coordination.

Coordination is the act or state of bringing people

and activities into a common action. In coordinated policy

11

implementation, the movement from separateness to together-
ness on any state or issue is implied. In examining imple-
mentation behavior, we find there are a number of actors
individually making choices and decisions in response to
policy statements.

Coordination has been a major feature of plans for
implementation Of Great Society programs, and other compre-
hensive programs aimed at "improving the quality Of life."
Coordination was sometimes, however, considered another word
of coercion. Pressman and Wildavsky remark (1973:134):

Coordination means getting what you do not have. It
means creating in a city that is not unified. It means
the ability to enforce agreements on employers when you
are unable to do so. It means compelling federal
agencies and their component parts to act in a desired
manner at the right time, when achieving this purpose
is precisely what you cannot do. Even when participants
appear to agree with the substantive merits of a pro-
posal, they can still Oppose it or, at least, not do
very much to help carry it out. One can believe that a
program has merit but still think that others are more
desirable. . . . Achieving coordination . . . means
getting your own way.

Our concept of coordination, however, is centered
upon cooperative, rather than coerced, behavior. This view
is a departure from the notion that implementation is
coercion of actors in an organization by those at the top
Of an organizational hierarchy in order to cause action to
take place. By coercion, we mean that the individual or
organization does not have the capacity to withdraw from
joint action.

In implementation, actors come together for the

purpose of obtaining the realization of their individual and

12

collective interests. The policy environment is composed

Of individuals and groups of individuals able to establish
consensus on appropriate program domain--on agreement in the
organization as to which tasks and which functions belong

to which units.

Our View of implementation is an intergovernmental
one. That is, movement to action takes place among various
jurisdictions of government (federal, state, and/or county-
city). The ideas are relevant, however, to interorganiza-
tional behavior where two or more units of the same organi-
zation interact. The complexity of joint action and the
bargaining over program domain are observable in both inter-
organizational and the intraorganizational implementation.

Olson asserts that in small groups, either formal or
informal coordination or agreement can take place to achieve
a collective good (1971:46). However Olson maintains:

In any group larger than this . . . no collective good
can be obtained without some group agreement, coordina-
tion, or organization. A group agreement might be set
up to spread the costs more widely or to step up the
level of provision of the collective good. . . . No
collective good can be Obtained without some group
agreement, coordination, or organization. (1971:46)

Implementors can expect to share costs and benefits,
ideally in proportion to each other. Groups have incentives
to cooperate (Olson, 1965:40-41). However, there is a
tendency toward exploitation of the great by the small.

Those with little to contribute and/or with little influence

may receive proportionally smaller benefits for

13

participation than those with larger contributions and

greater degrees of influence (Olson, 1965:27-31).

Selective Incentives

 

Groups cannot optimally achieve a common goal in
the absence Of incentives. Olson counsels:
. . . rational, self-interested individuals will not
act to achieve their common or group interests . . .
unless there is coercion to do so or unless some separate
incentive, distinct from the achievement of the common
interest, is Offered to the members of the group indi-
vidually on the condition that they help bear the costs
or burdens involved in the achievement of group objec-
tives. (l965:2)
He further states that only those groups small enough to
have an incentive to bargain with one another can create
their own selective incentives. Since bargaining takes time,
the cost of bargaining cannot be ignored. Costs may increase
if diverse wants or values are held with respect to the
common goal and if conflicts occur. Selective incentives
must be available in the organizational environment to Off-
set the cost of participation of individuals in a joint
effort (Olson, 1965:176).

Selective incentives include social sanctions and
rewards as well as economic sanctions and rewards. Organi-
zations provide incentives in order to mobilize a latent
group to pursue an organizational or policy goal. Economic
incentives include pay, fringe benefits, and types of recog-
nitions (such as a merit recognition) which may eventually

be parlayed into pay or fringe benefits. For example, the

opportunity to learn about related programs and technology

14

may be used by an individual to achieve a higher rank in the
organization (with higher pay) or to position the person to
perform consulting services (for pay), even though direct
payment may not be available to the individual. Social
incentives include recognition for belonging to a privileged
group, privileged communication with policy makers and
decision makers, or the satisfaction of relating on a pro-
fessional level with other individuals with similar organi-
zational responsibilities for acknowledgment of personal
attributes.

Literature on organization often refers to incentives
simply as rewards and punishments or as inducements (March
and Simon, 1958:84-90). Essentially, they are payments made
to individuals for participation, or withdrawal of payments.

The Barnard—Simon theory Of organizational equilibrium
supports the idea that participation will Occur only so long
as incentives are Offered to participants for contributions
the individuals make to the organization (March and Simon,
1958:84-85). The inducements are measured in terms of indi-
vidual values, rather than the organization's value of its
"selective incentives." In simple terms, each will contri-
bute and each will receive. The value of the contribution
and of the payment to the individual is deemed important in
the balance. Thus, prestige, status, entitlements, expansion
of responsibilities and influence may be deemed more valuable
than monetary rewards for certain individuals. Loss of

prestige, etc., may be considered a sanction.

15

Payoffs

Cooperative behavior finds its motivation in payoffs.
It is posited here that actors in the implementation phase
of the policy process commit organizational resources to
policy goals within a cooperative framework in order to
maximize payoffs to themselves and to minimize costs to
themselves.

Many of those who have studied implementation be-
havior, notable Bardach, have commented on the gaming
characteristics of the action which takes place in response
to policy directives. Game theory provides clues to the
cooperative behavior observable in calculations of payoffs
for participating in a joint venture.

In a game, there are two or more players with
functions expressing the value of each coalition players
could potentially form. In implementation, actors unite to
form coalitions or temporary relationships around an issue
or a problem. As we have noted, actors appear to form
coalitions in response to two motivations: (1) they are
coerced or told to do so, and (2) they see benefits or wish
to avoid sanctions. In the latter case, implementors co-
operate in order to maximize payoffs and/or to minimize
costs to themselves and to their organizations. Coercion
may appear to bring about coordination, but cases in the
literature indicate that it is likely to result in the
appearance of cooperation rather than the reality. Appear-

ances may take the form of written assurances or agreements

16

regarding joint policy or joint action, formation of a com—
mittee to oversee joint action, and/or some posturing of
movement toward intended objectives. When agencies are
coerced to cooperate, the coalition is formed to satisfy
some regulatory criteria or to gain additional resources
for the implementor. On the other hand, when individuals
and groups themselves choose to form a coalition, the
initiator/lead organization tends to shape the purpose,
players, expected payoffs, and rules of the game.

Payoffs are the ratio of costs to benefits of par-
ticipating in the implementation effort. Payoffs for co-
ordination can be explained in the game called "Prisoner's
Dilemma" where the solution that turns out to be the most
beneficial to each player on probabilistic grounds is the
strategy known technically as "tit for tat." The player
making the first move cooperates with others, and thereafter
imitates whatever move the other player makes in response.
Over time, and given a situation in which hypothetical
players encounter each other repeatedly (and especially
when the players are assembled in clusters), the mathematics
proves that OOOperation is a more stable relationship among
players than defection. Applied to implementation, we would
expect that organizations favoring cooperative behavior are
likely to Obtain benefits and to survive than nonOOOperative
ones.

The value of a coalition player is not only dependent

upon the resources a player may have to bring to the issue

17

or problem, but also on the degree of similarity of view-
point or preference concerning aspects of the issue and its
resolution. The value is dependent on the degree of autonomy
each player could retain while taking part in the coalition.
The more powerful the player, the more likely he is to
achieve dominance in the coalition. However, when one per-
son or organization becomes too powerful, the coalition is
apt to dissolve. Similarly, the more similar the preferences
of individuals and organizations, the more likely they are

to participate in a coalition given the possibility of future
payoffs or threats to programs, funding, or client pOpula-
tion. As individual and organizational preferences grow
dissimilar, conflicts arise and the coalition dissolves,
since the costs tend to become too great in comparison to
expected benefits acquired through participation.

As in all efforts requiring joint action, partici-
pation is the key. Nevertheless, as Riker and Ordeshook
point out, there is a paradox in participation, whether it
is applied to voting or to management behavior:

As society complicates, efficacy tends to diminish, not
only because SCOpe increases, but also because the
individual is subjectively submerged in the mass.

Hence, one incentive to participate, viz., high efficacy,
tends to disappear in the large and complicated world.
And as the incentives to participate diminish, so do

the consequences of failing to participate . . . while
people differentially affect the probabilities that
outcomes occur by participating, still the consequences
of action frequently are infinitesimal for the individual
person. Hence, while social outcomes necessarily occur

and are made by the decisions of men, many men may not
have incentives to participate to influence them. (58)

18

This paradox is a free-rider problem: individuals
lack incentives to participate in decisions which they may
value. While they may value public goods, such as peace and
order, when such goods are consumed by all and supplied to
all, there is little incentive to assume the costs for par-
ticipation. Once these goods are supplied, individuals
perceive few adverse consequences if they individually avoid

the cost of participation.

Concepts of Policy Implementation

 

Concepts of policy implementation can be classified
by their distinguishing characteristics concerning movement
from idea to action.

Three broad views appear in the literature, which
the research has termed:

1. Linear progression,
2. Cyclical process, and
3. Interactive behavior.

For each of the views, a description and graphic
representation follow. The descriptions which follow depict
a generalized implementation process where policy makers and
subordinates are lodged in a single agency or unit of
government. Policy makers are those individuals within
government (legislative, executive, and/or judicial units)
who are empowered with defining the outcomes government is
to pursue. Subordinates are those individuals within

governmental units charged with pursuing established

l9

outcomes. The manner in which outcomes are to be attained
may or may not be totally specified in a policy statement

or mandate.

Implementation as Linear Progression

This is a traditional View conceived of implementa-
tion simply as the carrying out of policy. Those at the top
of the hierarchical bureaucracy, including elected represen—
tatives and appointed heads of agencies, make policy in
response to the diversity and complexity of the many groups
in the society expressing special concerns and interests.
Subordinates then carry it out. Figure 1.1 depicts imple-

mentation as a linear progression.

Electorate

Policy makers + Subordinates + Outcomes
set policy act

Interest groups

Figure 1.1. Implementation as Linear Progression.

This View of implementation as linear progression is
complementary with studies of bureaucratic behavior prior
to the 19603. In 1958, the federal government had only
forty major grant programs. By the end of the 19603, there
were literally hundreds. In the pre-1960 bureaucratic
environment, implementation was marked by small sequential
steps, generally in the direction of solving a problem of a
specific nature. Categorical programs were developed as a

primary strategy for carrying out policy. The growth and

20

complexity of grant programs and of fragmented agencies
established to carry them out served to increase quickly the
diversity and complexity of joint action necessary for move-
ment to occur from a policy decision to production of goods
and services. Thus, the growth of grant programs led
directly to the inapplicability of the linear model of
policy implementation.

Implementation as linear progression fails to account
for the increasing density of programs, and what Wildavsky
calls "policy spaces." As Wildavsky points out in Speaking

Truth to Power (1979):

 

. . . interdependence among polities increases faster
than knowledge grows. For each additional program that
interacts with every other, an exponential increase in
consequence follows. These consequences, moreover,
affect a broader range of different programs, which in
turn, affect others, so that the connection between
original cause and later effect is attenuated. One
program affects so many others that prediction becomes
more important and its prospects more perilous, because
effects spread to entire realms of policy. (65)

He continues to describe the density of policy space
(1979:68):

Why after all, does policy become its own cause? It

has to do with both the absolute growth of the public
sector and the increasing density of the sectoral spaces
within it. Large problems, I recapitulate, beget large
solutions, which become their own problems, further
enlarging the scope for action. (Such a sequence is
equivalent to historical explanations in which past
effects become future causes.) As more of the policy
space is occupied, its organized occupants necessarily
exert most of the force in their sectors. As each
sector enlarges, the surplus resources available for
innovation grow also. A $100 million agency may have
difficulty spending 10 percent or $10 million on re-
search, but a $1 billion agency will have little trouble
in getting a small percentage (say $30 to 69 million)
for the same purpose. There are even more people whose
task is (or whose continued existence requires) new

21

departures. Because most interested experts as well

as occupants of powerful positions are within the policy
sectors, so also are most initiatives from which conse-
quences flow. All that has happened within a policy
space determines most of what will happen in that space.

The concept of implementation as an administrative
act isolated from political and organizational factors was
dispelled by early observers of the implementation of various
federal programs. Pressman and Wildavsky, Derthick, and
Bardach pictured implementation as a unidirectional process
mandated by prior policy decisions. Pressman and Wildavsky
(1973) dissected the efforts of the Economic Development
Administration to produce jobs for the hard-core unemployed
of Oakland, California. They pointed out the complexity of
joint action, and the need to consider aspects of organiza-
tional machinery, for the implementation process to Operate
effectively. This study began the move away from the classi-
cal linear model of policy implementation.

In reflecting on changes in government programs and
societal values over the last fifty years, Wildavsky (1979: 1
92-93) defines programs as the ”means for achieving broad V
end-state goals, such as equality of opportunity, protection
from loss of income, and improved health care." He has
noted that society has moved from a world view of personal
fault for problems to a societal fault where government is
increasingly responsible for delivering solutions. Thus,
implementation as a concept increasing came to reflect

environmental concerns and societal concerns--and became an

increasingly complex phenomenon.

22

Implementation a3 a Cyclical Process

 

Nakumura and Smallwood (1980) describe implementation
as a cyclical process which involves planning, action, and

evaluation. Figure 1.2 depicts this concept.

Electorate

Policy makers ,f' i Planning-53
> >Set Policy R’ Action‘~\‘_

Subordinates Fl\\~§-——;:>\‘§—_:E:>_Eyaluation

Figure 1.2. Implementation as a Cyclical Process.

Interest Groups

Actors include both policy makers and subordinates
(those charged with acting on policy). Sequentially, the
policy structures the implementation. The electorate and
its interest groups expect that action will produce intended
outcomes. Evaluation assures some measurement of actual
outputs against those intended in the initial policy state-
ment. When expectations are not reached, the electorate and
interest groups prod policy makers and subordinates into
making adjustments in the implementation process.

Bardach conceives of this cyclical activity as one
assembly process when he discusses implementation of mental
health reform in California following 1967 legislation. He
comments:

Whatever else it is, a policy- or programrimplementation
process is an assembly process. It is as if the original
mandate, whether legislative or bureaucratic or judicial,
that set the policy or program in motion were a blue-
print for a large machine that was to turn out rehabili-
tated psychotics or healthier Old people or better-

educated children or more effective airplaines or safer
streets. This machine must sometimes be assembled from

23

scratch. It can sometimes be created by overhauling
and reconstituting an Older or preexisting, machine.
Putting the machine together and making it run is, at
one level, what we mean by "implementation process."
"Implementation problems" . . . are control problems,
but they are specific to the . . . activities that con-
stitute some "implementation process." (1979:36)

Bardach classifies gaming behavior according to the
adverse effects he perceives in the implementation process:
diversion of resources, deflection of goals, administrative
resistance to outside controls, and dissipation of energy
in non-programmatic activity. Bardach looks to the policy
formulation stage as the locus of improvements, and he pro-
fesses that improvements in implementation can be made if
goals are limited and if planning takes into account gaming
behavior. Examining implementation behavior itself is intro-
duced as important to the study and practice of implementa~
tion.

In the Nakumura-Smallwood conceptual framework, the
planning, action, and evaluation parts of the cyclical pro-
cess are termed environmental elements. These elements
include policy formulation, policy implementation, and
policy evaluation. Problems concerning the linkages between
these environments cause breakdowns in the implementation
process, in their opinion.

Implementation as
Interactive Behavior

 

 

Descriptions of interactive behavior appear in dis-
cussions of why various complex federal programs did not

succeed. While writer like Bardach, Derthick, Radin, and

24

Pressman and Wildavsky did not structure their observations
along interactive behavior characteristics, their findings
suggest that implementation is interactive with policy and
the environment. In other words, policy shapes implementa-
tion as implementation shapes policy. Both policy and
implementation shape the Operations of programs, along with
environmental factors. Figure 1.3 depicts implementation

as interactive behavior.

 

 

Electgrate/Intergst groups Policy decision +
InstiEutional lefel (Policy makers esource commitment 4
anagirial leve11(Policy translators Operations +
Technical level (Operational personnel Outcomes +

Figure 1.3. Implementation as Interactive Behavior.

The organization is considered an open system where
interaction occurs among agencies, parts of agencies,
agencies and other individuals, and among various groups
which possibly can affect implementation.

Figure 1.3 depicts three levels of organizational
control and responsibility in the implementation process
which correspond to levels of suborganization (Parsons,
1960; Thompson, 1967). These include:

--the institutional level
--the managerial level

--the operational/technical level

25

The institutional level is composed of elected

 

Officials and appointed high-level administrators who pro-
vide support and leadership to implementation efforts and
the articulation of policy.

The managerial level services the technical-

 

operational level of the organization by procuring the
resources necessary for operations and by translating policy
goals to technical units in such a way as to structure
Operations.

The technical level provides the organization's
products and services. For example, in any state, the depart-
ment of social services director sets goals, provides support,
and maintains oversight of social welfare programs. Agency
managerial staff define goals and develop procedures for
disbursement of resources. And, county social service
agencies review client cases, meet with clients, and dis-

burse funds and services to target group individuals.

The Policy Environment

Studies of implementation have been directed pre-
dominantly toward understanding the policy environment.
Although there has been little agreement about the important
variables to consider in constructing models of implementa-
tion, most academicians and writers on the subject have
chosen variables related to the policy environment rather
than to choices individuals and groups make in the imple-

mentation process.

26

The environmental approach to understanding imple-
mentation focuses on the policy and the problems related to
it, as well as on organizational and societal conditions

rather than on individual choices involved in implementation.

Early Studies

Early studies of implementation (Moynahan, Derthick,
Murphy, and Radin) were attempts to describe and to explain
bureaucratic behavior as it related to policy formulation
and implementation of given social programs. Later studies
(Pressman and Wildavsky, Rein and Rabinovitz, Van Horn and
Van Meter, and Bardach) identify some elements of the imple-
mentation process. Such variables include:

--The policy itself (standards and Objectives);

--The ability of the policy to reach a target group and
to solve the problem it was intended to solve;

--The organizational and financial factors attached to
a policy; and

--Non-statutory factors: leadership, resource commit-
ment, interorganizational and enforcement activities,
characteristics of the implementing agencies, economic-
social-political conditions, the disposition of imple-
menters, and communication.

Some scholars have worked toward synthesis of these
elements in order to develop a theoretical framework for
studying implementation. Most of the models developed have
either an intergovernmental concept (action taking place

among the layers of government at federal, state, or local

27

jurisdications), or an interorganizational concept (a number
of units within the same jurisdiction acting in pursuit of
a policy goal). A third, and similar, concept is that of
an intra-organizational environment, in which overlapping
programs within an organization may result in joint action

by two or more units.

Implementation as Environments

 

Nakumura and Smallwood (1980) present a concept of
the policy process as a system of environments termed:
policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy evalu-
ation. Each environment, with its actors and arenas, is
connected to the others by compliance and communication
links.

They remark: (1980:27)

Our overview of the policy process has indicated that

this process can be conceived of as a system of functional
environments--policy formation, policy implementation, and
policy evaluation--each of which contains a variety of
actors and arenas and each of which is connected to the
others by various communications and compliance linkages.
Unlike the earlier "classical" model, the policy system
we have described is cyclical rather than hierarchical.

It is characterized by what Rein and Rabinovitz have
called the "principle of circularity" and can be envi-
sioned as shown (below).

Although the system is cyclical, this does not mean
that all the actors in the system have equal power to
dominate the policy process. However, it does imply that
actors within any one of the three environments can influ-
ence actors in other environments, often very signifi-
cantly. In addition, the system is not closed; policies
can originate either within or outside the system, and
the actors can participate in different roles in differ-
ent environments. As a result, the political and communi-
cations linkages that exist within, and between, the
different environments and outside the system take on
crucial importance.

28

 

  
     
     

and Actors

[/Q—‘;J\

P—[ 1—4 ]

Environment 1!:
Policy Implementation

Figure 1.4. Nakumura-Smallwood Model of Implementation.

Nakumura and Smallwood also address coordinative
behavior in their discussion of coalition building. They
suggest that outcome is often not determined by policy, but
that choice makers individually and collectively determine
outcomes (1976:

The most basic political problem confronting policy
makers in a pluralist system is the need to secure
enough agreement among themselves, and among relevant
interest groups, to gain approval of policies. Passing
a law, for example, requires concurrent majorities in
Congress and the agreement of the president. Since
Congress and the executive are complex arenas, each
offers multiple points of access for the many groups
that can seek to influence policy making. The challenge
facing the policy makers thus becomes one of satisfying
as many of the people who are making demands on govern-
ment as possible. Under these circumstances the test
of "good" policy, Lindblom argues, is often reduced to
its usefulness in gaining the support of policy makers
who do not necessarily agree on either the problem they
are solving or the ends they seek to achieve.

Thus, for the policy maker the job of getting people
to agree on a policy can become a goal in itself. It
can also be viewed as a means of achieving good policy

29

A vague statement of policy can help the coalition-
building process in several ways. It is often easier
to get agreement on an abstract statement of principles
--such as "equality of educational Opportunity"--than it
is to reach agreement on more concrete statements that
involve difficult trade-offs among values. Furthermore
vagueness may be regarded by interest groups as a further
Opportunity to influence the shape of policy once it
leaves the formal policy-making arena. . . .

Two kinds of policy vagueness can result from the
need for policy makers to build coalitions. Coalitions
can be built around vague goals that sound good to parti-
cipants for a variety of reasons. And coalitions can be
built by Offering to address many diverse and even con-
flicting goals, each of which is attractive to particular
actors. In each instance the resulting policy statement
offers unclear directions to implementers.

While coalition building is a necessary step in
policy making, it is not a step that requires genuine
consensus among participants. Instead, policy makers
can agree on a general policy without agreeing on the
details of what it actually means. Thus, the grounds
for future interpretive conflicts during implementation
are Often laid by the ambiguous directions of policy-
making majorities that are profoundly divided, transient,
unaware of the ultimate consequences of their actions,
or a combination of all these things.

Intergovernmental Implementation

 

Van Horn and Van Meter in "The Implementation of
Intergovernmental Policy" (1975) present a different model
for studying the implementation process. They suggest that
model for the study of intergovernmental implementation, and
they emphasize the personal, political and organizational
factors at work in the implementation process as important
Objects of study. The model, which is outlined in the next
figure, posits eight clusters of variables: policy resources,
policy standards, communications, enforcement, dispositions
of implementators, characteristics of the implementing
agencies, political conditions, and economic and social

conditions.

30

 

muz<£¢0u¢wm

.coflumucoEmHmEH howaom mo H0002 Mono: cm>tcuom 26> 6...” mafia

 

mzo_h_nzou 4<_uom
—l az< u—tozouw

a

 

 

 

 

 

s

 

A I
_

 

 

machzmtmqmt_
mo w20~h_moam~n

 

  

 

 

 

          
       

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

—‘ 1 a
mzo_»_ozou mwumsomma
4<u_»_3oa
mm_uzuo< oz_»zuz
-usaz_ we» to >u_som
mu.»m.mu»u<¢<:u
pzmxuuxolzu ma¢<nz<hm

 

 

 

 

maO—htu—tbttou ~

 

31

Van Horn and Van Meter also provide us with a dis-
cussion of the strengths and weaknesses of their model:
(1976:116-117)

While far too little attention has been paid to how
policy decisions are transformed into public services,
we have succeeded in identifying a number of studies
that look explicitly at the problems of policy implemen-
tation. Our conceptual framework draws upon this liter-
ature and directs attention to a set of attributes,
processes, and behaviors that will help provide a more
comprehensive understanding of the policy implementation
process and the performance of intergovernmental policy.

In discussing the eight variable clusters that com-
prise our model Of intergovernmental policy implementa-
tion, we have not attempted to describe and justify each
of the hypothesized relationships posited in Figure 1.

It should be noted, however, that this conceptual frame-
work not only specifies the relationships between the
independent variables and the ultimate dependent variable
of interest but also identifies explicitly the linkages
among the independent variables.

We would suggest that this framework be viewed as an
heuristic model. It is designed for the purpose of dis-
covering facts about the policy implementation process
and is useful for empirical research, but probably is
not capable of definitive proof (and it is not intended
for such purposes). It can be contrasted with the
deductive-deterministic models which dominate political
science and have been employed by many policy researchers
--especially in policy-making studies. Both types of
models have their place and purpose; however, the heuris-
tic model is more appropriate for studying implementation
and for deriving useful policy advice.

The policy implementation model aspires to discover
how the law is implemented. It allows one to chart
variations, and then to relate them to outcomes. The
end product is no concise formula that can be employed
to explain (in any strict sense) the observed results;
rather it can be used to extract a better understanding
of the process and of those factors that facilitate or
hinder policy performance.

The deductive-deterministic model aspires to provide
precise explanations that are neither temporally nor
spatially bound. These explanations rely on the best
available sets of empirical laws or, in the case of most
political science, on hypotheses that have been regularly
confirmed. The more abstract and generally applicable
the variable, the more amenable it will be to replication
and refinement in similar analyses at other times and in

32

other settings. Ideographic variables are rejected
because they move the researcher away from his primary
goal.

The major weakness of the deductive-deterministic
model is that it offers little or no information to the
policy maker who wishes to make changes in implementa-
tion actions. By ignoring those immediate process-
oriented factors that influence policy implementation,
it forfeits the ability to make policy relevant advice.
The parsimonious virtues of such a model are liabilities
in most policy research enterprises, especially where
administrative behavior is the subject of inquiry.

Therefore, it is our contention that this model
offers a blueprint for the description and analysis of
the policy implementation process, and that it proposes
explanations for program achievements and failures. We
maintain that studies of intergovernmental policy imple-
mentation--when approached in this manner--have much to
Offer policy analysts and policy makers alike. For the
policy analyst, implementation studies offer the promise
of systematic explanations of the complexities of inter-
governmental relations, as well as a more thorough
understanding of the policy consequences of the federal
system. Implementation research may also lead the policy
makers to explanations for observed impacts and point to
variables that may be implemented to improve the delivery
of public services.

As Van Horn and Van Meter have indicated:

The model utilized here is not designed to measure the
ultimate impact of intergovernmental programs, rather

it seeks to measure and explain program performance--

the degree to which anticipated services are actually

delivered to intended beneficiaries. (1976:104)

The variables and interrelations shown in Figure 1.6
represent factors within a particular jurisdiction. Measures
are employed in order to determine whether or not federal
policy objectives are realized (1976:97-106). In this model,
policy standards are statements of how goals will be imple-
mented, and resources are the funds and incentives for
administration and enforcement. Organizational and societal

factors include communication of policy, enforcement (norms

and incentives) political conditions, economic and social

.soflumusmEmHmEH mo Homo: umwumnmmIQMACOENmz .m.H musmflm

 

ousumum musmpno >0flaom musmuao MOflHom mmsoum powumu mmaocomm
OH +. m0 +. m0 +. an musmuso +. mcfluswamaw
commw>mu HOnmz muommEa Um>flwoumm muommsd Hmsuom Moaaom spas mocmwameoo mo musmuso MOAHOm

mmmooum coauoucmeHmEH can cw AmmHQMHum> unoccmmoov mommum

 

 

 

 

 

33

 

 

 

 

 

+ + +
mumowmuso an mucous Hmsuom .h
mamaoammo m:flucms ammowmwo unflucoswamafl mo ucmspwsnomm .o
toamafi mo Haflxm mflnmumcmma can unmanassou .m mmflocomm mcaucmsmamfiw mo mmasutcowmwomo .m
mcmfimuo>0m scum uuommsm .m mcowusuwumca mswucmamamfiw macaw can
mmsoum cwnuw3 coflumummucfi HMOflnoumumwm .v
mocmsufiumcoo mo moousommu can mmcsufiuud .v mmousommu HOAOGMCAE .m
uuommsm OHHndm .m mm>wuomufiv mowaom msoamflnamca .N
smanoum on» O» newucmuum capo: .m muoonu
>moaosnoou can mco«uflo:oo oasocOOOIOAOOm .H Hmmsmo mumsvoom mo GOADOHOQHOOGH .H
coaumucmEOHQEH mcwuommwd moanmanm> mucusumumtcoz coaumucosmHmEH onsuosuum Op musumum mo hawHflnd
+ +

 

cmuflswmu mmcmno Hmu0fl>mnmn mo ucwuxm .v
coaumasmom

on» no ommucmouom 8 mm adoum pounce .m

uofl>mnmn macho pound» mo muflmum>an .N
mmoaocnomu can

snows» Hmoeqnomu onnm> mo suflaunmnflmsm .H

Emanoum on» no muflHwnmuomua

 

 

 

 

34

conditions, and informal and formal attributes of imple-
menting organizations. As noted in the figure, these
factors affect implementor dispositions and program perfor-
mance. This dissertation takes a position of agreement that
these factors affect dispositions, and that dispositions
determine individual action, which in the aggregate affects
implementation (107-116).

These authors state the following argument regarding
dispositions of implementors: (1976:113)

The success or failure of many federal programs has
often been attributed to the level of support enjoyed
within the agency responsible for implementation. As
Petrick (1968:7) Observes, this stems from the fact that
"human groups find it difficult to carry out effectively
acts for which they have no underlying beliefs." Three
elements of the implementors' response may affect their
ability or willingness to implement federal policy:
their cognition (comprehension) of the policy's standards,
the direction of their response toward them, and the
intensity of their response.

Even when the policy standards are communicated with
accuracy, clarity and consistency, successful implemen-
tation may be frustrated when officials are unaware that
they are not in full compliance with the law and do not
know what they must do to get there. The message trans-
mission may operate correctly, but the receiver may
malfunction due to ignorance of overload (Wasby, 1970:
98).

Implementors may not execute the policy's standards
because they reject the objectives contained in them
(Peltason, 1961; Dolbeare and Hammond, 1971; Etzioni,
1961; Wasby, 1970). The Objectives may be rejected for
a variety of reasons: they may offend the implementor's
personal value systems, self-interest, organizational
loyalties, or existing preferred relationships. Finally,
the intensity of the implementors' response may affect
the implementation process. Those holding intense nega-
tive orientations toward the policy may Openly defy
program Objectives (Bailey and Mosher, 1968). Less
intense attitudes may cause implementors to attempt
surreptitious diversion and evasion (Lazin, 1973).

35

Structuring Implementation

 

Another perspective is that of Mazmanian and Sabatier
(1980). They structured variables into three sets, depicted
in Figure 1.6: tractability of the problem, ability of a
statute to structure implementation, and non-statutory vari-
ables.

Of all the variables listed in this framework, the
one most directly affecting policy outputs of implementors,
according to Sabatier and Mazmanian, is the commitment of
agency Officials to the realization of statutory Objectives.
They remark: (1980:553)

This comprises at least two components: First, the
direction and ranking of the statutory Objectives in
Officials' preference orderings, and, second, their skill
in realizing those preferences i.e. their ability to go
beyond what could reasonably be expected in using the
available resources. The importance of both attitudes
and skill will, of course, vary with the amount of dis-
cretion afforded administrators.

The commitment of agency officials will partially--
and, in some cases, largely-~be a function of the capa-
city of the statute to institutionalize a bias in the
implementing agencies through its selection of institu-
tions and tOp Officials (see p. 547). It will also be
a function of professional norms, personal values, and
support for statutory Objectives among interest groups
and sovereigns in the agencies' political environment.
In general, the commitment of agency officials to statu-
tory objectives--and the consequent probability of their
successful implementation--will be highest in a new
agency with high visibility which was created after an
intense political campaign. After the initial period,
however, the degree of commitment will probably decline
over time as the most committed people become burned out
and disillusioned with bureaucratic routine, to be re-
placed by officials much more interested in security
than in taking risks to attain policy goals.

But commitment to statutory objectives will contri-
bute little to their attainment unless accompanied by
skill in using available resources to that end. Usually
discussed under the rubric of "leadership," this com-
prises both political and managerial elements. The

36

former refers to the ability to develop good working
relationships with sovereigns in the agency's subsystems,
to convince Opponents and target groups that they are
being treated fairly, to mobilize support among latent
supportive constituencies, to adroitly present the
agency's case through the mass media, etc. Managerial
skill involves developing adequate controls so that the
program is not subject to charges of fiscal mismanage-
ment, to maintaining high morale among agency personnel,
and to managing internal dissent in such a way that out-
right Opponents are shunted off to noncrucial positions.

On the whole, however, leadership skill remains a
rather elusive concept. While everyone acknowledges its
importance, its attributes vary from situation to situa-
tion and thus it is extremely difficult to predict
whether specific individuals will go beyond what could
reasonably be expected in using the available resources
in support of statutory objectives.

From this perspective, we would conclude that the
individual choice maker is the important factor in deter-
mining implementation behavior. However, in their "minimum
list of crucial conditions," they contend that a policy
decision seeking a departure from the status quo is most
likely to achieve its desired goals under the following set
of conditions: (1980:554)

l. The enabling legislation or other legal directive
mandates policy Objectives which are clear and con-
sistent (or at least provides substantive criteria
for resolving goal conflicts).

2. The enabling legislation incorporates a sound theory
identifying the principal factors and causal linkages
affecting policy objectives, as well as the changes
in the behavior of target groups (the regulated) and
other conditions necessary to attain the desired
goals.

3. The enabling legislation not only gives implementing
agencies sufficient jurisdiction over the target
groups and other critical areas of intervention but
also structures the implementation process so as to
maximize the probability that target groups will
perform as desired.

It is interesting that their list Of crucial condi-

tions fails to identify the importance of the individual

37

choice maker. Instead, their conditions reflect the policy
environment itself.

In the rational choice theory, upon which our model
is patterned, the focus is not on organizational boundaries
or the environment at large, but on decisions which arise
out of the interdependence of policy, environmental condi-

tions, and action.

Explaining Implementation Behavior

Models such as those of Mazmanian-Sabatier or Van
Horn-Van Meter pose problems for explanation of implementa-
tion behavior. First, they are essentially linear models
which assume that policy resource and standards structure
organizational and societal conditions. From simple obser—
vations of programs, it is evident that policy influences
the environment, and that the environment also influences
policy. The relationship is interactive.

Second, individuals develop dispositions toward the
intended outcomes of policy as well as to the communication
mode and interpretation of standards by others. They are
influenced by enforcement via standard Operating procedures
and other coercive mechanisms. Preferences Of individuals
also are shaped by rewards and sanctions within the organi—
zation and within the broader context in which implementation
action occurs.

Third, these models do not show economic and social

conditions as impacting on preferences, although they in

38

fact may alter dispositions in much the same way as politi-
cal conditions influence preferences.

Fourth, they do not show that policy influences per-
formance directly. By performance, we are assuming outputs
of the organization. Policy standards and resources actually
may not be structured to allow production of outputs.

Fifth, performance is depicted as an end in itself,
and does not relate back to other elements of the policy
environment.

These models can be useful in pointing out possible
variables present in the policy environment, but they assume
linearity in problem awareness, policy development, and
implementation behavior. Thus, they seem insufficient,
failing to identify and capture the essential choices indi-
viduals and groups of individuals make in acting to pursue
policy goals.

Descriptions of implementation behaviors in the
literature lead us to believe that those selected to trans-
form policy ideas into action have preferences regarding the
policy itself, implied implementation strategy, and intended
outcomes of policy. Like those formulating policy, it
appears that individuals made calculations regarding the
technical and political feasibility of reaching intended
outcomes, and the feasibility of selected strategies for
realizing policy goals. Further, it appears that individual
preferences affect the roles implementors decide to play in

furthering or in blocking achievement of outcomes of policy.

39

For example, one may favor developing jobs for the
long-term unemployed (as in Bardach's Oakland California
study). How the policy is structured regarding this un-
employed target group may facilitate or obstruct achievement
of policy goals. Or, one may favor creating new jobs as a
strategy, restructuring the available vacant positions in
the marketplace to meet market demands, or induce private
industry or some sector of the economy to develop and to put
into practice one or a mix of strategies to reduce unemploy-
ment. Since the environment is ever-changing, preferences
change in response to perceptions about the environment. A
training program targeted for the unemployed may actually
service the under-employed resulting from preferences and
decisions to do so. Delays in provided personnel or funds
to initiate program activities may alter preferences with
regard to supporting, opposing, or remaining neutral with
regard to adoption of a particular strategy. Likewise, new
initiatives may conflict with existing programs, agency
goals, and standard operating procedures, which, in turn,
may affect preferences to participate or to fail to parti-
cipate in an implementation effort.

These observations concerning coordinated policy
implementation suggest that we look to individual choice
makers, their preferences and their calculations of outcomes

and of payoffs in order to explain implementation behavior.

40

Summary

Implementation is not a static or linear phase of
the policy process, but a transformation phase which involves
movement from the policy idea to action. The focus of
implementation is on movement toward or away from a policy
idea by individuals chosen to take part in the implementation
process. It does not focus primarily on the policy itself
or the assigned outputs of an organization or set of organi-
zations.

Implementation is interactive with the policy environ-
ment. A contemporary view of organizational behavior suggests
that organizations operate less in the Weberian hierarchical
manner than in the Thompsonian Open systems manner. The
environment concerns the problem policy addresses, the policy
itself, and organizational and societal conditions. This
environment influences the preferences of individual choice
makers situated to participate in an implementation effort.
The environment also influences the perceptions of choice
makers toward their expected contributions to outcomes and
toward their perceptions of payoffs to themselves for parti-
cipation.

Implementation concerns joint action which necessi-
tates coordination. Joint action in an open systems organi-
zation takes place through cooperation and coordination of
individuals and their actions. Where many actors are con-
cerned in an effort, pursuit of their common interest may

be expected to occur given preferences toward the policy,

41

calculations of the probability of making a difference in
outcomes, and acceptable benefits to themselves in relation
to costs of participation.

From this perspective, we can begin to develop a
theory of implementation.

The following chapter presents a theoretical model
which links the policy environment approach with a rational

choice approach to understanding implementation behavior.

CHAPTER II

A MODEL OF IMPLEMENTATION

Our model of implementation attempts to explain how
and why individuals pursue or fail to pursue policy goals
in a joint action context. The model states that individuals
who participate in an implementation process act to support,
oppose, or to remain passive in the pursuit of policy goals.
They do so in response to their calculations Of the pro-
bability of making a difference in the state of the world,
and on their calculations of costs and benefits to them for

participation.

Organizing Concepts

 

Organizing concepts for our model of implementation
come from that body of theory known as "rational choice
theory." Rational choice theory describes individuals as
goal-oriented expected utility maximizers. That is, they
are expected to maximize benefits and to minimize costs to
themselves when participating in an effort. The unit of
analysis is the individual choice maker. The individual's
values are assumed to come prior to other values found in

collection action. Decisions of the individual are rational

42

43

in that the individual understands his or her own utility
and can select among alternative actions to contribute to
that utility.

Rational choice theory has evolved from models
central to economics which were found to be applicable to
small group decisions, elections, and political parties.
Works of Duncan Black, Kenneth Arrow, Anthony Downs, Mancur
Olson, and William Riker explicate game theory, rational
choice models, and utility theory as it evolved into a theory
of political behavior.

In the public administration arena, application of
rational choice theory may be said to begin with Chester
Barnard's choice-making approach in The Functions of the

Executive (1938), and Herbert Simon's Administrative Behavior

 

 

(1947). The core books about rational choice in public
administration were published in the 19603 and 19703:

Buchanan and Tullock, The Calculus of Consent (1962); Tullock,

 

The Politics of Bureaucracy (1965); Downs, Inside Bureaucracy

 

(1967); Niskanen, Bureaucracy and Representative Government

 

(1971); and V. Ostrom, The Intellectual Crises of American

 

Public Administration (1974). These authors apply a rational

 

individual approach to rule-making, organizational design,
and administrative behavior.

The individual choice approach is a departure from
one which suggests that group values override individual
approaches, or ones which see decision making as irrational

and confused. The approach has merits. It is useful for

44

understanding policy making and policy implementation,
offers both normative and positive explanations of adminis-
tration, and provides a predictive model of implementation
behavior (Weschler, 1982:288-290).
Three organizational concepts make up our model:
1. Preferences of individuals toward policy, and their
impact on individual and collective action.
2. Calculations of individual probabilities of making
a difference in actual outcomes of policy.
3. Calculations of payoffs to individuals and groups
for participation.
Each of these concepts is discussed in terms of
relevant theoretical approaches in the literature, and ideas

inherent in the model.

Pursuit of Policy Goals

Individuals choose to act to pursue policy goals,
to oppose those goals, or to remain passive. In rational
choice terms, participation by an individual in an implemen-
tation effort consists of "examination of alternative actions
and the selection of that alternative which yields the
greatest expected utility" (Riker and Ordeshook, 1973:46).

The chooser makes a comparative assessment of alter-
native courses of action. Such assessment consists of two
kinds of calculations:

1. a comparative evaluation of probable social conse-
quences which may result from the chooser's parti-

cipation, and

45

2. a comparative evaluation of the utilities to the

chooser of alternatives (Riker and Ordeshook, 1973:

45-77).

Throughout the literature about implementation
(Bardach, Pressman, Wildavsky, Derthick, and others) are
evidences that such comparative evaluations take place.
Assessments are accomplished, it appears, with varying
degrees of information about values in the payoffs of parti-
cipation, the capacity to consider utilities and alternatives,
and the ability to follow through on decisions, to take risks,
and to make choices.

As we have defined policy, it reflects a decision
directed toward public or collective good of consequence to
society.

Mancur Olson defines collective good as:

A common, collective, or public good is . . . defined
as any good such that, if person Xi in a group X1 . . .
Xi . . . Xn consumes it, it cannot feasibly be withheld
from the others in that group. (1965:140)

Olson's theory of collective goods suggests to us
that no individual will pursue a collective good voluntarily
unless the probability of making a difference is high and
the ratio of costs to benefits is low. This thinking identi-
fies two kinds of public or collective good involved in
implementation:

1. The public good embodied in a policy (quality of
life improvements, economic well-being and the like);

and

46

2. The collective good of the group of individuals
selected to pursue policy goals (increasing prestige,
budgets, program domain).

Thus, while the policy itself may be directed toward
some consequence of society as a whole, the common interests
of a group may be directed toward a collective goal of con-
sequence to the grgup or to the collectivity. Policy may
be directed toward goals such as increased literacy, decreased
mortality and morbidity, or standardized housing. The groups
of individuals selected to move the policy idea into action
may be directed toward goals such as preservation of program
territoriality, increased funding for existing programs,
maintaining standard operating procedures, or stabilizing
individual positions of members of the group.

As Olson asserts, "the satisfaction of any common
interest means that a collective good is provided for the
set of individuals." Following the collective goods approach,
implementation concerns not only the pursuit of a policy
goals, but also the pursuit of the goals and interests of
those selected to implement the policy idea by moving the

idea into action.

Preferences

 

Individuals have preferences regarding policy, its
intended outcomes, its outputs, its strategies. They may
individually favor or not favor the policy goal. They may
favor or not favor the particular goods and services to be

produced. Further, they may favor or not favor the strategy

47

stated or implied in a policy mandate. They also have
attitudes about the tractability of the problem to be
addressed, the ability of the policy to structure intended
outputs and outcomes, and/or organizational and societal
conditions.

Those who favor the implementation goals and strate-
gies may be expected either to support them voluntarily and
actively, or they may support them passively without either
expending or exploiting resources.

Favoring a strategy or policy goal in the abstract
(i.e., perceiving a positive value to intended outcomes and
the strategies to be employed) does not automatically lead
to active support Of implementation. The optimal behavior
from the implementor's point of view depends on the prob-
ability that support will make a difference and that the
ratio of costs to benefits is tolerable.

Further, we would expect that those who do not favor
the substance of a policy mandate will actively and volunta-
rily Oppose it or will passively allow others to determine
the outcome. They also may impose surcharges to the policy's
implementation in exchange for participation or mobilization
of resources to further the attainment of outcomes intended

by policy.

Making a Difference
Implementors, in calculating the probability of making
a difference, use a number of factors in the policy environ-

ment to enable them to estimate their relative contributions

48

to the state of the world. The policy environment is made
up of: the problem to be addressed, the policy standards
and resources for attaining intended outputs and outcomes,
and organizational and societal conditions which influence
dispositions to act. Implementor positions, priorities, and
values are related to all of those factors. They also vary
from individual to individual, and over time, as environ—
mental conditions change.

Dispositions may reflect preferences about the
importance of the problem, the tractability of the problem,
or individual and organizational capability to undertake
addressing the problem. Calculations about making a differ—
ence also rely on appraisals of the policy statements, such
as the effectiveness of the policy in addressing problems,
the clarity of statements about products and services to be
delivered (outputs), or the definition Of intended outcomes
of consequence to society. Social-economic conditions, media
attention to the problem, public opinion, professional
association, and leadership skills of the individual and the
organization may factor into any calculation of probability
of making a contribution. They may reflect professional and
technical preferences as well.

At any time in the implementation process, individuals
decide to act in support of policy goals, in opposition to
policy goals, or to remain passive. In deciding which action
to take, they calculate probabilities of outcome. Essen-

tially, they ask themselves: Will policy goals come about

49

regardless of my contributions, only with my contributions,
only without opposition, or will they not occur regardless
of my action? Estimates made about the costs of supporting
or Opposing the policy goals also enter into a decision to
act. For example, if I value a policy outcome such as
literacy, but the outcome seems likely to occur without my
contributions, I may decide to become a "free rider." In
other words, I can realize the benefits or satisfactions of
attaining an outcome without participation and without
incurring the costs of participation. Likewise, if I value
a policy outcome and I think that it will occur only without
opposition of others, and if it seems unlikely that opposi-
tion will occur, I may decide to withhold my contribution.
In the same way, I may calculate the cost of my
participation by estimating the probability that it actually
will affect outcomes. In other words, I weigh the costs of
supporting or opposing a policy goal against my perceived

ability to make a difference in outcomes.

Payoffs

Implementation decisions and acts in response to
policy goals are related to calculations of the state of the
real world. Implementors individually make calculations
about their contributions to the achievement Of intended
policy outcomes, and they make calculations about the costs
and benefits to themselves for their actions and decisions.

The figure which follows depicts the "real world"

state of any implementation process and the payoffs

50

associated with each action an individual chooses to take.
It diagrams the consequences of making or not making a
contribution. The figure takes into account situations
where an individual may value opposing the realization of
a policy goal, such as the use of nuclear power or the
disessembling of the railroads. Intended outcomes are
represented by 10 in the matrix and may be positively or
negatively valued. For example, an organization may con-
template using resources to support bottle feeding of infants
in underdevelOped countries. The outcome may be viewed
positively as improving infant nutrition, or may be valued
negatively as increasing pollution of infant food supply
when contaminated water is used.

The costs of opposition are represented by OP, and
the costs incurred by support are represented by SUP. Pro-
babilities are represented by P1, P2, P3, and P4 where
P + P + P + P

1 2 3 4

When intended outcomes (IO) occur regardless of an

= 1.

 

individual's participation (Pl)' then the costs of support
or of Opposition must be weighed against individual benefits
which result. As we have noted intended outcomes may be
positively or negatively valued. In deciding to remain
passive (to ride free) one does not incur costs to oneself
but may realize benefits or costs which accompany intended
outcome realization when P1 is assumed.

If intended outcomes will get be realized regardless

of the individual's participation (P4), the person supporting

51

   
  

Real WOrld P1 P2 P3 P4
States Intended Intended Intended Intended
Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes
Occur Occur Occur Do Not
Regardless Only Without Only With Occur
of Action Opposition Support Regardless

of Action

Actions

 

 

 

Support lO-SUP lO-SUP lO-SUP FAIL-SUP
Oppose lO-OP BLOCK-OP -0P -0P
Rama?“ 10 10 o o
Pass1ve

 

Figure 2.1. Real WOrld States of Realizing a Collective Good.

the pursuit of a collective good not only incurs the costs

of support but also costs of failure to attain the collective
good. Costs of failure may include loss of prestige, program
terratory, position in the organization and the like. Costs
of opposition are calculated under P4 conditions. If one
decides to remain passive while calculating that outcomes
will not occur regardless of participation, then no costs

are incurred.

Where it is expected that outcomes will be attained
ggly without opposition (P2), an individual may decide to
incur costs to block achievement if benefits would be gained
for doing so. On the other hand, the individual may weigh
benefits against costs before deciding to participate in an
effort where goals would be realized only without opposition.

Again, the decision matrix favors remaining passive (riding

52

free) in order to minimize costs if collective goods are not
realized and to maximize benefits to oneself if they were.
Selective incentives or inducements (rewards and sanctions
within the organizational context) may mobilize individuals
to support policy goals, however. Then, the additional
benefits offset costs of participation.

When a collective good can be realized only with
active and voluntary support (P3), benefits occur only with
individual support. Selective incentives are required to
minimize the free rider problem and to balance costs for the
individual's participation. Costs are accrued not only by
those who support pursuit of a collective good, but also by
those who Oppose it. The costs of participation are cal-

culated against the benefits to the individual (Bi).

The Free Rider Problem

Because the achievement of a common goal such as
increased budgets, prestige and maintenance of program
territory cannot be withheld from members of an agency
coalition or individual members of a group, "free riders"
are common to implementation.

While Olson maintains that the free rider problem is
not as likely in small groups as in large groups, observations
of implementation behavior in the literature tell us that
even in small groups members "lay back" and remain passive.
They do not contribute to the achievement of a public good,
but once the good is achieved, they receive benefits. In

small groups with a stable membership, the free rider problem

53

occurs less frequently because Of the face-to—face contact

of members over time and the assumed responsibility of mem-
bers for sharing costs to achieve a common goal. However,

we believe that when some of the members of the group leave
the group, and others come in, the turbulence created fosters
a greater incidence of free rider behavior. Where there is
in-and-out movement in small groups, members may decide to
excuse themselves individually from meetings, from completing
assignments, or from moving to achieve the goal of the group.
This tendency is greater in large groups, but we assert that
it exists in small groups as well (Frohlick and Oppenheimer,
1971).

We posit that the inclination of individuals and
agencies to take a free ride (i.e., to derive benefits with-
out incurring costs of participation) occurs for the follow-
ing reasons:

1. The individual or agency predicts that outcomes will
occur regardless of their support or opposition.

2. The individual or agency predicts that outcomes will
occur only if no opposition takes place and calcu—
lates that probability as being low.

3. The individual or agency calculates that the costs
are not worth the benefits for participating in an

effort.

Hypotheses

 

The hypotheses to be tested center on explaining

and predicting when individuals and groups of individuals

54

will actively and voluntarily support the pursuit of policy
goals, Oppose movement, or remain passive.

Hypotheses assume that individuals have varying
preferences regarding the substance of the policy, have per—
ceptions about their ability to contribute to eventual out-
comes, and weigh costs against benefits before pursuing or
Opposing policy goals. Those who may calculate their best
choice as behaving passively or riding free, may decide to
participate if they will earn benefits coming from selective
incentives provided by the organizational environment. This
exchange of participation for inducements can be perceived
as extracting surcharges for the attainment of policy which
in itself may or may not be valued favorably by an individual.
We expect that the size of the surcharge is related to
strength of opposition or of support.

Hypotheses evolve from the central prOposition:

In coordinated policy implementation, individuals

act in pursuit of policy goals based on preferences

toward a policy, probability of making a difference

with a contribution, and payoffs to themselves.

The hypotheses framed represented four possibilities
of action that can be taken in the implementation process.

Notation used relates to that used earlier.

H1: If Bi > 0, and P3 > §%E' then voluntarily and actively
1

support goal attainment

55

H2: If Bi > 0, and P3 < Egg, then either remain passive,
i
or exchange participation for
selective incentives
H3: If Bi < O, and P2 > g2 , then voluntarily and actively
i
Oppose goal attainment
H4: If Bi < 0, and P2 < g2, then either remain passive or
1
exchange participation for
furthering a goal not favored
Summary

Our model of implementation states that individual
choice makers pursue policy goals or fail to pursue them
based on their preferences, their calculations of their
contributions to outcomes, and their perceptions of payoffs
for participation in an implementation effort.

We posit that the environment--which includes the
problem to be addressed, the policy itself, and the organi-
zational and societal conditions--is considered when indi-
viduals make choices as to course of action in response to

policy goals.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN

The Purpose

 

The purpose of the research is twofold: (l) to
attempt to explain organizational behavior in public agencies
selected to act jointly in pursuit of policy goals; and (2)
to test general propositions regarding the behavior of those
individuals in the pursuit of policy goals.

The following general questions structure the design:

1. How do those charged with implementing a policy
mandate respond to a strategy which requires joint
action in pursuit of intended policy outcomes?

2. What patterns of behavior are manifested in agencies
which use resources to support, to oppose, or to

fail either to support or to oppose an implementation

strategy requiring joint action on the part of

diverse agencies?

3. What kinds of payoffs do implementing organizations

extract in return for cooperative behavior?

Testing the Hypotheses

 

To date, the case study has been the prevailing mode

of empirical inquiry into the study of implementation

56

57

behavior. The cases in the literature generally were not
randomly selected, the research has been mainly inductive,
and the rules for selecting and interpreting information
have not been clear nor uniform.

As Allison remarked on the case study mode (1972:273):

Most theorists have little respect for "case studies"--
in large part because of the atheoretical character of
case studies of the past. But the only substitute for
detailed examination of particular events and problems
is construction of theory in the absence of specific
information. What we need is a new kind of "case study"
done with theoretical alertness to the range of factors
identified . . . on the basis of which to begin refining
and testing propostions and models.

The research design is modeled after this "new kind
of case study" which Allison and others recommend. The model
presented provides a typology of behaviors important to
achievement of intended policy outcomes. Further, it pro-
vides testing of hypotheses which may be useful in guiding
future policy development and subsequent implementation.
Lastly, it provides for examination of events and problems
connected with a particular long-term implementation activity

with many actors, most of whom consider the effort moderately

successful in attaining intended outcomes.

Data Collection
Both face-to-face and telephone interviews occurred
with those identified with the implementation effort. Inter-
views were supplemented with a review of written documents.
Actors include those centrally concerned with an implementa-
tion effort and with those positioned in the bureaucratic

environment to influence actors and events. Actors include

58

those at the institutional level (legislators and staff,
agency directors, and interest group leaders), those at the
managerial level (program managers both selected and not
selected for policy implementation), and those at the tech-
nical-Operational level (site personnel responsible for
service delivery). Thirty interviews were planned and com-
pleted during the summer of 1981. As peripheral actors were
identified; the researcher spoke with them in the fall and
early winter of 1981. The duration of the interviews is
from one—half to three hours. Interviews with lAC members
and program managers were the first ones to be scheduled,
followed by legislative and executive staff, by school
district staff, and federal agency personnel and interest

group representatives.

Interviewyguestions

Interviews are conducted both face-to-face and by
telephone upon prior arrangement. Interviews in the Lansing,
Michigan (capital city) area were uniformly face to face.
Others were conducted using a telephone. While some legis-
lators and agency directors were busy with budget cutbacks:
other interviewers filled in the information regarding
leadership position with some consistency. The design calls
for the researcher to write out responses and to return
responses to respondents for comment. Confidentiality is
guaranteed to interviewees. Telephone interviews, perhaps

because of their impersonality, Offered surprisingly candid

59

remarks. Those with the greatest stance in efforts, ex-
plained events in detail. Those with the least stake in
efforts appeared to offer generalized descriptions of events
and motivations.

A review of documents was made prior to interviews
and proved helpful during interviews in motivating responses
around events yielding a report, position or written product.
However, a review of documents did not provide information
about preferences and individual calculations and prepara-
tions.

Twelve questions make up the interview schedule:

1. What was your involvement with the effort?

2. How is the effort related to the agency's mission
and to your responsibilities?

3. What is the reporting channel and form of reporting
in your agency?

4. What processes were used to coordinate the effort?

5. What successes and problems resulted?

6. What were the costs and benefits to you and to the
agency of participating in the effort?

7. What would you have done differently?

8. How does this effort compare with other interagency
cooperative efforts?

9. What is the appropriate role, staffing, responsi-
bility, duration of a coordinated implementation

effort?

60

10. How do people in your agency (other agencies)

'characterize this effort (other coordinative efforts)?

11. What is the future of this (other) coordinative
effort the State?

12. What is the future of your agency's contribution to
future efforts like this?

The questions are general in nature to allow the
respondent to comment on the attitude, events, and activities
relevant to the policy environment and to our central
proposition. Information clustered around:

--the problem addressed and alternative solutions,

--policy standards and resources

--organizational factors (communications; enforcement;
characteristics of implementing agencies; political,
economic, and social conditions)

--preferences and calculations of individuals and
clusters of individuals regarding policy impact on
outcomes, and payoffs for participation.

The context of the research and a discussion of

results are presented in the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV

COORDINATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION:

A PILOT STUDY

The efforts of the State of Michigan Inter-Agency
Committee for Services to High Risk Children and Their
Families provide an Opportunity to test propositions regard-
ing coordinated policy implementation.

The Inter-Agency Committee (IAC) represents a
cooperative venture by five state agencies to develop inte-
grated services for a population all were serving: adoles-
cent parents with young children. This case demonstrates
implementation--the transformation of an idea into action--
as interactive joint action of many actors. It provides an
example of coordinated policy implementation, a situation
in which actors make calculations about preferences toward
a policy goal and about payoffs for participating in various
stages of the implementation.

While many factors influence an implementation
effort, it is posited here that the key variables are:
preferences toward the collective goal, and calculations

of payoffs against costs of participation.

61

62

This chapters outlines the activities of the Inter—
Agency Committee and discusses the policy environment.
Chapter VI presents an analysis of results of the pilot

study.

The Interagency Committee

 

During the 19603 and 19703, state agencies in
Michigan were concerned about the increasing number of
teenage parents dependent on state aid. This group is con-
sidered high risk by state agencies because of the problems
associated with early and unplanned pregnancy in adolescent
girls and in their children who suffer high mortality and
morbidity rates. According to state studies, the younger
the parent, the more likely she is to be unmarried and a
high school drOpout. Agencies exPressed concern not only
with the social and health problems associated with this
population, but also with the drain on the state budget
resulting from increased services to this population.

Educators, social workers and health professionals are
increasingly concerned about the problems associated
with early and unplanned pregnancy. Some 9,000 adoles-
cent girls and their partners in Michigan, still of an
age to be enrolled in school, annually face the decisions
and consequences of pregnancy and premature parenthood.
Interrupted schooling, health problems, precipitous
marriage and equally precipitous divorce, single parent-
hood and welfare dependency are a repetitive pattern.

Of equal concern are the children of adolescent parents.
The infant may be the innocent victim of the adoles-
cent parent's vulnerability and inexperience. The
child's chances of falling into the same situation
fifteen years hence are high because the phenomenon of
early pregnancy and early parenthood is often cyclical.
Based on that consideration, services intended to break

63

the cycle must be addressed to the children as well as
their school-age parents.
Studies conducted in New Haven, Baltimore, and Washing-
ton, D.C. have shown that early prenatal care, counseling,
social services and continuing education are effective in
reducing school dropouts among pregnant persons, as well
as reducing infant mortality and morbidity. Where
service continue beyond delivery, there is a great
reduction in the number of subsequent births to the
students served and school completion correlates with
economic independence. The savings which ultimately
result from comprehensive services are undeniable in the
light of such data. ("A Comprehensive and Integrated
Model of Services for Pregnant Adolescents, School-Age
Parents and Their Families in the State of Michigan"
April 1979)

A Patchwork of Services

In 1970, the Michigan legislature passed a law which
stated that students could not be expelled from school for
pregnancy (Section 4 of Act No. 242 of the Public Acts of
1970 and Section 12 of Act No. 312 of the Public Acts of
1957 as amended). An appropriation of $300,000 was added
to the Education budget to develop alternative education
programs in high schools. The funds were to be used to
reimburse school districts for teacher salaries associated
with the alternative education programs. The program grew
from seventeen school districts to over sixty school dis-
tricts.

Other programs were developed in patchwork fashion
to service adolescent parents. At the state level in
Michigan, four agencies claimed these populations in their
program domains: Education, Public Health, Mental Health,

and Social Services. The Department of Management and

Budget also had a coordinating role for services to children

64

through its Coordinated Child Care Council (4-C). Services
were provided with local, state, and federal funds. Those
services provided by departments included social service
program assistance, vocational and career counseling, and
other support services to help the mother to stay in school
and to maintain the well-being of herself and her children.
Additionally, at the local level, both private and public
agencies were providing assistance to pregnant teens and
adolescent parents. In one community, for instance, it was
found that social workers from nine different agencies were
assigned to one family unit.

During the 19703, the State of Michigan operated
thirty—eight programs serving young children. The Department
of Social Services provided a day care program, protective
services program, foster care and adoption (community place-
ment), ADC (Aid to Dependent Families), Medicaid and the
licensing and regulation of child care organizations. The
Department of Education was involved with six programs
through dissemination of funds and program monitoring: The
Office of Preprimary and Family Education, Child Find Pro-
ject, ESEA—Title I, and ESEA-Title II, Migrant Programs,
Head Start, Vocational Educational programs and the School
Food Program. The Department of Mental Health Operated
nine programs serving young children through institutions
for the mentally retarded and mentally ill. Programs for
young children were provided by community mental health

boards and funded by a 90-10 match with the State Department

65

of Mental Health. The Department of Public Health admin-
istered six programs in its Division of Maternal and Infant
Health, three programs through the Services to Crippled
Children unit, and eight by the Child Health Division.

Service delivery to this target group was rife with
duplication, fragmentation of services, gaps and frustrations
for both clients and for agencies. At the same time, this
patchwork of services at state and local levels was costly
to service providers.

In the State of Michigan, there were approximately
2,500,000 people under the age of fifteen. Approximately
900,000 of these children were under age six. More than
150,000 children under six years of age were involved in
some kind of state program (Special House Committee on Ser-
vices for Young Children, 1980).

In 1978, a special House Committee on Children's
Service "found that six different state departments admin-
ister programs for young children with very little coordina-
tion . . . and identified thirty-seven problems in the
delivery of State services for young children and made thirty
recommendations on improving the services" (Michigan House
Resolution No. 24, 1980).

Services in the community from state and local
funding sources have their own structures. As one state
program manager in the summer of 1981 commented:

What does every county Offer every citizen? Schools.

Family planning. Many have well child care. Health
departments are autonomous (on the local level).

66

Seventy five percent of the funds for local health
services is local money and 25 percent is state and
federal. The state cannot tell them what to do. County
social service departments are part of the state system.
Counties have community mental health services.

A counselor for adolescent parents commented on

general attitudes about adolescent parents and their families:
Unfortunately, women and children are not high priorities.
There was a family living course in the high school. My
high school eliminated that entirely. I am the only
place that teaches child development. . . . They sink
money into problems once they occur, but not into pre-
vention. The money in Mental Health is after-the-fact.
Child abuse and other problems have occurred already.

Reflecting on the distribution of services to urban
vs. rural localities, a school counselor in a rural area
commented:

I'm really worried that rural places don't get funded
because we can't show the same numbers as urban places.
We have the same percentages of people needing services.
Dollars go to urban areas. That is not where the need
is. Cities have services. We have one doctor, one
dentist, one attorney and a large number of school age
parents and young children. There are no other services
here. No social worker. NO school nurse.

In a medium-sized city, a social worker commented on
duplication of services:

With one household, we had nine different people working
with that family. I hope that we'd continue to look for
ways to do things better.

Others servicing adolescents in communities noted
such gaps as lack of day care, prenatal care, and transpor-
tation for pregnant teens and adolescent parents. In many
areas, the school bus provides the only transportation for

an adolescent from home to community.

67

The School-Age-Parent
Task Force: 1975-76

 

 

In 1975, the State Superintendent of Public In-
struction, Dr. John Porter, was present at the national con-
ference of the National Alliance Concerned with School Age
Parents. After hearing about the needs of adolescent parents
and their families, and about the problems in service
delivery, he vowed to appoint a task force to develop recom-
mendations for agencies which would address these needs.
Following the conference, he visited the alternative edu-
cation program in Kalamazoo, which he considered a model for
other programs to follow in the state.

With the Director of Public Health, Dr. Maurice
Reizen, Dr. Porter convened a School-Age Parent Task Force
to study problems of providing services to teenage mothers
and to prepare an initial design of a service delivery system
which would meet those needs. Members of the task force
were appointed by agency heads. They included representatives
from the primary service agencies (Education, Public Health,
Mental Health, and Social Services) as well as representa-
tives from alternative education program staff in Kalamazoo
and West Ottawa, Michigan. Professional affiliations of
agency representatives included teaching, nursing, social
work, and psychology. All were managers of state programs
‘with service delivery occurring in communities.

Essentially the task force found that governmental

programs to assist adolescent parents and their children

68

were at odds with one another. Each had a distinct legisla-
tive history. Each grew out of’a distinct organizational
environment replete with its own standard Operating pro-
cedures, rules, and regulations. While the School-Age
Parent Task Force identified problems and developed a sketch
model of services to the target population, it did not
wrestle with the discrepancies between programs and their
delivery of services. More work was needed in order to
provide better program fit, reduce duplication, and decrease
program costs of the agencies which were delivering required
services. In particular, member agencies needed to reach
consensus about program domain--what programs and procedures
belong to what agencies.

One member of the task force described some responses
to Education's receipt of their report:

Porter had established a task force for adolescent
parents including departments and interested programs
related to school programs. The group made a report.
It was uneven. Porter accepted the report, but wasn't
going to do anything about it. We didn't want it to
die. The genesis of action was from staff. From the
VieWpoint of Porter, he had another agenda. He had sent
to a (legislative apprOpriations committee) a request
for funds related to early childhood programs. (The
committee chair) wanted to assure that assurances were
in place for interagency coordination. Porter wanted
to clear himself with (the head of the committee) and
requested support from departments. Porter presented

a chart of where pre-primary programs were going to go.
Then, he established a position paper. All departments

signed a mission statement which went to the committee
to assure coordination.

Another said:
It started with Dr. Porter (Education) who put together

a group to develop a model of educational services
involving pregnant teens. He had the group together

69

for lunch to say thank you (for producing the report).
(He said that he) would be putting the report on the
back burner. I told him what I thought about it. We
needed implementation. He called me back to ask staff
people on the task force for the four major service
agencies to start to work on the implementation plan
for the model. Bits and pieces were updated.

A legislative staff person brought this perspective
to the decision to implement the School-Age Parent Task Force
recommendations:

(The chair of the legislative committee) was concerned
with preschool programs and education. He brought
together a statewide conference on preschool education,
and found that without the impetus of the Senate nothing
was going to happen. Departments need a stimulus from
outside. If a suggestion comes from one department, the
others are suspicious. Perhaps, they see it as a play
for more power.

Without perceived benefits to themselves, it appears
that agencies are unlikely to incur costs for participation.

Securing Funds for IAC Staff:
1977 Spring

 

 

With the COOperation of participating departments,
the IAC submitted a proposal to the U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare to fund staff to assist the
IAC in model development. The IAC members had prepared the
HEW proposal in response to a solicitation for demonstration
programs for children, and they had lobbied for its funding
through the area and regional office. HEW awarded grant
funds to the Michigan Department of Public Health, the
designated agency for administering the grant and housing

personnel.

70

One Of the n11019115 of members from the School-Age
Parent Task Force which spearheaded the IAC explained their
efforts to secure staff:

A number of actors were in and out of the scene. We
brought in 4-C (Coordinated Child Care Council). All
actors were working in departments (as managers). We
heard about federal money from an HEW Region V repre-
sentative. I wanted to put something together to get

a staff person funded (to help the IAC). If we were to
get a grant, we agreed that the most unemcumbered agency
should get it. Agency heads were very supportive. The
prOposal was written in Public Health. Other state
departments backed off from applying when they knew we
were applying. We received about $70,000. The group
continued to work.

At the request of the IAC, with agreement from the
Director of the Department of Management and Budget, the
coordinator of the 4-C office of Management and Budget joined
the IAC. (The Coordinated Child Council was a special unit
in the Department of Management and Budget from 1973 to 1980.
The Council had a staff of four persons. Its purpose was
(1) to advocate for the comprehensive effective delivery of
services to children in Michigan; (2) to provide information,
education and training on children's services to the state's
child care constituency; (3) to provide technical assistance
to local 4-C organizations; and (4) to facilitate citizen
participation in statewide children's services coordination
and policy development.) The 4-C representative handled
the programmatic and budgetary matters for the school-age
parent projects the IAC was to undertake. The participation

of 4-C was necessary in order to submit the grant requesting

funds for staff to develop a model of integrated services

71

for adolescent parents and their young children, since 4-C
participation was required by HEW.
The IAC members lobbied for the HEW grant:

When the in-house departmental working group developed
into the IAC, one of us knew about the federal grant
monies and we lined up contacts. It was discovered
that grants were usually given through 4-C representa-
tives, so the Department of Management and Budget 4-C
coordinator was included in the IAC. The National
Association of Child DevelOpment Agencies was active in
lobbying for us.

A proposal was developed:

The 4-C peOple recognized the capacity building money
availability and helped us write the proposal and get
funding for staff. Things went rapidly after that.
Initially, we took the initial manuscript and worked
through it in terms of presentation and content. We
struggled for a year trying to do the job by ourselves,
and stealing time from our jobs. It went slowly. With-
out staff, no one had the time to do scut work. We
presented our first document draft to Education with no
immediate operationalization of recommendations. With-
out staff, we made slow progress.

Staffing the IAQ
Summer-Fall 1977

 

 

The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
awarded $70,000 to the Michigan Department of Public Health
to staff the IAC for three years (September 1977-September
1980).

Both the IAC members and HEW regional Office repre-
sentatives believed that receipt of the capacity-building
grant occurred because of the need for coordinated services
which was documented in the proposal, and because of the
uniqueness of a proposal involving five state agencies moving

together on a joint effort.

72

The IAC hired a coordinator who had been working with
the School-Age Task Force as a consultant to Public Health
in 1977, and had continued working as a consultant to Public
Health to write a teacher training manual in sex education
to be used after the revision of the birth control law
allowing sex education in public schools. A few months
later, a student assistant was hired to help with writing
and scheduling of meetings. Later, the student assistant
was hired full-time. The coordinator continued to work on
a contract basis, and a part-time (one day a week) nursing
consultant was added (October 1978-October 1979).

The coordinator was familiar with the IAC members
because of the inter-agency work on the task force, and
because of the teacher training manual. The coordinator
supervised the committee's scheduling and writing.

IAC members had the following comments about hiring
staff:

There were pros and cons on hiring the coordinator we
did. The IAC wanted her to be everything. She did a
fine job. I would have liked to see her supported with
a research background person. Chicago (HEW Region V)
gave us the grant because we had five departments here
and had sent copies of the prOposals to U.S. Senators.

During the first year, the IAC developed objectives
for the model, and worked toward securing funding for ser-
vices under the model.

Inter-Agency Position Statements
Fall 1977

 

The nucleus group from the School-Age Parent Task

Force included four program management staff, each representing

73

a major department whose program domain was young children,

adolescent parents, and their families. They develOped the

following position statements. (Agency heads later signed

the agreements in July 1978.)

POSITION STATEMENTS

School-age parents and their children are a high
risk population of concern to State government, and
specifically the Departments of Education, Public
Health, Mental Health, Social Services and Manage-
ment & Budget.

To meet the needs of this pOpulation, comprehensive
services are required for both the adolescent and

the child of the adolescent. Parent and child should
receive simultaneous and inter-related services.

Comprehensive programs for school-age parents and
their children must be a stable and organized part
of the school program.

Funding of comprehensive services for school-age
parents and their children should be provided in a
manner least burdensome to the localities.

Local education agencies should provide a multi-
disciplinary program to develop positive parenting
skills and to improve the quality of the child-
parent relationship.

Intervention should occur as early as possible during
pregnancy or in the early life of the child. The
earlier the intervention, the greater the likelihood
of successfully enhancing parenting patterns.

An effective health education curriculum (K-12) must
be implemented to break the cycle of school-age
parenthood. The curriculum, including the physical,
emotional, intellectual and social aspects, should
focus on the information and skills students need to
make decisions, assume responsibility for their own
actions and build a positive self-concept.

The state departments involved (#1 above) should
develop evaluation criteria for the programs in the
areas of (a) Parent growth; (b) Infant growth; (c)
Parent-infant interactions; (d) Program effectiveness.

74

Inter-Agency Formation: 1976

Thus, the nucleus of members from the School-Age
Parent Task Force as program management staff from the
Departments of Education, Mental Health, Public Health, and
Social Services continued to meet. The Superintendent of
Public Instruction and the Director of the Department of
Public Health encouraged the group to formulate a position
statement which would allow the departments to work together
to develOp a model of integrated services. The group became
known as the Inter-Agency Committee for Services to High Risk
Children and Their Families.

One of the IAC members noted:

The position paper with our positions statements went

to the legislature to assure coordination for Education's
programs dealing with the preschool population. Edu-
cation felt that schools should get into the preschool
area because it was emerging as an important area and
the school population was declining. Education focused
on preschool activities for special education and the
identification of young children in need of special
education programs.

The agencies on the IAC co-opted Education's emphasis
and focused on adolescent pregnancy programs. Agency
staff maneuvered the assignment. The Michigan Associa-
tion for School Age Parents did not want the recommenda-
tions of the School-Age Task Force to die. Porter did
not want to do anything.

IAC representatives saw the decline in school pOpu-
lation, accompanied by a decline in resources for education.
They saw resource decline motivate the Superintendent of
Schools to lead a COOperative venture.

The position statements served as a statement of

mission for the IAC. The focus of their efforts was on an

integrated model, even though they had two interests:

75

screening young children needing special education, and
adolescent parents.

An IAC representative viewed the two interests in
this way:

We brought two ideas together: adolescent parent con-
cerns and diagnosis of children needing special edu-
cation. At the beginning, Education had one focus and
the rest of the agency representatives (Social Services,
Public Health, and Mental Health) had another focus
(adolescent parents and their families). An Office of
Preprimary Education was organized in Education. A
coordinator was chosen by the Department of Education
for the office and this person now represented Education
instead of the former representatives.

By this time, the original four members representing
Education, Public Health, Mental Health, and Social Services
were joined by an additional member from Education. The
two Education representatives were program managers: one
for adolescent parent programs in school, and another for
identifying needs of young children for special Education.
When the Office of Preprimary and Family Education was formed
in January, 1978 the original Education representatives were
replaced by two different individuals. Later, Education
added a third member and Social Services and Public Health
each added a member to advise the IAC about a screening
pilot project. (Original representatives from member
agencies were exclusively white, middle-class, middle-aged
females. When agencies nominated additional members and

replacements for vacancies, they opted for one black female,

one black male, and two other males to join the committee.)

76

Developing an Integrated Model of
Services: Fall 1977-Spring 1978

 

 

In 1977 and 1978, the Committee researched and wrote
"A Comprehensive and Integrated Model of Services for Pregnant
Adolescents, School-Age Parents and Their Families in the
State of Michigan" (see Appendix).
Program components included:
--provisions for counseling students about pregnancy
outcomes and alternatives;
--education, health, and social services for pregnant
students;
--education, health, and social services for school-
age parents;
--parenting education for pregnant adolescents and
school-age parents;
--child care and child development programming for
the child of the school-age parent, for as long as
the school-age parent is enrolled in school;
--outreach to the extended family and the child's
father.
Additionally, the models instructed school districts
to make arrangements for supportive services through:
--the use of approved school social workers and
certified school nurses, and/or
--agreements with the county or District Department

of Public Health and the Community Mental Health

Agency and social service agencies.

 

77

Where there were gaps, school districts could attempt
to fill them. For example, a school district could hire a
part-time nurse, or rent a bus, or pay for day care. Where
there was duplication of services, school districts could
contract with but one provider--the county social service
agency, for example. Where coordination had occurred at the
state agency level through program domain consensus, coordi-
nation at the local level was designed to occur by contract.

The model (see Appendix) included a background state-
ment, definitions, funding provisions, local responsibili-
ties, application procedures, and school district responsi-
bilities. Additionally, it stipulated objectives, functions,
case management, reporting, and other aspects of service
management.

The model provided that any local school district
could apply to the Department of Education for funding as a
model site. Funds were allocated on the basis of the
counted number of students in the school district on the
fourth Friday of September. Generally, school districts
were to receive funds on a reimbursable basis to hire
teachers, nurses, and other staff needed; and/or to contract
with local agencies. A local program match of 25 percent
was required for all components except mental health, where
a 10 percent match was required. Local agencies carried
the costs of matching funds in order to reap the benefits
of increased funding for integrating services, and increased

state and local prestige.

78

The integrated model provided for coordination at
the local level by contract. Contracts and agreements were
to address services to be provided, staff skills needed,
time needed for staff training, estimated number of clients
to be served, amount and method of reimbursement, source of
local matching funds, and communication and responsibilities
among interagency personnel at the local level. The model
also included specifications about case ratios, transporta-
tion, home visits, day care, outreach, and other considera-
tions for modeling services.

Securing Funds for Model
Implementation: Summer 1978

 

 

The IAC, in order to lay groundwork for securing
funding, develOped an interagency agreement signed by all
four service agency directors.

The document was submitted to Management and Budget,
and to the legislature, to lobby for funding sites for 1979-
80. IAC members worked with legislative staff to provide
appropriate documentation to make their case with House and
Senate representatives. The agreement supported coordination
of services for school age parents and their families, and
funding of programs through the Department of Education with
purchase of needed health, mental health and social services
with any funds which could be obtained by the IAC from the
legislature. The agreement appears below:

School age parents and their children are a high risk

population of concern to state government, and specifi-
cally the Departments of Education, Public Health,

"*w
‘ _
‘0
.LL
rrL

79

Social Services and Mental Health. In Michigan, each
year, approximately 9,000 girls of school age and

their partners face the risks and responsibilities of
premature parenthood. Their child's chances of falling
into the same situation are high because the phenomenon
of early pregnancy and early parenthood is often cycli-
cal.

To meet the needs of this population, comprehensive
services are required for both the adolescent and the
child of the adolescent. The programs most effective

in encouraging girls to remain in school and in delaying
repeat pregnancies, have provided comprehensive services
in a common setting and have integrated programs for
parent and child. To break the cycle of premature
parenthood and reduce the risk of children born to
children, we need to provide greater stability for
existing programs and make comprehensive services avail-
able to those in need.

We therefore, endorse the following statements regarding
interagency coordination of services for school age
parents and their families:

1. We support the Program Revision Request* for com-
prehensive services for school age parents and
their families developed by the Interagency Com-
mittee for Services to High Risk Children and Their
Families.

2. We support coordinated planning and implementation
of comprehensive services for school age parents
and their families.

3. We support a policy of planning and coordination
within our own Departments to facilitate delivery
of services to school age parents and their families.

4. We support the Michigan Department of Education as
the lead agency in administration of programs for
school age parents and their families.

5. We support the funding of programs through the
Michigan Department of Education with agreement that
health, mental health, and social services for
school age parents and their children will be pur-
chased at the local level with designated funds.

 

*A Program Revision Request is submitted to DMB and
the Legislature whenever substantial changes are made in the
programs for which funding is requested.

80

Each of the four departments named agreed to the
statement of policy, and each of the agency heads signed the
designated departmental agreement. Agencies effectively
achieved domain consensus-agreement on program territory
and roles of member agencies in the integrated effort.

Each of the five statements in the agreement repre-
sents a policy output:

1. program revision in accord with IAC's integrated
model,

2. coordinated planning and implementation of services,

3. coordinated planning and coordination within Depart-
ments,

4. Education as the lead administrative agency, and

5. funding through Education with purchase of services
from health and social service providers.

The interagency agreement, then, predicts the
expected outcomes of the committee as a whole.

Armed with the agreement of agency heads, the IAC
moved to secure funding from the Michigan State legislature
to implement the integrated model.

An IAC member discussed these times:

It was marvelous in the beginning. We became involved
in related areas. Several items of legislation had
birth with the group. We were the power behind the
legislation and our networks made it happen. We intro-
duced teaching birth control in schools, because of the
legislative contacts by our staff. If money was sent

to school systems for pregnant teens, we felt it must
not go into the general fund, so a program was earmarked.

Programs for teens in communities were develOped because
of the model, and programs were upgarded significantly.

81

A legislative staff member noted:

The IAC was successful. The most successful committees
are the ones who have a specific problem or goal. The
least successful are global and deal with wide-ranging
problems.

Another said:

The IAC developed a broad lobby group and quietly
lobbied with key people in each house (of the legisla-
ture). To get funding, you need to build a strong case.
You need to find a key legislator who can carry your
case forward. You need to document the case for pre-
sentation. The merits of the case do not have anything
to do with getting it (a funding appropriation) in.
Someone can stick it in with some communication at
legislative committee meetings. The key person is
valuable.

A staffer with the Governor's Office commented:
They (IAC) were extremely effective. It was a success
in the Governor's Office. Social Services, Mental Health:
Education looked at how to distribute money for adoles—
cent parents and pregnant teenagers. Good recommenda-
tions were made for putting together monies for Social
Services and Education to fund individual services.

An IAC member recalled contacts with the governor's

office and with legislative staff by the IAC and IAC staff:

A governor's representative was not on the IAC. We
involved them, though, when we were asking for funds.
Management and Budget was our entree into the Governor's
Office. . . . The coordinator for the IAC did an excellent

job of being involved with legislative staff and watching
the process of what was going on.

Appropriating Funds to Education:
1978-1979

The IAC determined that funding model implementation
could best be lodged with one department, because legislative
appropriations flow to individual departments rather than to
accounts representing joint programming on the part of more

than one agency. (Environmental conditions in organizations

82

and in the state itself influenced agency actions in this
case.)

Because the Department of Education had been oper-
ating alternative education programs for pregnant teens and
for adolescent parents in schools, the IAC decided that
funds should flow through Education with oversight by the
participating IAC departments. The other departments
Operated local programs to service the target population,
and the model required that school districts would contract
and/or develop agreements with local service agencies to aid
the target population under the integrated model approach.

Interagency members struggled with ideas for funding

the model:

We could not have an interagency account. It was not
done before. It smacks of a "superagency," a negative
concept in the state at the time.

We looked into a separate line item for the project in
each of the four departments but it was too cumbersome.
One agency had to accept the funds and be responsible
for administration. Education had funding already for
alternative education programs for pregnant adolescents,
so we added the project onto education. The request of
$1,400,000 was cut to $240,000 by Management and Budget.
It was to be a pilot, and to demonstrate results, before
full funding could be obtained in subsequent years.

Another member noted:

The Department of Education fiscal peOple said the money
was to be appropriated in Education. . . . When we were
finished with the plans, Porter (Education head) took
them to the legislature and with interagency support got
a special appropriation for implementing the comprehen-
sive plan. He asked for $900,000 and got $240,000
instead to demonstrate three programs and to do the
evaluation.

Thus the IAC arrived at a domain consensus, deter-

mining which component agency held what program territory.

83

IAC staff worked closely with appropriate state
legislators and staff, and with national interest group
leaders from the Michigan Association of School Age Parents
and the National Association for School Age Parents, to
lobby for funds to Operate the model. With the cooperation
of all departments, the IAC submitted a 1979-80 budget pro-
posal for funding the program. For the 1979-80 fiscal year,
the legislature appropriated $240,000 to the Department of
Education School Aid budget to fund three pilot projects for
school-age parents and one coordinator for the Department.
An additional $30,000 was appropriated to evaluate the pro-
grams. Thus, the agencies influenced the legislature, and
the legislator voted in the appropriation. Funding resulted
more from this interaction than from the electorate and

interest groups alone.

Site Selection: Fall 1979

 

The model programs allowed for expansion of services
with additional funds to include health, education, coun-
seling, child care, and other supportive services, such as
transportation for health care.

The Department of Education had requested proposals
from school districts to operate the model locally. The IAC
reviewed proposals and made recommendations regarding sites
to the Department of Education which then presented the
proposal sites by the State Board of Education's approval.

The model was designed to Operate through the alter-

native education programs in school districts. Each of the

84

sixty-plus programs was staffed with a coordinator and with.
teachers and counselors. At the local level, each school
district had received reimbursements for teachers working
with pregnant teens and adolescent parents through alterna-
tive education programs. Thus, each site had a ready-made
manager for the services prescribed by the model. Communi-
ties also had an array of public health, mental health, and
social service organizations. Prior to receipt of monies
to integrate services, school district staff provided tutorial
services, and possibly referrals to local agencies for
adolescents in need. The Department Of Education reimbursed
schools for the costs of teacher salaries, based on the
number of pregnant teens and adolescent parents served by
the schools. Under the integrated model, local school
districts received funds for any services which were lacking,
and for contracting for purchase of services to be delivered
at the school site by local health agencies, community mental
health services, and social services, or to provide trans-
portation to needed services. The coordinators of alterna-
tive education programs in school districts became the local
administrators responsible for operationalizing model ser-
vices.
A local coordinator commented on first-round site

selection:

Three sites were selected the first time around:

Kalamazoo, a suburban community; Lincoln Park (Wayne

Intermediate), an urban community; and Lapeer, a rural

community. Sites were selected prior to January. No
money came down until April. It was impossible to

85

function as a model site when the dollars were not
there. . . . Funds are distributed according to the
Fourth Friday count. . . . Porter's biases are urban,
however the majority of alternative education centers
are small . . . if we had no funds we would have no
program.

Another coordinator said:

The model brings together services which make better
use of professionals and dollars. Too often we have
programs stumbling over each other trying to deliver
services to some while omitting others. Also, the com-
munity gets involved in the efforts.

Yet another noted:

The money did not follow the guidelines. Local school
boards did not let us hire personnel until the money
came in. We had no chance to implement the program
until Spring.

A Reorganizatign in
Education: 1979-1980

 

 

The Department of Education housed model implemen-
tation responsibility in the Office of Preprimary and Family
Education which was established in January 1978. The major
purpose of this office was to coordinate preprimary and
family education policies and procedures of units in the
Department of Education, and to communicate them to local
school districts, to other state departments, to the legis-
lature, and to other interested persons.

In 1978-79, funding for the office was not by a line
item in the state budget, but by funds from a series Of
grants from other programs in the Department. In 1978-79,
three staff positions, including a secretary, were funded
in this manner. Shifts in programs to the office were

accompanied by shifts in representation to the IAC.

86

Leadership changes also came about in Education and in
Public Health during this time.
An IAC member chronicled the changes:

Membership changes occurred as people moved in and out
of positions. There are only two of us who were in

(the IAC) from the beginning. The rest have changed.

At one point, Education had three representatives and
Social Services had two. Public Health had two. Mental
Health had one.

During the first year of IAC operation, we had an ami-
cable process. . . . Education handled the review of
applications. IAC looked at the forms, but we did not
want to review the actual projects. We did not want to
get involved in the administration of this. We got
reports on who was getting the money. Education wanted
to take money out of the appropriation for evaluation.
Management and Budget blocked it. The evaluation package
was not adequately designed and did not fly because no
one in Education was fingered to do this. The coordina-
tor for the alternative education programs at the state
level administered the local projects.

In the second year, there were staff changes. The
administration of projects fell apart. Staff to the

IAC were to be leaving. Pressure in the state was
mounting in terms of funding and assignments. IAC people
turned their attention and invested in their own crises.
The new coordinator for the Office of Preprimary and
Family Education brought on money for a consultant to
handle her job when she left.

Another said:

Porter left before projects were underway. Staff changes
in Education were made. The new staff was not familiar
with the program. It was a low priority for them. They
were overworked and understaffed. Education decided to
change program manager responsibilities and gave respon-
sibilities for the pilot interagency programs and the
sixty-five alternative education programs to the new
coordinator for the Office of Preprimary and Family Edu-
cation. She had no background in alternative education
of adolescent pregnancy programs.

Another said:

Problems ensued. The new Education representative to
the IAC did not know the scene. She wanted to zero in
on preprimary projects. She wanted to pursue the Office's

87

objectives which were different from the IAC objectives.
We were uncertain of her motivation. She set up a lobby
group of sixty people to meet bi-monthly to provide
comment to Education, not to the IAC, on the projects.
An adolescent pregnancy coordinator in one of the
communities Operating the model program commented:
In the first year of funding, there was a change at the
state level. A shift in administration. The former
representative no longer was in it. Two new people
were involved. Meantime, Education lost the original
purpose: that the model would accomplish its objectives.
During 1979-80, the Office was not funded by a line
item. Eight other programs were asked to grant a portion
of their budgets to the funding of the office. The total
1979-80 operating budget for administrative expenses, less
program grants to localities, was $147,950. The Department
hired a staff person to help coordinate programs for the
office.

Second-Year Implementation
of the Model: 1980-81

 

 

For the 1980-81 fiscal year, the Department of Edu-
cation initially requested that the Office of Preprimary
and Family Education be funded as a line item. During the
appropriations process, however this concept was dropped and
funding for the office was arranged again through various
programs of the Department of Education. Executive Orders
regarding budget cutbacks, and the lack of an adopted state
budget in July, put the future of the office in jeopardy.
In July 1980, the director of the office left the Department.
The previous functions of the office had ceased and the only

staff person remaining was a secretary.

88

In 1980-81, the IAC submitted a request to the
Department of Management and Budget for an appropriation of
$500,000. During the appropriations process the legislature
cut the amount to $240,000. The IAC had planned to expand
the model to three new areas in addition to the first-round
sites. The Department of Education personnel responsible
for the pilot programs solicited proposals for funding model

programs. Three different school districts were chosen by

 

the Department and approved by the Board of Education:

Willow Run, Detroit, and Leslie. The IAC did not participate
in proposal review. Education did not inform IAC of its
proposal process. In view of the cut in the requested
funding appropriation, Education did not recommend funding
the first-round school district programs, but rather allowed
first-round programs to continue to expend any remaining
monies from the previous fiscal year. School districts were
slow in expending funds because selections for model funding
took place in the fall of each year, after the academic year
had begun. School districts were scrambling to hire appro-
priate staff and to contract for purchase of services. Some
arrangements were made late in the Spring as the academic
year was coming to a close. Nevertheless, school districts
did manage to serve adolescent parents and to keep these
teens in school. First-round school districts supplemented
left-over monies with whatever funds could be garnered from
public and private local agencies. For example, in Kalamazoo,

local foundation funds kept the program afloat in 1980-81.

89

A first-round local coordinator for the model said:

When we began to apply for model funds, I wrote the

first proposal. The design was on paper. I met with the
IAC people and talked about what we would do as a pilot
when the three sites were to be selected.

My understanding of the purpose was twofold: There was
a lack of stability in funding such programs; they had
a funding formula and wanted to see if the funding ‘
formula made sense. Second, they looked at the program
portion of the model to see if it was appropriate.

They assured me the model was to begin with what money
could be found for providing funds for the first year,
and they would continue funds (to initial sites). Then,
they would (by plan) get more money for other sites.

Funding came in late. Some (programs) did not get off
the ground. Education drafted instruments for evalua-
tion. Their consultant went to (another job). The
decision was made to fund three other sites. (The IAC)
did not function well enough to do something about it or
to evaluate the decision. Education permitted us to
carry funds into the next year. I had a feeling that
the three other districts were funded late too.

Another local comment was made:

Some of the projects ceased, some did not begin. The
evaluation was not completed. We were fighting again
for survival. We got some other money, but we did not
have the assistance or information to continue the
program as it was before.

Another noted:

There was a reaction to the formula base on which funds
were allotted to new projects. Money was going to
Detroit. Our program wanted the IAC to take a look at
projects and get information from the directors of the
six local projects to hear what they had to say. NO one
asked.

Regarding the proposal process, a first-round
coordinator said:
Last year we did not know about the process of receiving
proposals for second year funding. Thirteen proposals

were in, and Education did not get people from localities
in to talk with them until September.

90

Another first-found coordinator echoed disappointment
with second year funding decisions:

The plan was to get the program started and gradually
add on program sites with lessening of funds to experi-
enced sites until localities could pick up the program.
The model was lost in the shuffle.

Funding decisions for the second year had to be made.
The decision fell to an Assistant Superintendent for Schools
in the Department of Education who did not have information
on the history and intent of the model's implementation.
Funding decisions were made "to spread the money around."
Funding three different sites appeared "democratic" to those
in Education who reviewed proposals and made decisions.

A second-round model coordinator reflected:

We were disappointed that the IAC did not meet and come
to sites, that money could flow and no representatives
came to sites, that applications could be processed and
no one came to sites or had face-to-face contact with us.

Others said:

Each year only three sites are selected. We need follow
through and face-to-face contact. We have no expecta-
tions regarding Education. We have no grant writers or
people to pull together materials. This has to be done
in the summer when the files are locked. Proposals
should be in by March with funding decisions made timely
to the school year.

The number of changes in Education representatives hurt
us a great deal. We figured that we were not a high
priority and that they would assign those who had not
been involved in the area before. When Education people
(program managers) were new they did not have a handle
on the job. They were there for only a year or so.
People take several months to get acquainted with a
program.

Agency operating procedures and personnel changes

affected individual decisions. Obviously, local program

91

managers weighed costs versus benefits of applying for funds

and continuing to participate in the program.

Third Year Implementation: 1981-82

 

In the legislature, two special house committees on
services to young children had been convened in 1978 and in
1980. The committee lauded the work of the IAC in developing
a model and implementing it. The December 1980 report
praised the committee:

In 1978, the Special Committee identified the Inter-
Agency Committee for Services to High Risk Children and
Their Families as the one state effort of inter-depart-
ment coordination of services for young children. In
the final Committee report it was recommended that "The
Inter-Agency Committee for Services to High Risk Children
and Their Families deserves the support of the legisla-
ture and the five departments involved. The coordinated
approach to the delivery of services by all five depart-
ments is a much needed one in Michigan. It is hoped
that duplication of efforts can be avoided and the
departments will work together to meet the goals out-
lined by the Committee.

The coalition influenced the legislature to fund the
model for another year despite cutbacks.
Said one IAC member:

From the standpoint Of department heads, Education knew
what was going on. Public Health did because projects
were located in that department (locally). Social Ser-
vices was less involved. Mental Health was even less
involved. From the standpoint of department directors,
if a director wants to accomplish something he will
support staff efforts in this direction. Otherwise, he
will approve of it because it is a good thing to do as
long as it is not costly. What we were engaged in was
peripheral to the department directors.

What is clear is that when the Governor's Office and the
Legislature say "coordinate" they did not have the
foggiest notion of what they are talking about. We have
not hit on a structure that makes this possible at the
state level.

92

For the third year of model implementation, Education
appointed an interim director in the fall of 1981 to oversee
proposal review and site selection. The interim director
met with the IAC, and included IAC members in review of
proposals which had been solicited from school districts.
Education, with the approval of IAC, recommended to the
Board of Education that all six sites previously funded
should receive funding in the third round of sites. The
Board of Education approved the recommendation.

Following site selection, the office was disbanded
and the interim director left in December 1981 to resume
previous duties in Education. During the third year, no
administrator provided oversight for model implementation.
NO visits were made to localities. No evaluation activities
were initiated.

A typical comment was:

The education establishment is enormous. They are
worrying about millions. They get the legislature's,
department's, and Management and Budget's interest and
focus on starting something "new." Then they get the
spotlight and move to the next area of interest. The
appropriation has stayed in. The school-age programs
have learned how to make themselves heard. NO one is
asking for an evaluation now. Appropriations are con-
tinuing not because of the evaluation but because of
the constituency out there. The Michigan Association
for School Age Parents group gets active around appro-
priations time. I don't know whether it is characteris-
tic of the system. It is part of the chaotic times.
There are diminishing staff at the state level to attend
to any feedback. (Summer 1981)

Conclusions About Model Implementation

Three phases of coordination marked the coordinated

policy implementation process:

93

1. No coordination at state and local levels regarding
adolescent parent programs (pre 1975).

2. Coordination by committee at the state level to
develop the service model and acquire funding for
local programs (1975-1978).

3. Coordination by contract in localities sited for
model program implementation (post 1979).
Initially, there were thirty-eight programs operated

by State agencies centering on services to young children
and their families. The efforts of the School Age Parent
Task Force and the Inter-Agency Committee culminated in a
service delivery model specifying coordination of services
locally by contract and agreement. Once the model was
funded, the state administering agency, Education, operated
as if the program were totally within its program domain,
with coordination needed only at the local level. While
this position was not clearly articulated by those involved
in the model's design and implementation, complaints were
lodged against Education's management without advice of

other state agencies.

Local Level Coordination
After communities had received funds for service
integration, coordination by contract occurred at the local
level despite late funding and administrative paperwork.
Localities favored a coordinative approach to ser-
vice delivery at the local level. Coordinators for the

model made the following statements:

94

It is a key approach. It eliminates duplication of
services and costs. We can provide a better quality

of service to clients because we are all working together
bringing in our own strengths. We have a fabulous rela-
tionship with agencies in our town. We can do a lot.

It is good for the community. It is less costly. Impor-
tant services for the particular group we are dealing
with are provided when you compare our status where we
intervene with other states concerning health risk of
adolescents, low birth rate, problem pregnancies, long-
term public assistance, dropouts, child abuse and

neglect statistics. It makes a difference in those lives.

With high-powered help we could put together data and
tell our story. We don't have the skills to put it
together. But it is working.

The comprehensive model operates here through reimburse-
ments to my program for services. The cooperation is
here now. There is no cooperation between department
heads. I have not seen any cooperation from the state
as it filters to me. Other departments are not falling
over themselves to service pregnant adolescents.

We have a coordinated program. It is tremendous to the
students. It is much less expensive to provide services
at the school than to duplicate services outside. In
rural areas, benefits can be expressed because a person's
life is dependent on the school bus. There is no trans-
portation. If the service is not provided at the school,
students do not get the service.

We need more of it (cooperation) not less. It is sal-
able to congressmen and legislators. We like the
cooperative approach. We are not all out doing our own
thing. In one household we had nine different people
working with that family. Now we are trying to use the
local public health agencies services to provide them
in the schools. But, funding is getting harder and
harder. If we combine we should be able to do more for
less. Interagency coordination opens the doors, too,
for further funding.

95

Summary

Preferences and Contributions

An increase in the numbers of teenage pregnancies
and adolescent parents produced concern within various
public service agencies in Michigan, and within the legisla-
ture.

First, this increase led to an increase in demands
on state agency programs. It was recognized that these
demands would translate into increased social program expen-
ditures for the Departments of Education, Public Health,
Mental Health, and Social Services.

Second, it became clear that increases in expendi-
tures for services to the target population would not be
accompanied by increasing budgets to service the expanded
population. Rather, a decline in state revenues, resulting
from economic recession and decreased industrial productivity,
meant that budget reductions would occur instead of budget
increases.

Third, a proliferation of programs had occurred in
state and local agencies, and each major agency claimed the
target population within its program domain. As one inter-
viewee noted: "Agency personnel are bumping into each
Rather." Overlapping program domains created duplication and
:fragmentation of services at high costs to agencies.

Fourth, studies available to state agencies indicated
tfllat dependence of the population on state aid could be

dewcreased with early intervention. Thus, institutional level

96

peOple (those in decision-making and policy positions in

the legislative and executive branches of state government),
as well as agency program managers, were in favor Of ser-
vicing the population in ways which would keep state expendi-
tures in check.

The task was not defined as improving the quality of
life for the target population, but as reducing the depen-
dency of the population on state aid.

All of these circumstances led service agencies to
develop a coordinated model, not only to benefit clientele
but to clarify program boundaries. Achievement of an inte-
grated service model provided payoffs to each of the parti-
cipating agencies: they achieved recognition from the
legislature, and from the Department of Management and Budget
which could assist the agencies in acquiring future resources
from the legislature. They also succeeded in reducing their
costs and increasing their effectiveness.

The integrated service model in its very concept
meant avoiding costly duplication. Actors perceived they
could make a difference regarding service improvement 32g
reduction in expenditures.

Implementation here did not proceed from the policy,
as most implementation models suggest, but from those willing
'to work toward the solution of the problem in order to make
6: difference in outcomes (i.e., the state of the world).
lhuplementation was interactive. Many actors were involved:

legislators, agency program managers and directors, adolescent

97

parent interest group leaders, governor's office staff, and
alternative education program staff in two communities.

The Department of Education became the lead agency
because its presence in schools where adolescents were
serviced through alternative education programs provided an
organization and funding matrix. Those interviewees not
associated with educational programs commented that the
effort would have been more appropriate for a local Social
Service agency than for a school district. However, in this
case, the head of the State Department of Education assumed
responsibility for creating an interagency committee to
study the problem of adolescent parents (in 1975 and in
1977). One incentive for Education to do so appeared to be
the recognition that the adolescent parent group was an
expanding pOpulation in an otherwise declining service
pOpulation. Education, in effect, was protecting its claim
to program domain over the population by entering into a
cooperative arrangement with other agencies--and in fact
leading the COOperative venture. While interviewees agreed
generally that Education had a legitimate claim to servicing
the population, complaints were made about the aggressiveness
of Education in setting out to serve "all those others."
Others also criticized Education for taking the stance that
anything having to do with informing or "educating" con-
cerned Education, even though the area related to social
services, health, or mental health. Defining the locus of

the solution in school districts enabled Education not only

98

to take the lead in forming advisory interagency groups,

but in making claims for future payoffs of project dollars
in return for its costs incurred in bringing together the
coalition. Thus, the definition of the problem and the
locus of the solution structured the policy idea. The
dispositions of Education personnel and their perceptions of
costs and proportional benefits molded the movement to

action.

Coordination and Payoffs

 

The four agencies servicing the pOpulation defined
the problem as one requiring joint action. They perceived
the problem and the solution as requiring coordination. The
coordination focus created incentives to work together to
share information, time and program expertise, and to develop
a coalition which could capture federal and state resources
which agencies could share. COOperation brought about costs
(of meeting and sharing) and benefits (program dollars to
share for COOperating, good will of the legislature, federal
plaudits for a capacity building effort, demonstration of
cooperation in a sea of program duplication and fragmenta- ‘
tion).

Other policies or strategies could have been develOped.
Both Social Services and Public Health had traditions of
serving the target population, and of participating in such
joint endeavors as the EPSDT program of health screening for

Medicaid eligibles. One or both could have developed another

99

strategy for implementation. In the end, the policy was
formed in an integrated effort because that model provided
payoffs for each participant.

The policy, originated by four former members of the
School-Age Parent Task Force, and developed with other
agency personnel and with agency heads, spelled out the
criteria for the model. While the IAC agreed that the lead
agency be the Department of Education, the policy clearly
indicated payoffs through purchase of services. It thus
legitimized the program domain of each Department. The
policy protected the program domain of each of the agencies
servicing the target population, and rewarded Education for
taking a lead.

A favorable cost-benefit ratio, extended to local
agencies, provided extra dollars and information to those
who cooperated. The concept of providing benefits for the
costs of cooperating continued to structure the policy and
the implementation. In fact, sites were selected on the
basis of cooperative capability--the ability to make agree-
ments and to contract for services. Communities which were
able to submit proposals demonstrating their ability to
contract and make agreements with others ranked high in
terms of getting funded for model programs.

However, once Education had captured funding, to be
allocated in with its School Aid budget, incentives to con-
tinue to pursue a common goal decreased. There were no

added benefits to added cooperation. The benefits were

100

guaranteed each year in the budget, and participation became
voluntary (at least as Education perceived the situation).
Once the initial payoff for collective action was realized,
any further cost of contribution would exceed Education's
share of benefits. The other three agencies, however, con-
tinued to participate in the IAC and continued to assert
that they had direct administrative and supervisory roles in
the integrated model and the projects that derived from it.
Mental Health, Public Health, and Social Services received
payoffs through recognition of services purchased from the
school district at the local level. Continuation of meeting
and cooperation protected their claims to receiving payoffs.
Preferences, dispositions toward contributing to
outcomes, and a favorable cost-benefit ratio shaped IAC
representatives' perceptions not only of the problem, but
also of the policy. The IAC used the policy of coordination
to extract sidepayments (benefits or payoffs which they
could distribute in any way they chose) from HEW and from
the legislature. HEW provided funds for a three-year capa-
city building grant which was used to acquire personnel.
This award, in turn, supplied the committee with added social
recognition.from agencies, HEW, and the legislature, and they
supplied the committee members with added information re-
garding agency programs, regulations, and procedures. The
operationalization of the model in localities also contributed
to social recognition of the coordinated effort, and to
sharing of legislative appropriations according to market

demands.

101

Additionally, leftover capacity building grant
funds from the HEW award helped create additional payoffs.
The Department of Public Health in 1979 used an IAC model
to test expanded screening services for six months in
Marquette, Michigan (cost $32,000) and to study health
screening problems and possibilities in the Detroit area
(cost $4,000). The Opportunity to test an innovation could
be considered a payoff to IAC member agencies, especially

the smaller agencies (Public Health and Mental Health).

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Working Toward a Collective Goal

 

Dispositions of implementors, in working toward a
collective goal, reflect environmental factors. As environ-
mental conditions change, dispositions change.

The integrated development which iS the ObjeCt Of
this study provide an illustration of the effect of environ-
mental influnces. Initially, each of the agencies had well-
established funds and programs, and each had an established
identity and role within the bureaucracy. In total, they
had comprehensive coverage and almost complete monopoly of
public social and health services. They were not, however,
integrated. Under the environmental pressures of increasing
need for some specific services to adolescents and children,
and a shrinking economy, it became clear that a coordinative
enterprise would be advantageous. Thus, progressively,
implementors in each agency became disposed to participate

in the shared venture which became IAC.

The IAC and Selective Incentives
Working for the collective goal by its nature bene-

fits all the members of the group. The four agencies

102

103

participated in both the School Age Parent Task Force and
the Inter-Agency Committee. Both were small groups with
face-to-face contact of representatives. The Opinions and
advice of each person mattered to the group. Everyone knew
everyone else. Each group was small enough to be classified
as “privileged." The agencies contained people who would
know each other, but who were not likely to develop social
pressures to satisfy interest in pursuing the collective 9031-
Each agency alone could not have developed the integrated
model, not only because of the lack of social and economic
incentives, but also because the contribution would not be
perceptable as a substantial change from ongoing operating
procedures in local programs.

Both economic and social incentives were available
to mobilize the agencies into coordination:

Economic Incentives included increased knowledge and
expertise from gaining opportunities to know other agency
programs, and Operating procedures which could be parlayed
into consulting and promotions. (Two original IAC members
are now consultants to alternative education programs.)
Economic incentives of federal grant money for staff support
to the IAC were available. The Region V HEW official
encouraged the group of agencies to apply. For staff to the
IAC, economic incentives meant the jobs they held in serving
the IAC. For those with coordinative role positions in

agencies (Education and Management and Budget) the incentives

104

included receiving salaries for doing a job, fulfilling job
responsibilities.

At the local level, economic incentives focused on
getting state funds for coordinated salaries, teacher
salaries, counselor payments, and contracted services monies.
Further, local agencies could get funds for services which
were not available in localities, or could benefit by
eliminating positions which involved duplications of services
provided by other local agencies.

Social incentives included recognition from agency
directors, program staff in other agencies, state-wide lobby
groups for young children and adolescent parents, legislators,
and the governor's office. Further, incentives included
information sharing and the satisfaction of having recogniz-
able effects on programs and their clients. At the state
and local levels, social status of the privileged group,
who could carry off a coordinated plan, motivated individuals.

When asked about payoffs and benefits of participa-
tion in the model, IAC peOple commented:

The rewards included funds for our agency. Innovation
was encouraged and rewarded. . . . The expected benefits
were worth the costs of time, effort, money, and posi-
tion. We were and are a highly committed group of
people. It brought individual and professional support.
Bright people care, so there are incentives to keep on
going.

We were able to do a lot in terms of programs for young
children and adolescent parents. No one was the care-
taker in a community for adolescent mothers prior to the
program. If a social service worker goes to a school,

she can service twenty people. So can a nurse contracted
to go to the school one day a week.

105

Benefits? Feeling good. Satisfaction. The alternative
education approach worked. Mainstreaming worked. We
provided some guidelines to support both parents and
their families.

The committee was based on perceived needs by members.
The feedback now is positive. Many of my local con-
tacts told me it was working.

The economic promise of reducing social and health
service expenditures may have appeared to be the overriding
consideration shaping implementation, but the social incen-
tives of social status and social acceptance were stronger
in motivating members of the Parent Task Force to continue
to meet. The common goal became more important than organi-
zational and social-economic conditions. Social sanctions
and social rewards were important selective incentives used
to mobilize agencies to pursue the collective goal defined
by the persons who spearheaded IAC formation. No one agency
was willing to sacrifice its time and personnel and other
resources to lobby for legislative resources which might
result in an integrated model. Such action would net no
assistance from other service agencies. However, particularly
in times of declining state budgets, joint action appeared
attractive as costs of lobbying for recognition and for
funding could be shared along with any benefits which might
ensue.

Cost and benefit calculations reflected organizational
capacity, legitimacy, and socio-economic considerations.

While the calculations take place in a policy environment,

they arise from a common interest.

—;.""

106

Implications

 

Concepts

The approach used here to study coordinated policy

implementation assumed that:

1.

Implementation is a transformation of an idea into
action.

Implementation is interactive with the policy
environment.

Implementation concerns joint action which necessi-
tates coordination.

Coordination is the effort of individuals and of
groups toward a public or collective goal.

Social status and social acceptance are selective
incentives which mobilize a group to achieve a
collective goal.

These observations and assumptions regarding policy

implementation led to the development of propositions and

hypotheses. The focus of the study is: When can we expect

implementors to commit organizational resources to pursue

policy goals?

Propositions

 

Three general propositions regarding implementation

behavior were offered for testing.

1.

Implementors make calculations regarding their own

preferences and those of others toward the intended

107

outcomes of a policy and toward the mechanisms
implied for pursuing those outcomes.

2. Implementors calculate possible payoffs in deciding
to commit organizational resources either toward
pursuit of intended outcomes via the designated
strategy, or toward opposing the implementation, or
toward failing to either oppose or support achieve-
ment of intended outcomes with resources.

3. Implementors commit personnel, funds, time, infor-
mation, and other organizational resources to
implementation on the basis Of preferences and on

the basis of immediate and future payoffs and costs.

Preferences

 

At the time of formation of the IAC, and at the time
of securing funding for staff and for model implementation,
agency representatives showed their preferences for develop-
ing the integrated model in a shared manner, even though
they realized that the legislature's preference was to fund
one agency. The lead agency, Education, had strongly
asserted itself to administer the integrated model while
accommodating preferences of participating agencies for
sharing of funds through school districts, sharing recogni-
tion for model development, and assuming an oversight role
in model implementation. After deliberation by agency
representatives in the IAC, and by agency heads, the agencies
involved in IAC decided to approach funding by designating

Education as the lead administering agency.

108

Additionally, task forces to the IAC were composed
of agency program staff and alternative education school
district staff which deliberated over preferences regarding
functional components of the model. The model itself
represents a compromise of preferences and dispositions Of
participants.

When the IAC applied for HEW funding for staff, they
expressed their preferences to lodge the proposed staff in
the agency with the greatest administrative efficiency in
overseeing grants and acquiring staff. In order to effect
coordination, the IAC expressed the expectation that staff
would work for the collective goal of an integrated service
model, rather than for each agency's self-interest. The IAC
decided to lodge staff in the Department of Public Health.
In the last year of HEW funding, when staff worked on any
projects related only to Public Health, other agency repre-
sentatives to the IAC reprimanded them and counseled them to
work only on the integrated model and other coordinative IAC
efforts. Preferences and dispositions were stated and
negotiated in order to sort out program interests and to
develop the model around its common interests.

The case situation under study would suggest that
indeed implementors make calculations regarding their pre-
ferences and those of other toward the pursuit of policy

goals.

109

Payoffs

Economic payoffs could be realized by participating
agencies in a number of ways. First, agencies positioned
themselves into a coalition to capture funds, personnel, and
program domain, to increase that program domain, and to main-
tain funding visibility for future opportunities to acquire
resources. Second, as a coalition, once they had received
funds they could distribute them in any manner they chose,
constrained only by the coordinative framework. Third, if
the model reduced dependency of the target population on
state aid, it would result in decreased strain on the budgets
of participating agencies.

Social payoffs included social status of belonging
to a privileged group with recognition by department heads,
access to program information from other agencies, and social
acceptance of members of the group toward one another. The
cohesiveness of the group was so strong that when additional
members were appointed to the committee, after initial sites
were funded, individuals expressed difficulty in feeling
accepted and in making a contribution toward the integrated
model implementation, even though these late participants
came from agencies where representatives had been appointed
and had made significant contributions toward model develop-
ment and acquisition of funding.

At both the management level in agencies, and at the
Operational level in localities, contributions of implemen-

tors were perceptible enough to warrant recognitions from

110

agency heads, interest groups (such as the Michigan Associ-
ation for School-Age Parents and the National Association

for School-Age Parents), and the legislature. The legisla-
ture had appointed two committees to study problems of ser-
vice delivery to young children, and in each case recommended
the IAC as a model of interagency cooperation. The legisla-
ture was justified in doing so, since the IAC did what it
said it was going to do: develop guidelines for integrated
services affecting adolescent parents and young children,

and secure funding for implementation at selected sites.

As long as possible payoffs existed for partici-
pants, COOperation could be maintained. When Education
could attain no additional payoffs to continuing to work at
the state inter-agency level with other organizations, it
failed to appoint staff to the vacant position of coordina-
tor for the model or to participate actively on the IAC.
Also, when late representatives were appointed to the IAC,
they weighed the cost of participation with possible payoffs,
and decided to attend either intermittently or not at all.

Payoffs become a determinent in proportion to costs

for pursuit toward a common goal.

Committing Resources

 

Preferences are shaped by the policy environment.
For example, executive-level staff view their roles as pro-
tecting program domain and working toward the public good
as defined by their program domains. On the other hand,

managerial staff within agencies focus on the collective

 

111

good in interpreting policy to operational personnel, and

in interpreting program action to executive or institutional
level personnel (legislators, agency heads, interest groups,
and the like). The tendency to work toward the collective
good is strongest at the managerial level where coordinative
activities are apt to take place.

In the case of the IAC, Education took the lead in
developing an advisory group to make recommendations in the
interest of defending its program domain, and in maintaining
visibility for working toward a public good: the welfare
of teenage mothers and children. Heads of agencies appointed
members to the School-Age Parent Task Force for the same
reasons, as well as for the appearance of cooperation--
which was valued. Managerial staff from the task force,
mobilized by the collective goal and social incentives,
developed the COOperative arrangement called the IAC.
Resource commitment took place at the managerial level.
Institutional level peOple went along with activities, as
long as the costs were marginal, in order to gain social
rewards. When economic payoffs became more possible,
executive level personnel became more likely to commit more
personnel and time to pursuing the collective goal of model
development and implementation.

Testing the Central PrOposition
and Hypotheses
The test of the central prOpositions is based on

interview information gathered during the third year of

112

implementation of the model (1981-82). Because there was
more activity on the part of IAC representatives and man-
agerial program staff in agencies, the testing is more valid

for that group than for agency heads and Operational staff.

The Proposition

 

Individuals selected to participate in an implemen-
tation process act to support, oppose, or to remain passive
in the pursuit of policy goals based on calculations of
probability about making a difference in the state of the
world, and on calculations of the ratio of costs and bene-

fits to them for participation.

Pursuing Policy Goals

 

In the case of the IAC efforts, no one agency would
have had the legitimacy and capacity to undertake an inte-
grated model without the cooperation of other agencies having
the same target population. The social payoffs (social
recognition and status as a "cooperating" agency) and the
promise of economic payoffs were greater than zero.

The costs involved were: staff time on the part of
representatives and approval of IAC efforts on the part of

agency heads. Clearly, payoffs were greater than costs.

A Free-Rider

 

For the Department of Management and Budget, the
costs of participating included meeting with IAC members.
However the payoffs were less than zero since the role of

the 4-C coordinator was coordination. This agency remained

113

passive until invited to join the IAC agencies and to

receive recognition for its efforts to assist the IAC in
securing funds for model development. When 4-C was disbanded,
the coordinator could point to the IAC successes as agency
successes in coordination of child services, thus avoiding
social sanctions for non-involvement and gaining social
approval for participation. When 4-C was disbanded, Manage-
ment and Budget did not appoint another representative to

the IAC, but did not withdraw from participation, either.

Opposition

 

When the Department of Education had received
administrative control of the model, and after both the
agency head and the administrative manager for the model
had left the Department, Education assumed sole responsibi—
lity for implementation without coordinating efforts with
other departments. In a sense, Education at that point
acted out its Opposition to a coordinated strategy. A new
office had been created in Education to house programs
related to young children. When funding did not materialize
and when benefits for working with the IAC appeared small,
Education personnel attempted to co-Opt the coordinative
effort. When Education failed, staff left the Department
voluntarily. The costs of opposition were greater than the
probability that payoffs would occur through cooperation.

Following exit of staff from Education, Education
remained passive until third-year funding decisions regarding

the model program needed to be made by the legislature. At

114

that juncture, Education appointed a coordinator to oversee
funding and to work with the IAC on proposal review. Once
prOposals were recommended to the Board of Education for
funding, the coordinator was transferred back to his previous
position in Education and the Office of Preprimary and Family

Education was disbanded by the Department.

Changing Strategies

 

The case is an example of a Department preferring
to Operate the program solo and remaining passive as long as

additional payoffs could not be obtained. The cost of

 

opposition was greater than the probability that intended
outcomes would occur. When additional funding for a third
year required a coordinated strategy, Education moved into

a coordinative mode to acquire program funds and to maintain
its social acceptance with other agencies and with the
legislature.

Making a Difference and
Valuing Payoffs

 

 

The pilot test of our proposition leads us to believe
that a dominant strategy for agencies is non-cooperation,
unless there is a perceived probability of making a differ-
ence in the real world outcomes of an action, and that the
value of benefits is greater than costs to be incurred. The
payoff table below depicts a calculation of payoffs relative
to cooperation vs. non-COOperation (Bi = individual benefits;

C1 = individual costs incurred.)

 

115

 

 

 

all COOperate no cooperation
COOperate Bi-Ci -Ci
no cooperation Bi 0

 

 

 

 

 

From the payoff matrix, we can see that the costs
of non-COOperation are less, and the benefits greater, than
those of a cooperative strategy. However, when we introduce

the element of making a difference, the payoffs look like

 

this (assuming that benefits are conceived as positive).

 

 

 

all probability all-not
act cooperate make diff COOperating
cooperate Bi-Ci Bi-Ci -Ci
no B
cooperation i 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly, the benefit to the individual less the
cost, is greater than zero, therefore the individual and
agency would be expected to cooperate.

If, however, the benefits are calculated to be
negative benefits, the costs of opposing the realization of
those negative benefits may be worthwhile, and we would
expect an agency to oppose an implementation strategy.

When the probability of making a difference is
introduced into the payoff matrix, the dominant strategy

becomes "cooperate."

116

This instance of coordinated policy implementation
is one showing that implementors act to pursue policy goals
when (1) they perceive a probability of making a difference
and (2) the costs are equal to or less than the benefits to
the implementors. Implementors maximize benefits and
minimize costs in their cooperative ventures so that the
ratio is tolerable.

When implementors perceive an inability to make a
difference, or when the cost-benefit equation is unacceptable,
it is predictable that the implementor will drop out of
coordination.

Additional tests of the proposition may allow us to
explain implementation behavior. The conclusions here are
based upon one exploration of implementation factors, and
upon testing out the proposition asserted here, rather than
attempting to explain implementation behavior only by

exploring the factors which make up the policy environment.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED MODEL

OF SERVICES FOR PREGNANT ADOLESCENTS.

SCHOOL-AGE PARENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES
IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction
II. Program Goals and Implementation

A. Goals

8. Implementation
C. Organization
0. Funding

III. Services to the Pregnant Student and School-Age Mother

Education

Health

Social Services

Mental Health
Supportive Services
Other Back-Up Services

“were?

IV. Services to the Children of School-Age Parents

Personnel

Child Care/Educational Component
Health Component

Social Services Component

. Mental Health Component

H1F3F5333I

V. Services to the Father
VI. Services to the Extended Family
VII. Outreach Services

VIII. Teaching Responsible Sexuality

****

Supported by grant funds from
Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Office of Human Development Services
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Hashington, D.C.
and
Developed by the Interagency Conmittee
for Services to High Risk Children and Their Families
Lansing, Michigan

APRIL, 1979

117

ILLB

The School—Age Parent Task Force. convened by Dr. John Porter, initiated the devel-

opment of a model of services for school-age parents.
revised and completed the Model.

at the time) contributed to the development of the Model:

The Interagency Committee
The following people (listed with their affiliation

Interagency7Committee for Services to High Risk Children and Their Families,
. Logan Street, Lansing. Michigan. 48909.

.Ed_uc_a_t12a

Manda Jubb*

Pat Mauser (to Dec. 1977)

John Romas (June 1977 to
June 1978)

Shirley Hillard*

Mental Health
Betty Tableman*

School AgggParent Task Force

Myron Faber. M.D.
Michigan State University

Vina Kage
Flint Cont. School for Girls

Leona Hashburn
Cont. Educ. for Young
Homen. Kalamazoo

Margaret Brown
Cont. Education School.
Saginaw

Nancy Boykin
Continuing Education for
Girls. Detroit

Management and Budget
Susan Brook

Public Health

Sheila J. Hard*
Thomas Kirk. M.D.

.5191:

Fran Hammermesh
Diane Revitte

Joan Van Orman
Hashtenaw I.S.D.

Dorothy Blom
Lansing School Dist.

Mildred Smith
Flint Community Schools

Ronald Calsbeek
Park School, Grand Rapids

Jeanette Rasmussen
Brighton Public Schools

Carol Pease
Nest Ottawa Public Schools

Other Department of Education Staff

Richard Barnhart.
General Education Services

Delbert Gray.

Neighborhood Education Authority

Lee Hamlin.
Special Education Services

* Also served on or worked with the Task Force.

Social Services

Katherine Saunders

(to Dec. 1977)
William Keller
Monica LaSarge

(Jan. to Mar. 1978)
Mary Lou Blanchard

Alfred Horde
Calhoun I.S.D.

Frances Heaver
Traverse Bay ARea I.S.D.

Sue Taylor
Benton Harbor Area Sch.

Rita Moulton
Oakland County Health
Department

Myrna Mitchell
YPED, Lansing Public Sch.

119

I. INTRODUCTION

Educators. social workers and health professionals are increasingly concerned
about the problems associated with early and unplanned pregnancy. Some 9,000
adolescent girls and their partners in Michigan, still of an age to be enrolled
in school, annually face the decisions and consequences of pregnancy and pre-
mature parenthood. Interrupted schooling, health problems, precipitous marriage
and equally precipitous divorce. single parenthood and welfare dependency are a
repetitive pattern.

Of equal concern are the children of adolescent parents. The infant may be the
innocent victim of the adolescent parent's vulnerability and inexperience. The
child's chances of falling into the same situation fifteen years hence are high
because the phenomenon of early pregnancy and early parenthood is often cyclical.
Based on that consideration, services intended to break the cycle must be
addressed to the children as well as their school-age parents.

Studies conducted in New Haven, Baltimore. and Hashington D.C. have shown that
early prenatal care. counseling, social services and continuing education are
effective in reducing school dropouts among pregnant persons, as well as redu-
cing infant mortality and morbidity. Where services continue beyond delivery,
there is a great reduction in the number of subsequent births to the students
served and school completion correlates with economic independence. The savings
which gltimately result from comprehensive services are undeniable in the light
0 suc data.

In the past decade some 60 school districts in Michigan have established educa-
tional programs for pregnant students. A number have developed comprehensive
services for the pregnant student; fewer - because of fiscal constraints - have
extended their programing to the adolescent parent and to her child.

In 1975. in response to these concerns, Dr. John Porter, Superintendent of
Public Instruction, convened a School-Age Parenting Task Force which prepared
the first drafts of a model of comprehensive service. This group did an
excellent job of explaining the rationale for and outlining the essential
components of a model program. Their recomnendations led to the establishment
of an Inter-Agency Comittee involving the heads and staff of the Michigan
Departments of Education. Public Health, Mental Health, and Social Services.
In the spring of 1977, the head of the Michigan Community Coordinated Child
Care Council, representing the Department of Management and Budget, Joined the
committee. As the inter-agency work proceeded. the connnttee became formalized
:5”??? Inter-Agency Committee for Services to High Risk Children and Their

a es.

120

This model* of comprehensive and integrated services proposes a program
which will serve not only the pregnant adolescents but also the school-
age parents and their children. The model reCOgnizes that the problems
of school-age pregnancy and early parenthood are so broad and so complex
that remedial attempts demand interagency cooperation. However, educa-
tors must understand that their position is unique in respect to this
problem. No other state institution has comparable access to these young
people in terms of frequency or duration. No other institution has as
great a potential for preventive action as does the public school system.
Therefore. public education must address itself to the special problems
of boys and girls who find themselves faced with the difficult task of
parenting.

The model outlines the services expected of public education and the link-
ages with other agencies.

The model presents a comprehensive program in two settings: the alterna-
tive and the conventional school. The two options enable local or inter-
mediate school districts to develop a program that best meets their needs.
The alternative school setting is flexible and individualized and geared
to those who might have difficulty staying in a regular school program
and coping with the demands of pregnancy and motherhood.

The program in the conventional school setting requires that the adoles-
cent take the responsibility for her own academic program and must meet
the demands of a conventional schedule; however. special services related
to pregnancy and parenthood would be provided.

Section III describes these programs for the pregnant adolescent and school-
age mother. The needs of the children of school-age parents are addressed
in Sections IV; the goal is to serve the child through the school-age parent
in order to improve the quality of life for both. Sections V and VI are
concerned with services to the school-age father and the extended family;
these, too, are essential elements of a comprehensive and integrated
program. To meet the needs of parents who have dropped out of school, the
model also proposes outreach services (Section VII).

The final section, Teaching Responsible Sexuality. proposes a plan for
reaching the entire school age population by implementing state guidelines
and calling for conmunity cooperation in family life and human sexuality
e ucat on.

*Subsequently, the Interagency Committee for Services to High Risk Children
and Their Families and the Michigan Department of Education developed
Recommendations for Implementation of the model. These recommendations

are available from the Office of’Preprimary and Family Education, Michigan
Department of Education. Lansing, Michigan. 48909.

1221

POSITION STATEMENTS

School-age parents and their children are a high risk population of
concern to State government, and specifically the Departments of
Education, Public Health, Mental Health. Social Services, and Manage-
ment & Budget.

To meet the needs of this population, comprehensive services are
required for both the adolescent and the child of the adolescent.
Parent and child should receive simultaneous and interrelated
services. \

Comprehensive programs for school-age parents and their children must
be a stable and organized part of the school program.

Funding of comprehensive services for school-age parents and their
children should be provided in a manner least burdensome to the
localities.

Local education agencies should providea multi-disciplinary program
to develop positive parenting skills and to improve the quality of
the child-parent relationship.

Intervention should occur as early as possible during pregnancy or in
the early life of the child. The earlier the intervention, the greater
the likelihood of successfully enhancing parenting patterns.

An effective health education curriculum (K-lZ) must be implemented to
break the cycle of school-age parenthood. The curriculum. including
the physical, emotional, intellectual and social aspects, should fbcus
on the information and skills students need to make decisions, assume
responsibility for their own actions and build a positive self-concept.

122

II. PROGRAM GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION

A.

Goals

The program goals of the comprehensive and integrated model of
services for pregnant adolescents. school-age parents and their
families are:

I.

To meet the complex needs of pregnant adolescents and young
parents and their children.

To decrease the incidence of dropouts among pregnant adoles-
cents and school-age parents through a comprehensive program
of education, health. mental health and social services.

To prevent repeat pregnancies in the adolescent years.

To prevent the cycle of premature parenthood and aberrant
parenting.

The goals for individuals participating in the program are:

5.

TO.

11.

Each pregnant student and young mother will freely choose
whether to give up or keep her baby after receiving infor-
mation and counseling and follow-up counseling appropriate
to her choice.

Each student will grow personally and socially and continue
to develop a positive self-concept.

Each student will acquire knowledge and skills which will
enable her to become economically self-sufficient.

Each school-age parent will, with support, develop the
attachment to the infant, nurturing skills and knowledge
which will enable her to succeed in the parental role.

The young mother, with a flexible academic program, will
work with and spend time with her child each day.

The child will develop his or her potential through
experiences addressing physical, emotional, intellectual
and social development.

The school-age father will have access to support services so
that he may complete his education, participate in decision
for parenthood and participate in family decision-making.

Hhile the model program focuses upon comprehensive and integrated
services, prevention is also a long term goal. One goal of an effec-
tive K-lZ health education curriculum is to prevent unwanted and
early pregnancies, especially of young women under l8 who have not
completed high school.

.1223

Implementation

The implementation of this model for services to pregnant adoles-
cents and young parents and their children will be through the
local or intermediate school district in accordance with recommen-
dations provided by the Michigan Department of Education. The
Intermediate School District may implement the model or one or
more local districts may provide the comprehensive program.

1.

Administration of Program

The State Department of Education shall review and
approve alternative education programs under Section
l30l of the School Code of l976.

The State Department of Education shall appoint a
full—time consultant with responsibility for school-
age parent programs and the interagency coordination
related to such programs.

The Board of Education of the district operating a
program shall have responsibility for the operation
and administration of the local program.

Each school district operating a program shall desig-
nate an administrator who will be accountable for
establishing procedures for the education and enrol-
lment of students and for the coordination of services
to pregnant adolescents and school-age parents.

Each school district operating a program shall have a
community council serving in an advisory capacity and
composed of representatives from the following:

- Department of Public Health - Public Health Nurse

- Community Mental Health Agengy

- Department of Social Services

- Students or school-age parents

- Extended family members

- Cooperative Extension Agent

- School Board Memgg5_or upper level school administrator
- Juvenile Court

- Local Conmunity Coordinated Child Care Council (4C)

- Physician (preferably an obstetrician or physician
with an interest in family planning)

- Representative of the community-at-large (two if there
is no local 4C)

- Ex officio. local/intermediate school district School-
Age Parent Program Director.

 

1224

Each agency shall reconnend its own representatives to
the coordinating council. The Board of Education shall
appoint council members representing a broad community
approach to meeting the needs of pregnant adolescents
and school-age parents and their children.

The coordinating council will report to the Board of
Education, not less than annually. and will have the
following functions:

- Assist in identifying service needs through review
and study;
- Review the implementation of program goals;
- Submit program recommendations to school officials;
- Assist in the coordination of conmunity resources;
- Provide a forum for School-Age Parent concerns;
- Act as an advocate for the program and its participants;
- Receive program evaluation data.

2. Program Responsibilities

Each school district operating a comprehensive program
shall provide the program in either an alternative or
conventional setting.

Program components shall include:

- provisions for counseling students concerning pregnancy
outcome and alternatives;

- education, health and social services for pregnant students;

- education, health and social services for school-age parents;

- parenting education for the pregnant adolescent and
school-age parent;

- child care and child development programming for the
child of the school-age parent, for as long as the
school-age parent is enrolled in school;

- outreach to the extended family and to the child's father.

The school district may also provide outreach services to
drop-out parents and their children.

Each school district operating a program shall make arrange-
ments for supportive services through:

- The utilization of approved school social workers and
certified school nurses and/or

- Agreements with the County or District Department of
Public Health and the Community Mental Health Agency
and social service agencies.

1125

e. Each school district operating a program shall require
the program director, with the aid of the coordinating
council. to prepare an annual report of:

number of students served in the program1
for each student. entering and leaving dates

number by age of preprimary children served in
the program

licensed capacity of day care center

number by age of preprimary children served by
family or group day care

number by age of preprimary children cared for
by other arrangements

number of program participants who graduated.|

number of program participants who returned to
regular school program1

number of students who have reentered the program

number of students lost to program (dropout, moved,
unknown cause)
number of women in program who have:

i) repeat pregnancies
ii) repeat pregnancies and were previously
enrolled in program

number of school-age father/expectant fathers
served in program

number of extended family members served in program.

The report shall be sent to the Michigan Department of Education.

3. Funding

a. Funding for the pregnant students/school-age parent programs
allocated by the legislature to the Michigan Department of
Education shall be distributed to local and intermediate school
districts operating approved programs. Funds shall be

1

Currently required in "Report of Accredited Alternative Program for

Pregnant Students", Michigan Department of Education.

1226

disbursed for education, health, social services, and mental
health components.1

b. Funding and Implementation of the Program for the Children of
School-Age Parents.

- The school district providing a program for pregnant
adolescents and school-age parents shall make available
a space in the child/day care center for each school-age
parent who is enrolled in an approved school program lead-
ing toward high school completion and who needs a child
care program.

- Hhen a program is too small to support a child/day care
center, the school district and the school-age parent may
designate a licensed family or group day care home to pro-
vide child care. The school district will have the respon-
sibility for assuring the provision of comprehensive servi-
ces. The district operating the school-age parent program
shall also provide a regularly scheduled parent education
program, for parent and child together (see pages 17-19).

- Programs for the children of school-age parents will be
administered in conjunction with the program for the par-
ents. Funds will be distributed by the Michigan Depart-
ment of Education to the district operating the program
for comprehensive services (pages 18-2l).

The initial request for 1979-80*funding of the comprehensive model of services
proposed the following formula:

 

 

 

 

PROGRAM COMPONENT MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT
For pregnant adolescents and school-age
parents and families: Per full time equivalent student
Education
Alternative school setting S 600
Conventional school setting S 300
Social Services - counseling
information and referral S 330
Health S 130
For children of sghool-agegparents: Per child:
Child/day care center $1908
Family or group day care home 5 882
Education 3 60
Health 3 50
Transportation 5 450

Per program:
Mental Health Services $6300

* The Recommendations for Implementation clarify the funding and reimbursement
formulae and explain how funding for comprehensive programs relates to current
funding for alternative education programs for pregnant students.

1227

PROPOSED FUNDING AND
DELIVERY OF SERVICES TO PRUGRANS FOR PREGNANT ADOLESCENTS,
SCHOOL-AGE PARENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES

 

STATE-

 

Appropriation for Programs
for School-Age Parents and
Their Families

 

 

 

 

i

l FEDERAL AND STATE

APPROPRIATIONS AND

CATEGOR

 

ICAL PROGRAMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. I... 4&— . - a l j
Department of Education r-- Department Department p. Department
of o 0
Social Services Public Health Mental Health
LOCAL 0R C
INTERMEDIATE 1, County . County ounty
SCHOOL 055 ‘ """"" DPH """'""" MentalI
DISTRICT Hea t
1F"J Board
8
I
I
. f """""" E
L____J Sending ;
: Districts :
1 ........... I
. u “i
5{ PREGNANT ACOLESCENT.‘ cg

 

SCHOOL-AGE PARENTS PROCZAM

 

ii

 

 

PROGRAM FOR PREGNANT
STUDENTS/SCHOOL-AGE PARENTS

 

 

 

 

 

, Health

I.

 

PROGRAH FOR

 

SCHOOL-AGE PARENTS

CHILDREN OF f

 

 

J.

 

J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Educatton Child Ctre [—2ealth Cbmponent
Cbmponent‘ . .
Iranapartztton Tnanspartation . foetal Servtces
’Sbcial .
Struices‘ Educatzon Ihfhnt mental
Funding . Health servzces
mental
service delivery or HeaIth ‘
services purchased 53’91338

----- optional

 

 

 

* may or may not be on-site

----interagency agreements

 

1228

- 10 -

III. Services to the Pregnant Adolescent and School-Age Mother

Education, health, mental health and social services will be planned and
coordinated by the agencies involved. The overall program goals are set
forth above (II, A). This section of the model specifies objectives for
each component of the program and describes alternative delivery systems.

A. Education

1.

Structure of Program

The educational component may be in an alternative or conven-
tional school setting. It will provide a full range of
academic offerings and services to meet the special needs of
the pregnant adolescent and the school-age mother. Staff for
the educational program must be a corps of professionals and
paraprofessionals selected for such personal qualities as
empathy, caring, nonjudgmental and flexible attitudes. ability
to work with adolescents and capacity to serve as role models.

a. Alternative School Setting

The educational program in this setting will provide
for all students (without unnecessary interruption)
access to a full scope of curricular offerings equal
to those offered in the conventional school program.
plus special programming related to their particular
needs as prospective or actual parents. Students will
participate in a program adapted to individual capa-
bilities, interests and needs based on short-term.
realistic goals. The alternative education program
is designed to allow the flexibility often needed for
young mothers to be successful in school and in child-
rearing.

b. Conventional School Setting

The special tasks of the program in the conventional
school setting will be:

- To develop an individualized and flexible program
for each student enrolled;

- To provide a liaison and a system of open communication
between those staff members responsible for the academic
program and those responsible for the specialized services
and progrannfing to assure adequate planning for each student.

- To provide special progrannnng related to their needs
as prospective parents.

129
- 11 -

2. Objectives

a. Students will attend school regularly, i.e., at least 75%
of enrolled days.

b. Students will demonstrate academic growth and progress in
courses meeting requirements for graduation, as measured
by appropriate: standardized tests, objective referenced
instruments. teacher observation and academic records.

c. Students will participate in vocational/career counseling,
planning and preparation and may also gain work experience.
Progress will be evaluated by the completion of a plan
outlining a vocational choice or up to three alternatives.

d. The pregnant student will demonstrate through oral or
writtenreport.examination or discussion, knowledge of:

- Good nutrition during the prenatal and postpartum
periods;

- Prenatal and postpartum changes in the mother's body-
including warning signs;
Health care in the prenatal and postpartum periods;
The effects of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco,
on the mother. the developing fetus and the breast-
fed infant;

- The prevention, symptoms and treatments of venereal
diseases;

- The birth process - from conception through delivery;

- Family planning concepts;

- Methods of contraception.

e. The school-age mother will, in addition:

i. Demonstrate through oral or written examination or
report, knowledge of:
Nutrition needs of the lactating mother;
Nutrition needs of the infant and the child;
Growth and development of the infant and young child;
Infant and child care
Demonstrate ability to use skills learned in:
education for parenthood,
family management.

3. Delivery of Services

II-l-IIII
do

a. Alternative School
i. Administrative staff will consist of Principal, Administrator
and a secretary;
ii. Teaching and supportive staff will include

Certified teachers;

Teacher aides or volunteer tutors;
Approved social workers;
Registered nurse;

Home visitors;

Nutrition educator or dietitian.

Health

1:30

- 12 -

Conventional school

Administrative staff will consist of:

- Coordinator or Assistant Principal
- Secretary

Teaching and supportive staff will include:
- Certified teachers

And may also include:

Teacher aides or volunteer tutors
Approved school social workers
Certified school nurse

Home visitors

Nutrition educator or dietitian.

Support from other agencies
Staff of other conmunity agencies may provide services
or supplement services provided by the school staff
system. Staff support will include:
- Public health nurse assigned to participate in
instruction and make provisions for health care
- Public health nurses with responsibility for
health care and follow-up of adolescent parents
- Social services worker(s) with responsibility
for adolescent parents.
- Infant mental health specialist or other mental
health staff.
Continuity of care for the school-age parent should be
a guideline for agencies in assigning staff to work with
the adolescent parent program. Wherever possible, the
adolescent caseload should be grouped so that the task
of coordination with school staff is facilitated. Each
team working with an adolescent should participate in
regular case conferences to insure coordination.

Students will receive health counseling and instruction through
individual and group meetings and home visits. Students unll

have the opportunity, in classroom discussions. practical exer-
cises, everyday planning and in the child/day care center, to apply
their knowledge of good health and nutrition for themselves and
their children.

1.

Objectives

b.

Students will demonstrate knowledge of good health
practices as specified in III (A) (2) 'd and e
Students will demonstrate to the professional team
member or report on their own health practices, in-
cluding proper nutrition, exercise and regular check-
ups, according to their status as pregnant adolescent
or young mother.

Students will demonstrate knowledge of community
health resources, including health maintenance and
family planning services, and the referral process,
by reporting on their own experience or describing

a plan for obtaining needed services.

123].

- 13 -

d. Students will, in working with their own children,
apply their knowledge of child development. child
care and parenting in a play situation and a stress
situation.

e. Students will be able to describe steps in the
process of deciding on the use of contraception,
applying their knowledge about particular methods
and available health resources.

2. Delivery of Services

One team member working with the adolescent should assume
responsiblity for health education and health care manage-
ment. That team member might be the school nurse, health
educator, Public Health nurse assigned to the-program or
Public Health nurse with the pregnant adolescent or school-
age mother in her caseload.

For each student there should be a health care management plan
including:

health education

pregnancy testing and counseling

prenatal care

preparation for childbirth

family planning

postpartum care

health care management plan for the infant.

The students will receive these services from one or more
agencies. such as the Alternative Education program, the
health department, local agencies, hospitals and private
physicians. The team member with the responsibility for
health services will work with the student in developing the
health care management plan and facilitating access to the
needed services.

Social Services

Students will receive counseling services (both on-going and
crisis) through individual and group counseling. If required,
students will be referred to outside agencies for specific needs.

1. Objectives

a. Students will demonstrate that they have the knowledge

and ability to utilize community resources for:

- Meeting economic needs;

- Planning alternatives for caring for the
expected infant:

- Legal rights and reSponsibilities;

- Transportation to agencies which are providers
of special services.

132

- 14 -

b. Students will be able to demonstrate increased skill
in problempsolving and goal-setting in the inter-intra
personal domains.

C. By the end of the enrolled period, the student will
have participated in developing a follow-up plan of
supportive services to be delivered through school-
related services or appropriate outside agencies.

Delivery of Services

School social workers, counselors or social workers assigned
to the pregnant adolescent/school-age parent program will:

a. Facilitate the eligibility assessment fOr service
and provision fOr enrollment in:
- AFDC
- Medicaid
- Child/day care support
b. Contact families to:
- Acquaint family with the program;
- Provide casework service and personal
reinforcement to total family.
c. Provide crisis counseling whenever needed.
d. Provide follow-up counseling service for students
- who return to their home school;
- who drop out of school
e. Coordinate services with other corrmunity agencies
(e.g., health department, juvenile court. social
services. family and children services. mental health)
f. Reinforce parents, grandparents. or parent surrogates
and all extended family members for providing a devel-
opmentally stimulating and emotionally stable environ-
ment for the children

Mental Health

Mental health objectives will be accomplished primarily through the
implementation of the previously outlined objectives in ways which
increase the positive self concept and independence of students,
develop problem solving skills and the ability to use a range of
behaviors. and develop appropriate nurturing behavior. In addition,
the mental health needs of the student may be met through:

- Provision of a consistent home visitor who acts as a

nonjudgemental supportive advocate;

- Course work which encourages discussions of feelings;

- Group discussions related to mental health needs;

- Individual counseling

1. Objectives
a. Students will be able to explain the value of formal

and informal resources and will have established link-
ages to on-going peer and agency support systems.

1J33

- 15 -

b. Students will demonstrate that they understand the
difference between feeling and action

c. Students will demonstrate knowledge of the contribu-
tion of parent-child interaction to the behavioral,
affective and cognitive development of the child

d. The school-age parents will resolve or begin to resolve
the emotional or attitudinal impediments to nurturing

e. The school-age parents will establish a strong
attachment to their infants.

Mental Health services

a. Training of program staff in:
- empathy and listening skills;
- positive reinfbrcement techniques;
- assessment and shaping of parent-infant
interaction
b. Provision for consultation from mental health staff
c. Provision, where, indicated for infant intervention
services (where available) and for mental health
services. .

Support services

I.
2.

School meal program

Transportation
- to school
- to health service agencies
- to social service agencies.

Home visits by nurse, social worker, mental health specialist.
or teacher
- at least one home visit to ascertain home circumstances
and to observe parent-child interaction;
whenever absent from school for an extended period;
supportive, therapeutic visits as needed. Where
circumstances warrant, all agencies should combine
forces to schedule frequent home visits.

Other services

Temporary residential service for homeless pregnant adolescents,
school-age parents and their children.

;h_._.... I HEN-Ir ‘

IV.

134

- 15 -

Services to the Children of School-Age Parents

Children of school-age parents are generally labeled as high
risk by medical. social, psychological and educational professionals:

Research evidence indicates early family life is linked
to conception out of wedlock, unstable family life.
unfinished secondary and sometimes elementary education,
poor health outcomes of mother and infants. divorce,
welfare dependency, reduced work potential, and generally
unsatisfactory life fulfillment.1

The infants of school-age mothers, particularly those living in
poverty. who survive the high risks of the pre-natal period and
the birth experience without damage to the brain or nervous
system, are often engulfed in socio-cultural deprivation. Such
deprivation can be an even greater cause of retardation. with
malnutrition and probably abuse and neglect added to the stagger-
ing risks heaped upon the child.

The school-age parent, in many cases. has not learned to be an
effective parent and perpetuates a cycle of abnormal parenting.
To break this cycle, a program must utilize all possible resources.

The program for the children of school-age parents is delivered
through a child/day care center attached to the alternative school

or conventional school program serving school-age parents. Such

a child/day care center should be open to all children of school-age
parents enrolled in school programs leading toward high school
completion. It provides an inter-disciplinary program of health.
education. mental health and social services directed to meet the
complex needs of the children, age 0-5, of school-age parents. Health
is an integrated part of the school program. Physical setting,
staffing and program go beyond the minimal requirements for

licensure of child/day care centers under Department of Social Services
Regulations.

Bernard Braen. Clinical Child Psychology Newletter, Special Double
Issue on Sex. Volume X, Nos. 2 and 3. Summer-Fall. 197l, pp. 17-20.

“Nursery Schools and Day Care Centers: Requirements for Licensure."
Michigan Department of Social Services.

1135

Concection

I

/

/

School-age
pregnancy

Child

"A love object
who will care
for the mother"

 

CYCLE 0F ABNORMAL
REARINCI

Unrealistic “Normal"
expectations of
child

Role Reversal/Com;liance

\
Lack of_trusting
and helpful friends

Selection of friends
with similar problems

Poor self image

Child d'es not learn
"Normal parenting
skills or observe
"Normal" Family
interactions
(mimicking)

(Mother has lack of

~x~ajg\""-‘“___‘-—‘4"””d”’,;a parenting skills)

 

Childhood Missed

A. Personnel

1. Supervision. teaching and child/dav care staff
- Coordinator of early childhood education/certified teacher;

- Supervisor of Child/Day Care Center;

- Caregivers in ratios consistent with Michigan Department of Social

Services Regulations. -

2. Supportive Service Staff

It is helpful to have the same person assigned to both mother and
infant. Staff people who may be shared between the Child care and

school-age parent programs include:
- Social worker

Health nurse

School diagnostician

Parenting educator

Home visitor . . .
Dietitian or nutritionist

-17-

1Adapted from Ray Heifer.
"World Of Abnormal Rearing“;_
Pediatric Basics, elo. Feb.lv74

1136

B. Child/Day Care Educational Component
The goals of this child/day care component are to:

Enable the parent to attend school,
Facilitate normal growth and development of the child.
Encourage healthy parent-child interaction and attachment.

l. Objectives

- Throughout the period of enrollment, the child will
evidence age-appropriate developmental behavior in sensory,
motor, intellectual and affective areas.

- The parent will demonstrate positive attachment to and
active interaction with the child as measured by eye
contact; touching; child's responsive smiling; verbal
interaction; parent's responsiveness to cues and ability
to quiet the child; play behavior.

2. Delivery of services

The child/cay care component will encourage the individual de-
velopment of each child with appropriate stimulation from
birth on for physical, emotional, social and intellectual
growth. To be effective it must involve the parent in
training and support. The child/day care component will

nc ude:

a. An emotionally stable environment through the assignment
of each infant to a specified "primary" caregiver
selected for warmth, empathy, maturity, concern
and continuity,

b. An environment which offers visual. auditory, motor and
tactile stimulation;

c. A structured curriculum with emphasis on the child's
development of positive self concept, language and
problem solving skills;

d. Personalized and individualized activities daily, in
accordance with each child's individual needs and
strengths (determined through observation and diagnostic
assessment);

e. Enhancement of parenting skills by providing all adolescents
enrolled in school programs with

a; supervised child care
h group programing with 8-lO parents and infants
together
c) in-home programing

during which staff observes mother-infant interaction and
encourages and models positive parenting behavior;

f. Screening of each child's developmental status at stated
intervals.

I The Infant Stimulation/Mother Training Project", by Earladeen Badger,

in Monggraph in Infant Education, edited by Bettye Calwell. l975.

137

- ig -

C. Health Component

1.

Objectives

To provide fer a comprehensive health program which will
enable young parents to attain and maintain favorable
conditions of health for their children and themselves.

Throughout the period of enrollment the child shall:
a. Attain and maintain favorable health
b. have nutritional needs met.

Delivery of services

The health component will include preventive as well as
health maintenance services:

a. Consistent daily health practices in the child/day
care setting

b. Daily reports to parents on child's health and food intake
c. A realistic health program for the child, developed

in concert with the mother, and providing for

scheduled access to health services

d. Assistance to the mother in obtaining access to comunity
health services

e. Provision of transportation to comunity health services
when necessary

f. Consultation with nurse whenever needed
9. Home calls by nurse as needed

h. Experiential and didatic child health education for
the parent

i. Physical inspection and/or examination by a registered
nurse or nurse practitioner trained in pediatric assessment

0. Social Service Component

1.

Objectives

To provide for social services available in the community and
appropriate to the needs and total well being of the child with
particular reference to the avoidance of neglect, abuse or ex-
ploitation and to the support and rehabilitation of families.

1.3!3

- 20 -

Delivery of services
The social services component includes:
a. Personalized child care plan fitted to individual needs.

b. Individual casework. personal reinforcement and supportive
services to children and their school-age parents.

c. Crisis counseling as needed.
d. Home visits

e. Coordination with other community service agencies
(e.g., financial resources, legal representation).

f. Transportation

9. Follow-up service for children after they no longer
use center.

E. Mental Health Component

1.

Objectives

Mental Health objectives (See III. 0. l. c,d,e,) will be
accomplished through a program which encourages the healthy
affective development of the child.

Delivery of services

Training and consultation with the school-age parent program
and child/day care staff to assure that the program provides:

a. Continuity and stability of the person giving care
so that an attachment can be fermed and maintained.

b. Consistency in management between child/day care center
and parent.

c. Warmth, empathy. caring attention to the child and to
the mother so that she can nurture the infant.

In addition, special services may be provided by infant mental
health specialists attached to community mental health agencies.

139

- 21 -

V. Services to the Father*

The school-age father has special needs that are similar to those

of the mother in many respects, but are also unique. The primary
goal is to locate the young-father-to-be and inform him of the
support and services that are available to him in a non-threatening
environment. Reaching the father is a problem that may be compounded
by reluctance to identify himself, by his already having dropped out
or by his fears of entanglement. A program for fathers must be
comunity-based and should include male staff. Those programs that
have been successfully serving fathers have used outreach, counseling
and informal group discussions.

A. Objectives
The school-age father will:

1. Identify a vocational or career goal and outline steps to
achieve that goal.
. Complete his education in accordance with his own voca-
tional goals.
Understand his own sexuality - including the difference
between sex role and sexual behavior.
Understand key family planning concepts.
Demonstrate knowledge of
-methods of contraception. including advantages and
disadvantages, use and availability;
-the legal rights and obligations and economic respon-
sibilities attached to fatherhood;
-prevention, symptoms and treatment of venereal disease.
6. Make well-informed decisions (hiconcert, where possible,
with the pregnant adolescent and each of their families)
about accepting the responsibilities of marriage and
fatherhood.
7. Study, with the school-age mother
- the development of the young child;
- the needs of the young child;
- parenting skills - including nurturing and enhancing
the development of the child.
8. Interact with the child. reflecting positive parenting
s s.

autumn

8. Delivery of services will include:

I. As a first step. an outreach program to bring the young
man into small group discussions regarding:
- sexuality - including human reproduction as well as

sex roles and sexual behavior.

family planning

contraceptive methods

venereal disease

legal rights and obligations of marriage and fatherhood.

* Local programs may choose to provide for the father the services to the
school-ape mother as outlined in Section III. Reimbursement is related

to the number of family units served and is not related to the number
of fathers enrolled.

140

- 22 -

Individual counseling for discussion of legal and financial
rights and obligations to the father to define the respon-
sible Options available to him.

Counseling services which include the opportunity to work
with the young mother and father (and their parents if
appropriate.

Vocational and educational counseling to develop a career
plan and provide support in carrying it out.

Prenatal, postpartum and parenting education in the
alternative or conventional school setting.

141

- 23 -

VI. SERVICES TO THE EXTENDED FAMILY OF SCHOOL-AGE PARENTS

Any plan fer prevention and service will ideally include the grandparents
of the infant and/or other significant persons for it is important to have
their understanding. Parents of the adolescent need to become aware of
the special physical, social and educational needs of the pregnant teen-
ager, adolescent parent and grandchild. Social workers, nurses and home
visitors identified, as staff, will work with families through home visits,
individual contact on site and group sessions, seeking to:

- Assure a home and family environment conducive to healthy
personal growth and maturation for the adolescents and
their child;

- Prevent further pregnancies in the adolescent years and
to work toward prevention of pregnancies in adolescent
siblings and other closely related teenage persons.

l. Objectives

a. Parents of the adolescent will be provided with an
opportunity to gain knowledge of the experience
and needs of the pregnant adolescent and be able
to assist herirlmeeting those needs. They will
be informed regarding:

- changes and needs during the prenatal period,
including nutrition, exercise, health care
and warning signs.

- myths and superstitions related to pregnancy.

b. Parents will be provided with an opportunity to
gain knowledge of the experience of childbirth
and be able to provide needed support during
labor and delivery and in the postpartum period.
They will have knowledge of:

- Contemporary childbearing practices and
preparation fer childbirth;

- Prenatal development;
the birth process.

c. Those who will assist in labor and delivery will
participate in preparation fer childbirth classes.

d. Parents will recognize and help the adolescent
adjust to the emotional and physical changes occurring
in the postpartum period.

e. Parents will have knowledge of the use of contracep-
tion and their responsibility in encouraging the use
of birth control.

142

- 24 -

Services

A range of services will be available to the families of

the school-age parent, including educational and counseling
services, delivered through group meetings, parent interviews
and home visits. Such services will provide the families

of school-age parents with:

a. A realistic approach to promote better communication
between parents and adolescents.

b. Regular group and individual counseling to develop a
healthy parent-adolescent relationship.

c. Referral to the appropriate resources to supplement
and continue specific on-going services as needed.

143

- 25 -

VII. OUTREACH SERVICES

The school district may provide outreach services to school-age parents

who have dropped out and to their children. One primary outreach task

is casefinding - locating those young parents who have not completed )
school and need infonmation about programs and support services. The
other is providing temporary home instruction for those students who
have dropped out of school and are in need of support before they can
re-enter or who are in transition or preparing for the general education
development certificate.

A. Objectives

.-‘K ‘W

l. Students who have dropped out will know what educational
and supportive services are available to them - whether
or not they choose to return to the conventional school.

2. Students who choose to return to a school program will
keep up with their school program during a short term
period of homebound instruction and return successfully
and graduate.

3. Students will have access to support services to attain
the objectives specified in III, A. B, C. D.

8. Delivery of Services

One case management team functioning in the alternative education or
conventional school program will have the responsibility for coordinating
outreach services in the district. The team will set up a process for
evaluating the needs of the dropout students. developing a casefinding
procedgre and for coordinating services to the student in this temporary
s tuat on.

Child care and parenting classes as offered through the district's
program for school-age parents will be available to those in the outreach
program.

144

- 25 -

VIII. TEACHING RESPONSIBLE SEXUALITY

While the programs in the alternative and conventional school settings
address specific needs of the adolescent population, the schools should
assume a broader responsiblity: to promote a curriculum for all stu-
dents designed to develop a self understanding and healthy interpersonal
relationships. The content of such a curriculum should increase in com-
plexity and receive greater emphasis as thechiid progresses from the
preschool years through the period of secondary education. The schools
can offer an accurate. comprehensive and consistent approach to under-
standing human sexuality and reduce the misinformation that prevails
among young peOple. A curriculum that helps students to examine their
own attitudes and builds decision-making skills will encourage students
to make responsible decisions regarding sexualty.

Local school districts may adopt the guidelines issued by the Michigan
Department of Education or may establish their own in cooperation with
the Intermediate School District, and county or district department of
public health. The law further provides that where a school district
offers a course in reproductive health including family planning, there
shall be (See Michigan Department of Education: Sex Education Guidelines

 

Including Reproductive Health and Family Planning, 1978):

a supervisor as describedirlthe guidelines
qualified teachers

an advisory board

a notice to parents in advance of the course.

wa—P

A. Objectives

With the development of community awareness of the need for school
programs in health including family life and sex education, the
planning and implementation of a family life and sex education
curriculum that meets local needs will allow

l. Parents and pupils to set realistic goals and expectations
about a health and human sexuality education program.
2. Parents and youth to understand:
- the processes of growth and development;
- the needs of young children and adolescents in
relation to their own sexuality;
- human sexuality including psychosexual develop-
ment and sexual behavior;
- family planning concepts and methods.
3. Young people to be able to evaluate health infbrmation and
to make responsible decisions.

8. Implementation

The impetus for local program development may come from several
sources within the community. The school board, the health de-
partment or other community agency. teachers, pupils or the Preg-
nant Adolescent and School-Age Parent Coordinating Council may
encourage the expansion of existing curricula or development of a
new program. Steps for implementation include:

145

- 27 -

Gathering relevant data in assessing need for and potential
impact of a sex education curriculum.

Helping to establish a community coordinating council to
develop community awareness of the need for new programs
and formulate an implementation plan.

Requesting the local board of education to appoint a local
Advisory Board.

Requesting the local board of education to adopt state or
develop local guidelines.

Involving parents, pupils and a broad cross section of

the comunity in expressing their needs and planning a
program.

Identifying resources available in the community and from
the state including personnel, materials and funding for
training and materials.

Using the assessment of community needs and the professional
literature related to such programs, setting realistic
goals and expectations about a health education including
sex education program.

Helping the school to develop a curriculum that

- includes the physical and psychological aspects of
growth and development throughout the life cycle;

- includes human reproduction and reproductive health

components including the risks of pregnancy;

includes discussion of sex roles;

includes the study of sex roles;

includes the study of sexual behavior and functioning;

includes family planning concepts and methods;

unifies content in health and family life (such as

sexuality, childbearing and human development and

alternative life styles), in a meaningful way;

- brings males and females together in courses con-
cerning the family;

- encourages discussion and application of the decision-
making process in relation to sexuality and
family life;

- addresses the concerns of each age group - from
childhood through adulthood- with content. methods,
materials apprOpriate to the age and the comunity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allison, Graham. 1971. Essence of Decision. Boston:
Little, Brown.

 

Allison, Graham and Morton H. Halperin. 1972. Bureaucratic
Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

 

 

Anderson, James E. 1975. Public Policeraking. New York:
Praeger.

 

Barnard, Chester. 1938. The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.

Bardach, Eugene. 1977. The Implementation Game. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.

 

Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections.
Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Univ. Press.

 

Buchanan, James M. and Tullock Gordon. 1962. The Calculus
of Consent. Ann Arbor, Mi.: The University of
Michigan Press.

 

Cochran, Clarke E.; Lawrence C. Mayer; T. R. Carr; and N.
Joseph Cayer. 1982. American Public Policy--An
Introduction. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Coombs, Fred 8. 1980. "The Bases of Noncompliance with a
Policy." Policy Studies Journal (Summer 1980),
885-902.

 

Derthick, Martha. 1972. New Towns In-Town. Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute.

 

Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little,
Brown.

 

Dye, Thomas. 1972. Understanding Public Policy. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

 

146

147

Edwards, George C. 1980. Implementing Public Policy.
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.

 

Edwards, George C. and Ira Sharkansky. 1978. The Policy
Predicament. San Francisco, Ca.: W. H. Freeman.

 

 

Etzioni, Amatai. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex
Organizations. New York: 'The Free Press.

 

 

Frohlich, Norman; Joe A. Oppenheimer; and Oran Young. 1971.
Political Leadership and Collective Goods. Princeton.

 

Hargrove, Erwin C. 1975. The Missing Link: The Studyyof
the Implementation of Social Policy. Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute.

 

 

Heidenheimer, Arnold J.; Hugh Heclo; and Carolyn Teich Adams.
1975. Comparative Public Policy. New York: St.
Martin's Press.

 

Ingraham, Helen. 1977. "Policy Implementation Through
Bargaining." Public Policy 25:4 (Fall 1977).

Ingram, Helen M. and Dean E. Mann (Eds.). 1980. Why Policies
Succeed or Fail. Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

Jones, Charles 0. 1970. An Introduction to the Study of
Public Policy. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

 

 

Levy, Frank 5.; Arnold J. Meltsner; and Aaron Wildavsky.
1974. Urban Outcomes: Schools, Streets and Libra-
ries. Berkley, Calif.: University of California.

Lindblom, Charles E. 1980. The Policy-Making Process.
2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

 

Lowi, Theodore. 1969. The End of Liberalism. New York:
Norton.

MacRae, Duncan Jr. and James A. Wilde. Policy Analysis for
Public Decisions. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury
Press.

 

March, James G. and Herbert A. Simon. 1958. Organizations.
New York: Wiley.

 

Mechanic, David. "Sources of Power of Lower Participants in
Complex Organizations." Administative Science
Quarterly 7 (December 1962).

 

148

Montjoy, Robert S. and Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr. 1979.
"Toward a Theory of Policy Implementation: An
Organizational Perspective." Public Administration
Review (September/October 19797) 465-475.

 

Moynihan, Daniel P. 1970. Maximum Feasible Misunderstand-
ing. New York: Free Press.

 

Murphy, Jerome T. 1973. "The Education Bureaucracies
Implement Novel Policy: The Politics of Title I
of ESEA, 1965-72." In Policy and Politics in America.
Allan P. Sindler (Ed.) Boston: Little Brown.

Nachmias, David. 1979. Public Policy Evaluation. New York:
St. Martin's.

 

Nakamura, Robert T. and Frank Smallwood. 1980. The Politics
of Policy Implementation. New York: St. Martin's
Press.

 

Niskanen, William A., Jr. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representa-
tive Government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

 

Olson, Mancur, Jr. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action.
Cambridge: Harvard.

Oppenheimer, Joe. 1979. "Collective Goods and Alliances."
Journal of Conflict Resolution 23:3 (September 1979).

Ostrom, Vincent. 1974. The Intellectual Crises of American
Public Administration. Alabama: University of
Alabama Press.

Palumbo, Dennis J. and Marvin A. Harder. 1981. Implementing
Public Policy. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath.

 

Parsons, Talcott. 1960. Structure and Process in Modern
Societies. New York: The Free Press.

Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Aaron Wildavsky. 1979. Implemen-
tation. 2nd ed. Berkeley, Calif.: University of
California.

Radin, Beryl. 1977. Implementation Change in the Federal
Bureaucracy: School Desegregation Policy in HEW,
1964-1968. New York: Teachers College Press.

Rein, Martin and Francine F. Rabinovigz. 1978. "Implemen-
tation: A Theoretical Perspective." In Walter D.
Burnham and Martha W. Weinberg (Eds.), American
Politics and Public Policy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.

149

Riker, William H. and Peter C. Ordeshook. 1973. An Intro-
duction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

 

Ripley, Randall B. and Grace A. Franklin. 1982. Bureaucracy
and Policinmplementation. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey
Press.

 

 

Rourke, Francis E. 1976. Bureaucracy, Politics and Public
Policy. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown.

 

Sabatier, Paul and Donald Mazmanian. "The Conditions of
Effective Implementation: A Guide to Accomplishing
Policy Objectives." Policy Analysis (Fall 1979),
481-505.

 

Sharkansky, Ira (Ed.). 1970. Policy Analysis in Political
Science. Chicago: Markham.

 

Simon, Herbert A. 1947. Administrative Behavior. New York:
The Free Press.

 

Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Thompson, Victor A. 1961. Modern Organizations. New York.

 

Tullock, Gordon. 1965. The Politics of Bureaucracy.
Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press.

Van Horn, Carl E. and Donald S. Van Meter. 1976. "The
Implementation of Intergovernmental Policy." In
Public Policy Making in a Federal System. Charles 0.
Jones and Robert Thomas (Eds.). Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage Publications.

Weschler, Louis F. 1982. "Public Choice: Methodological
Individualism in Politics." Public Administration
Review (May/June 1982).

 

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1979. Speaking Truth to Power. New
York: Wiley.

 

Williams, Walter and Richard F. Elmore. 1976. Social Pro-
gram Implementation. New York: Academic Press.