91.-.-\.!\\.¢r2v.r1auko.,... ..I .... .1 o o. . . . ._ . . . U I . .14. .Q- ... .....11I .‘.-...p.o..,'-.oo o . . I a o. . . . . o . . G v to. .o g .. g .3 I . I o I. D 1. .. . . . ...;.o..o.4 ..... ..1..................u.\ ... 1 ...... .q . . . . . . a. . I I . . . . . I I 1_.‘uos \1. ...“..cvoonuv..vov.v ..v‘.o;1..¢ ...... .. I... .. . . ... .I I 3 II I. . . I Q 1 o 3.. I - a 1. I. . ..Vooa.. v Q Io... It. 1 a. I I v .1 1 1 1 ... . 1 I 0. on a... I. . . v . . I . ~ . 1 0.1.. 1. u.._.. . u. .0. .(.. 1. .1 1 .. .1 1 o . 1 . I..-\\_4o ....o .w....1. .. . . a u 1 . c 1 I n . 1 ‘01., .... DI ¢ .I,O....Q .... .. . O . s I. 1 I. 01‘2”... .. ... a . o o .1 I .. . I a. I I. .... . 41' . v. I. 1 o .b . .1 ..l'.~ 9.4 co. .0 .... .. . I o o v . g . ....Is. .... on .1 . o _ . . . 17.... ... . . o I . c .. . . . _ . . u 30¢ -. ....v. 1... .1 . 1 1 u _ _ O s r .. ... o'. 1.. . . . co . ' Pu . . . o I s..v - \.c.. c .0 . 1 1 . . 1 . . _ x3 . ....o . .. ... . n . . . ‘..a o\-!~-O-‘I I o 4.0 c o o I. .... ... ..o y. .7. s o. o . c . I Q. . cu \~ I ..1. . . I u . . 5 . ..~ 1 .. . . . . . . . . up .1... 0.... I I. I. I . 1o. ... . o . . 3 . o . . . . 0'...» I O . '0 I .. . o .. . o... I. o I. .. ... . . . . 01 1 . I . o .. 1...... o. o..\ . 1.0: . ... v .c 1 . . . o . ~ . o I. s o o I 1 . oovo .. . .... . 1 . . 1 . . . .o o q . . . . .... .. o . . I . I . 1 n . I . no. I. o . . . o .... u. o I. u 1. 1 o ... v v .1 . .o o .c 1 . . o . o . o u . I ... . .... 1 . . . .. I . . I. . . .. 1 . . I_ u o. .1 n . 1 . . . . .... 1 -... .... I . . . . _ . o . .1... . o . I . o I I I I ~ I . .I I . . . Q o 0- O l I I u u i .90... ~ I. O I o on .g . . 1 « O - p o n v 0 U. 0. O . .I. . . .. I I . . c . . . O o ... . o l a . . 3 . . I . 1. n .. . . . o u. 3'. .1 . . . . I _. w -. . V - I 1 u v A 1 I o u .6. u . . . 11. _ . .. u g m.. f 'OPM : TAN R; -_for theDe eenf M . . . I . . 1 N .3 . . .. A m . . o m. 1 .. . 3 . r . I O I: I u . a b a . . . n o u . I . . I. .I Y . . I t . 0.041. a." .‘— N .‘ ‘ ‘ I I 30- Q \ I O. .....I. a. «I I I. ..OIV . - I . I IS.. I u, I _. I1 I .1 c O Oo.I.‘ . .2Q21O’d. ! 1 o A 00'. .on'onpw 33...... I. 0‘). ....I. . I'II. ikoifl .h 790.09: ol.1)..fo.. ... . 10.: g 3.31... z .. ....~..F..... .1raisfig.§rcrrc.._.121...~rg.é§{.5s£.¥1a; .. 1.3.1. 111.11.543.13.“5.31.11:1.1..11wfién..$? ‘ t...“ ...-loll, I - .|.II. In'l' I ‘C’t‘.’ 7'.d-.l-o .v.! V1 .1 2‘. .ml. r. .3.” (...:on $011.3. at. . - .3. .... . . . uv, .. 1.... 1- rCh....a..s-3..al.vw\1v;f ......u... ..........b‘. .. . . . A .. o .. . 1 . . 1 . . . ....h. 02...... 1.04.".0 c.0o5oo‘bgnofiuoo I...’0o9.o .. -o%)u¢o1”~30111.1“ma .mxoom-:Opmsflxmq meo: “.mmmz .soumsflx..v soflpmoflaeea paw >HOO£B "bswcswfim OflEmumNm .mmflmum swag pzs .mOCMDCMU >cezuc< ”mousom .Emummm m wo mucmsomeoo amusmEmpcsm OQBII.N musmflm 90 psmfisoufi>sm I) sopppmmm mmwoonm I I! I I'll llllllll l usmuso , muduosuum usmsH Emflsmzomz soflmum>coo #COECOHH>CM 1i 91 to make decisions without adequate knowledge of the implications of alternatives. Hopefully, the use of PPBS will permit more light on the cost and consequences of alternative courses of action, and will provide legislators the opportunity to make more rational decisions in resource allocation. PPBS works on a wide scale evaluation technique. Instead Of looking at a narrow tactical problem, the PPBS analyst looks at the proposals and budget of an entire department of government. One of the techniques of PPBS analysis is reorganizing departmental budgets in terms of explicit goals rather than in terms of the inputs used, the Often arbitrary categories given by legislative or administrative tradition.21 This explicitness about Objectives, and the classification of costs in terms of the Objectives, is essential to what is referred to as the pptimization approach. The Optimization approach is cohered to by PPBS and other programming systems which devise a solution by asking "given our objectives and resources, what is the Optimum mix of A, B, and C?"22 In short, the crucial question of mix may be translated into a technical question. 211bid., p. 326. 22Alfred Kahn, Theory and Practice of Social Planning (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969), p. 242. 92 The PPBS focuses on Optimization (the particular combination Of Objectives, resources, and scheduling) which comes closest to greatest efficiency and effectiveness.23 It is the careful work required of a PPBS in relating to identification of "output" and "inputs" which makes meaning- ful both the comparison of alternatives and a search for a "mix." One of the main points tO be made in relation to PPBS is the fact that since no country can pursue all objectives considered desirable, or very many single objectives to their fullest, there has to be a constant compromise where resources, goals, and techniques interact. It is the function of PPBS to seek compromises rationally. The goal is resources used in "optimal" or preferred ways to achieve policy objectives.24 Clearly the choice of programs is both strategic and difficult. In programs which perform related functions, one might integrate social services. Thus, such agencies as New York City's Human Resources Administration (covering anti-poverty, welfare, manpower training and youth services programs, with strong linkages to the city's educational system) and the Housing and Development Administration with 23Ibid., p. 243. 24Arthur Smithies, "Conceptual Framework for the Program Budget," Program Buggeting, ed. by David Norvic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965), p. 34. 93 their related functioning purposes could consolidate. If the PPB system becomes widely accepted at the metrOpolitan level, it is likely that such consolidations will be carried out with increasing frequency; this will enhance the potential for new administrative frameworks within which a comprehensive social planning function is not only possible, but is in fact essential. Once in operation, PPBS presents innumerable Opportunity for governmental and social analysis. The following summarizes PPBS's major analytical contributions: 1. Identify our national goals with precision and on a continuing basis; 2. Choose among those goals the ones that are most urgent; 3. Search for alternative means Of reaching those goals most effectively at the least cost; 4. Inform ourselves not merely on next year's costs but on the second and third, and subsequent year's costs of our programs; 5. Measure the performance of our programs to insure efficient service.25 In effect, PPBS does contain some problems. As any governmental effort facing the problems of planning, it represents an attempt to introduce rationality into a world of interest groups, bureaucratic rigidities, informal organization, politics, and many uncertainties. If the planner is at all times clear that his mission and capa— bility are not to eliminate all of these, but rather to Optimize the rational components in the processes, he can 25Remarks of President Lyndon B. Johnson on issuance of directive, August 25, 1965. 94 work comfortably and usefully.26 He must be willing to be part of a planning process, even though it is not the final plan. The planner working with PPBS, simply, must intro- duce and work with an imperfect though highly useful PPBS, because it is far more satisfactory than the annual, seg- mented requirements budgeting and "when seen as a vehicle for programming it strengthens the total planning effort."27 2. Cost-Benefit Analysis.—-All program budgeters emphasize that the system has no meaning unless it includes cost-utility studies en route. However, such studies have their independent worth and are valuable to planners even where a PPBS has not been undertaken. "A cost-benefit analysis is closely analogous to the methods Of investment-project appraisal used by business- men. The only difference is that estimates Of social value are used in place of estimates of sales value when appro- priate."28 While several approaches to accomplishing the analysis are followed, they generally begin with projecting the relevant program output for some relevant unit of time: children to be educated in high school in a given year; 26Kahn, Theory of Social Planning, p. 261. 27Ibid. 28Robert Dorfman, ed., Measuring Benefits of Govern- ment Investments (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institutions, 1965), p. 7. 95 dropouts to be prevented; delinquents to be apprehended, etc.29 Then one puts a social value on the product, again in a time perspective: increased lifetime earning of the high school graduates; productivity and decreased community care costs of drOpouts restored to school; potential prOperty damage by apprehended delinquents, etc. Gross benefits are sometimes calculated for a typical year. Annual costs are also calculated and a final ratio is calculated comparing "gross annual benefits to total annual costs."30 The ratio of this figure to the estimate capital cost of the project is then the benefit-cost ratio. In effect, this is the equivalent Of a business- man's estimate of the rate of return on a given investment. One can work with the past alone or project into the future in the light of given assumptions. For most public purposes, and certainly in the social field, there is a vast gap between the efforts of PPBS advocates and cost-benefit analysts and what they are able at this moment to accomplish. Those who assumed that pure technology would replace preferences and politics have begun to appreciate the limitations of these tools. The entire process is dependent upon clarity about goals and on 29Ibid. 30Kahn, Theory of Social Planning, p. 250. 96 an ability to distinguish ends and means. It is, there- fore, not a substitute for the effort to develop policy planning. Once a context of policy planning is created, PPBS and its counterpart system Of Cost-Benefit analysis can do much to strengthen the administrative organization and structure. {ma 3. PERT--(Program Evaluation and Review Technique) and CPM—-(Critica1 Path Method).-—The terms PERT and CPM are i methods Of planning, scheduling and controlling a series of 1 individual tasks that make up any project.31 It is impor— tant at the outset to clarify the distinctions between the two methods, even though they possess an interrelationship. During a brief period in systems development, there appeared to be two divergent approaches to the formulation and solutions Of networks for project planning and control. The critical path method, developed in 1956, was designed primarily for the evaluation of performance time and the total cost of projects consisting of relatively well- defined activities.32 Program evaluation review, on the other hand, was formulated in 1958 for the management of very large or long-range projects for which the nature and 31Kennedy Mitchell, "PERT and CPM," Municipal Finance, III, No. 3 (February, 1965), 136. 2Cantanese and Steiss, Systemic Planning: Theory, p. 99. 97 duration Of many activities involved high degrees of uncertainty.33 As both methods were later revised for improvement, the attractive features of one were soon incorporated into the other. Thus, while many of the techniques and concepts associated with CPM have been incorporated into PERT (i.e., it is possible to identify a "critical path" in the development of a PERT network), the critical path method is able to stand on its own merits as a programming device. The techniques of PERT require substantially more "sophistication" in computer methods and programming. PERT can be described as following a three step formula. In smaller, less complex projects, all three steps may be accomplished manually. However, in larger projects (consisting of approximately 100 or more activities) the PERT system must readily be adapted to electronic data processing for the computation of schedules and costs. The first step is a planning stage where a thorough knowledge of each step in the project is established. A network of "activities" and "events" are set-up graphically showing the sequences and inter relation- ships Of steps necessary to accomplish the Objectives of a program. The second phase is scheduling. In PERT the project manager estimates the "most likely" time, the 33Ibid. 98 "Optimistic" time (assuming less than normal conditions) required to complete each activity.34 The "expected" time for each activity is then determined by algebrai equation from the three estimates. The third phase is costing the project. Time and cost are interrelated. The "expected" time for each activity can be translated into specific man-weeks for each employee and then into dollars. The critical path method, which partially can be found within the PERT system, is a network diagram showing the relationship of each individual task or activity Of a project. The network shows management which tasks precede, follow, or run concurrent with any task under considera- tion.35 Using standard mathematical techniques, the network can be analyzed to compute which tasks have slack time and which tasks are critical or have no slack time. In any network there is always a chain of tasks with pg slack time. It is this chain of events that is the critical path. Thus, reduced to its basic components, the critical path method is a form of network analysis. The concept can be applied to the analysis of several different aspects of any given problem, such as the allocation Of personnel, 34Ibid., p. 100. 35Mitchell, Municipal Finance, p. 136. 99 time allocations, Operational costs, and reliability.36 The CPM is most frequently applied as a means of indicating the relationship between various events or activities necessary to achieve given objectives and the most effective sequence which these events or activities should take. CPM does not require the use of a computer.37 All of the mathematical calculations necessary can be done on a desk calculator. However, if a computer is available, large scale networks can be figured in a matter of minutes, and special routines can be used to apply calendar dates to each milestone or event in the network. The changing of the sequences of events and the estimated duration of each activity is simplified, and up to date reports of the status of the project can be produced on demand. PERT and CPM have certain advantages which it can offer the social field and other areas Of interest in planning. These advantages proceed as follows: 1. Management can be certain that the proper planning necessary to complete a project in the most efficient and thorough manner is performed. 36Anthony Cantanese, "Automation in Planning: Some Perspectives on United States Experience," Plan: Journal of the Town Planning Institute of Canada, IX TMarch, 1968), p. 25. 37Ibid. 100 2. Varying with the degree of control it desires to exercise over a project, management can be provided with any number of comprehensive progressive reports at any stage of the project.38 3. CPM can actually relieve management of much of the burden of minor decision making by pre-testing alternate courses of action and deciding which to pursue. An example throughout social programming has been the subsequent early failures which were indeed mirror decision making. The early Community Action Programs seemed to follow this pattern as data from their early blunders indicate. 4. By utilizing critical path methods, realistic deadlines are set from the start.39 The recent emphasis upon "maximum feasible" citizen participation may elongate the terminology behind a realistic deadline but the development of further socially sensitized research may specify more realistically equivalent realistic deadlines. 5. One of the least recognized and yet more important benefits derived from CPM is its ability to pin- point responsibility.40 The responsibility for each activity on a project network is delegated to one individual. 38Mitchell, Municipal Finance, p. 138. 39Ibid. 4OIbid. 101 Social Planning, Comprehensive Planning, and System Analysis Despite the striking similarities between the processes involved in social planning, comprehensive plan— ning, and system analysis, there are significant differ- ences. The crucial points of these are (l) the problem solving nature of system analysis, (2) the methods of alternative evaluation, and (3) the extent to which alter- natives can be quantified.41 Although a "systems" approach can be used as a method of "pure" (as Opposed to "applied") analysis, systems analysis is concerned primarily with problem situations. Comprehensive planning, on the other hand, is often anticipatory in its orientation and usually deals with matters that are not imminent problems. While nearly all planning involves the formulation Of corrective measures to all evident mistakes of the past, the essence of planning is preventive rather than remedial.42 Social planning, although it tries to deal in a more preventative viewpoint, has had to focus in a more remedial mood. The Community Action Program in its early history tried to follow a preventative role but constant social unrest has attracted a more remedial approach. 41Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory (New York: George Braziller, 1968), p. 17. 2Cantanese and Steiss, Systemic Planning: Theory, p. 175. 102 Evaluation methods are also relatively diverse when compared. One of the principal differences between a systems problem and a comprehensive planning problem is that the former tends to be an immediate problem which must be solved, while the latter Often tends to be a future or potential problem. This is not to say that comprehensive planning does not deal with immediate prob- lems, rather it also deals with problems that have not yet come into being. Social planning is unfortunately swamped with pressing present social problems and continually finds itself dealing with the imminent affairs. Future develop- ment of researching techniques and other social development aids hopefully can change this direction Of social planning. Alternative degrees of evaluation is also a diverse- ness which has to be dealt with when concerning the rela- tionship of system analysis to planning fields. In system analysis, the interrelationship that exists between subsystems within a system must have a means for measure- ment and quantitative expression.43 When evaluating alternatives, a systems analyst will use such terms as optimize, minimize, maximize, or hold to a steady state. There are, of course, comprehensive and social planners who use these terms, but it is with a certain amount of glibness. It is doubtful that we know enough about urban 43Bertalanffy, System Theory, p. 6. 103 social and physical conditions to optimize, maximize, or minimize, or even hold anything in a steady state. Social Indicators Social indicators and social reporting is a logical extension of PPBS and other forms of Operations and system analysis. Social indicators go hand in hand with urban porgramming such as PPBS, because program goals can be phrased in terms of social indicators, although some programs contain an uneven relative quality of these indicators.44 For some programs, there may be great impact but poorly measured indicators (highway con- struction and community coherence); for other programs one may have clear-cut indicators but a relatively ineffective policy (police protection and crime). Recipro- cal feedback, hopefully will increase as social research progresses into a more proper scope of urban public policy. Economic reports such as those developed by the United States government, though presenting data on the incidence of poverty, understandably say little about the, social attitudes (apathy, alienation, or resentments) bred by deprivation. It cannot, by its self-limiting sc0pe, deal with the quality or amenities of life, such as better 44Doris B. Holleb, Social and Economic Information (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969), p. 94. 104 health, the degree of congestion, the availability of social services, and the invasion of privacy. These gaps, and the need to find measures that could chart their extent, have prompted the effort to set up social indicators as a necessary complement of economic measures. Without such social indicators, policy-making becomes increasingly deficient in its ability to judge alternatives. One of the most thorough discussions on social indicators, can be found in a U.S. Government publication called Toward a Social Report. A considerable amount of the material related in this discussion to social indicators is documented by this government publication. As proposed in this document, social measurement should be extended so as to "(1) systemically record social change in terms Of explicit social goals (social indicators), and (2) provide a framework for evaluating our social policies and programs in terms of their effectiveness in achieving these goals (social accounts)."45 This outlining Of innovative governmental concern should illustrate the new turn taking place in social research. Social indicators are rather ambiguous when com- pared to other social research techniques such as system analysis. A social indicator definition has not been refined to a concise and clear cut explanatory 451bid., p. 83. 105 phraseology but the following definition may clarify the initial analysis approach. Social indicators are measures Of the level of well-being in a society. Social indicators are, in other words, measures of developments in which we have a normative or moral interest, evident from the purposes of public policies, but not measures of governmental activities designed to influence those developments. The economist might call them measures of "welfare" or "illfare."46 Social indicators, expressed in a more precise manner, are measurements of social phenomena whose move- ments indicate whether a particular social phenomenon is increasing or decreasing, and whether a particular problem is getting better or worse relatively to some goal.47 For example, the gross national product (GNP), the best social indicator, tells us whether aggregate income is increasing and at what rate. Against the actual level and growth rate of GNP we can contrast some desired level and rate to determine where we stand relative to our national goals of economic abundance. Implicitly, we assume that GNP is a valid measure of abundance and that abundance is indeed a good thing. The economic subset of social indicators permits the evaluation Of only a small facet of the range of man's 46U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Toward a Social Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969), p. xii. 47Doris B. Holleb, "Social Indicators," ASPO Planning 1968 (Philadelphia), p. 86. 106 concerns and problems. These indicators tell us little enough about the quality of our goods, much less about the quality of our society. Ideally, we want indicators of achievement in all the major areas in which we have personal as well as national goals: the democracy of our institu- tions, the equality of opportunity, the beauty of our cities, the health of our minds, and the stability of our families, to name a few. Indicators of these phenomena are extraordinarly difficult to develop in contrast to economic indicators. This contrast of the economic and social field may cause some difficulty but potentially social indicators can liberate society from what Raymond Bauer (leading theorist in social indicators) calls "economic philistinism, or the tendency to evaluate the quality of our lives by the quantity of our goods."48 Economic indicators have dominated our evaluation of public policy and programs but with the introduction of social indicators there has appeared two advantages to emphasizing this new approach. First, it gives different social problems appropriate degrees of visibility, and thus makes possible an informed decision about national priorities.49 Second, by providing insight into how different measures of well being are changing, it may 8Raymond Bauer, Social Indicators (Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 19667, p. 24. 49U .S. Department of H.E.W., Social Report, p. xiii. 107 ultimately make possible a better evaluation of what particular public programs actually accomplish. Analysis methods are indeed changing and this recent introduction of social indicators may substantiate a new and guiding emphasis upon social research. Social indicators will hopefully coordinate many fragmented social programs by providing organized information for revaluating national priorities among such goals as purifying the environment, improving education, eliminating poverty, rebuilding the cities, ending racial discrimination, raising health standards, and reducing crime. A Closer Look at Social Indicators The urban planner or social policy maker classifies social indicators in three general classes. The first, "local policy indicators" reflect the status of social phenomena over which the urban area believes it has some 50 The second control or at least nominal responsibility. class, "local comparative indicators" reflect phenomena over which the urban area has little control or responsi- bility but which nevertheless provides useful infromation. For example, the "cultural tastes" of a city might be as important as its weather in attracting or repulsing prospective residents. The third class, "national 50Holleb, "Social Indicators," p. 88. SlIbid. 108 indicators" essentially measure phenomena for which regional breakdowns have little meaning.52 This residual category might include "scientific knowledge," "corporate responsibility," or "national security." While there are some indicators for which disaggregation to the local level is meaningless, there are probably no indicators for which aggregation from the local to the national level would not be useful. All these stated indicators should illustrate specific desired properties which demonstrate a proper sc0pe of measurement. Common social analysis has illus- trated that at least three desired properties must be present before an accurate evaluation can be made. The first property is scalability. Scalability refers to the degree to which the magnitude of a phenomenon can be identified with a number (the simplest level at which a phenomenon can be numbered is by rank).53 A social phenomenon is scalable if such a phenomenon as "urban aesthetics" has ordinal properties and follows a pattern such that city A is more beautiful than city B. Given that an indicator is scalable, it should also be reliable.54 A reliable indicator is not subject 52Ibid. 53Michael Springer, "Social Indicators, Reports and Accounts," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 388 TMarch, 1970), 7. 54Ibid. 109 to measurement error due to outside factors. Indicators of mortality are probably reliable because the definition of death does not vary widely among individuals. Indicators of mortality are probably less reliable because disease may be classified differently or reclassified from time to time by reporting agencies. Given that an indicator is scalable and reliable, it should also be valid. A valid social indicator closely corresponds to the phenomenon it attempts to measure. Intuitively, a valid indicator rises and falls when the phenomenon in question does so, and the closer the fit (correlation) between the two, the more valid the indicator. An Example Social Indicator A basic premise now has been made stating the definition, its advantages, and properties. Many Various attempts have been made toward the development of social indicators but the diversity of approaches has dispersed any attempt at stating a simple outline policy. A perti- nent example Of social indicator usage will be given in this section but its analysis policy may differ from others. The example does point out a dominant approach that is being used, and a fundamental explanation of this approach should clarify the fundamental usage of social indicators. The specific location or specific population density of the metropolitan area under study is not 110 significantly important. The major point to be made is that the study is trying to designate the values that differ between the "rich" and the "poor." Milton Rokeach and Seymour Parker in their article called "Values as Social Indicators of Poverty and Race Relations in America," published in the September issue of Ekistics, are the analysts who undertook this differentiation between the values of the "poor" and the "rich." This author has tried to summarize the detailed study by Rokeach and Parker so that a general clarification of social indicators is founded. A major amount of data gathering has been left out to specifically emphasize the major value difference between classes. Reference should be made that all values shown on the tables (see Tables 2 and 3) have a median ranking (the middle number of sequence ranking), are ranked in a composite order of medians from 1 to 18, have had a Chi-Square value Obtained from the median test, and have obtained a level ranking from the above technique.55 In this work, the analysts have proceeded on the assumption that men do not differ from one another so much in whether or not they possess certain values, but rather in how they pattern them and rank them in order of importance. The analysts have also proceeded on the 55Milton Rokeach and Seymour Parker, "Values as Social Indicators of Poverty and Race Relations in America," Ekistics, XXX (September, 1970), 207. 111 HOOHH mo 0chcmumuoccn assume av moo. O0.0N v O.m m 0.5 5 H.O m 0.5 O 0.0 0 m.O OH 5.0 EOOOH3 HQHnmsochmfioo mmOHuv moo. mn.OH OH v.0 OH 5.0 NH H.OH NH 0.0 OH N.0 OH m.O 0 0.5 chmpcmHuu mane HcoHumuHEpm .uummmmuv Omo. OH.NH 5H O.¢H 5H H.OH OH N.wmv HOO. Hm.NN VH m.NH NH H.OH 0 O.H O v.O HH v.0 m O.5 m 0.0 :oHum>Hmm HOOHH >H0usmHOH .mHnmxoncO any 000. O0.0H OH N.mH OH O.mH 5H H.mH 5.HH 5.¢H OH 5.VH 5H m.vH OH O.mH whammmHm onmuum Eouu :oHuUmuoumv mmv. v5.m HH m.HH O v.0 OH N.0 HH m.0 NH 5.0 HH m.0 HH 0.0 auHuaumm HucoHumz . H>0MEHucH HmsuHuHmm Ono Hosxmmv HOO. 05.mm NH O.HH vH O.HH VH 0.0H vH N.NH vH m.NH OH O.vH 5H v.vH O>OH ensue: HuUHHOcoo HoccH EOuu Eovowuuv OOO. O5.0H 0 N.0 HH 0.0 NH N.OH NH m.OH MH 0.0H NH 0.0H NH O.HH 5:05uwn uoccH Hmmmcpmucwucoov OOH. 50.0 O N.0 5 H.O v O.5 v 0.0 v H.5 O o.O 5 5.5 mmochmm: HOoHono Omuw .wucopcomouch OHN. 0N.O m O.m m 0.m m 0.m m w.m m N.m m N.m v 0.0 Eovmoum Hmwco po>oH O0 oumo 0cchu. HOO. m5.mm N H.v H O.m H N.m H N.m N O.m N O.v N O.m >uHusuwm >HHamm HHHo wow >uHc3uuomao Hmsqo .poo:um£uounv moo. m0.0H O m.5 0 5.0 m O.5 0 0.0 O H.O O m.O m 0.5 iuHHmOUO Hmuum wsu pcm Ousum: no >usmonv Omm. H0.0 NH O.NH mH 5.NH mH O.NH mH o.vH mH m.mH pH 5.NH vH O.HH >usmmn mo pHuoz 4 HuOHHOcou pea up: no omuwv 0OH. O0.0 H m.m N O.m N 0.m N v.m H N.m H H.m H 5.N @0009 um pHu03 a AcoHuanuucoo 0cHumch Hoo. Nv.mm m H.O O O.5 O v.O OH v.0 0 H.0 NH H.OH NH v.OH ucweanHmsooom mo wmcmm < HOOHH O>Huom .OCHuaHseHum my 05m. OO.v OH m.vH OH N.mH OH v.mH OH v.mH OH O.mH OH v.mH OH m.mH OOHH OOHUHOXO :4 HOOHH msouOQOOMQ my HOO. O5.Hv mH v.mH NH O.HH HH 0.0H O H.O 5 v.O 5 m.O O N.5 OOHH OHnmuHOOEoo O u a 0m H5 ...:m 6: .xcm .p: .xcm .p: .xcm .pz .xcm .pz .xcm 6: ...:m .pz 38 :38: “when”. 88 u z. a: u 5 sum u 2. s: u 3 an n 5 82 u 5 .32, a I . ooo.me 000 vH Coo on 000.0looo.mm 000.5looc.Om 000.mlooo.vw 11 000.muooo.mw ooo.Nm HOUCD .HmNmH n 2O OEOOCH :H 0cH>um> mesou0 uOu muwpuolxcmu qumomEoo new mcmemE OnHm> HocHEuwann.N mHOOH HHmcoHuOu .ucwumecoc. HOO. 0m.Om MH 0.0H OH O.NH OH O.vH 5H H.OH 5H 5.a. 5H O.vH 5H N.OH HOOHOOH HO>HuOOHwOu .ucmmHHHOucH. HOO. Oo.mN 5 0.0 mH H.NH OH H.MH OH O.NH :4 H.MH OH v.MH OH 0.0H HmsuomHHmusH ucoHonms mleow .ucmHkuamHOm. O5v. vm.m O m.O OH O.HH NH O.HH vH 5.0H NH 0.0H NH N.OH VH m.OH OCOOCOOOOCH Hw>Hummuo .0cHumpO HOO. Nm.0N mH v.HH OH O.¢H OH O.mH OH 0.mH we LH OH O.mH OH N.OH O>HumcH01zH HHOOLusuu .OHOOchV NOm. H5.v H O.m H v.m H o.m H O.m H H 5.N H m.m ummco: Hmumnuo O0 mumeOB ecu HON 0cquo3v 500. 0O.5H 0 H.0 O N.0 O 0.0 5 N.O O O «.5 v H.5 HDOQHOO Hmuosuo :Opudm Ou OCHHHsz moo. m~.o~ NH H.OH O H.O m v.s e m.O e N m.O m v.O ocH>Hmpom HmuwHHOn uso> How a: 0:Hp:dumv ONO. 50.N m N.5 m 0.0 O v.5 m 0.5 r n H.O m 0.5 m=OOOMHOOU prHu .umwcv HOO. mm.N5 5H v.vH NH v.OH OH m.0 O 0.0 5 m H.5 N ¢.O :mOHO HHsusoH .pmuuomeuanHv NHO. mm.OH vH n.HH HH N.OH NH 5.0H N- m.OH vH 0.0H 0 O.n 0 0.0 Hauuwonu HO>Huomuum .ucmuomfioog ONO. O0.vH O 0.0 5 v.O HH 0.0 HH N.0 HH OH m.OH OH m.0 OHnmmmU HUOUCHEICOQOV VOO. N0.HH v O.5 v v.O v H.5 O H.O O c N.5 O 0.0 pwchEOmoum H0cHuHmmm .mcquo3lpumcv mHN. mn.O n v.O N O.m m 0.0 m 0.0 N m 0.0 O 0.0 msoHanfi< n 0 .VO H50 .xcx .p: .xsm .0: .xcm .0: .xcn .pz .xcm .xcm .6: .xcm .6: .me u 21 Amen n 2O HmsH u z. Amvm n 21 AsHN Imam u 21 HmmH u z. gHm> umme cquOz uw>o was OOO.mHm 000.vH|OO0.0Hm 000.0IOOO.OO 000.5-000.00 000.0IOOO._0 000.muOOO.Nw OOO.Nm Mops: .HmNMH u 2V OEOocH :H ocH>um> museum uOO muwpuo.xcmu wuHmomEou 0cm wcmemE 09Hm> HoucwsduumcHna.m m4m