CAA's and Organization TheoryAuthor(s): Dwight WellsSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1972), p. 375Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975003 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 16:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:16:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS

We are not advocates of highly complex multi- variable probability models. We do, however, believe that insight into reality is a greater virtue than the aesthetic satisfaction of mathematical

simplicity and elegance.

William L. Holland

Chief, Plans, Budget and Evaluation Division

OEO, Region IV, Atlanta

We are not advocates of highly complex multi- variable probability models. We do, however, believe that insight into reality is a greater virtue than the aesthetic satisfaction of mathematical

simplicity and elegance.

William L. Holland

Chief, Plans, Budget and Evaluation Division

OEO, Region IV, Atlanta

We are not advocates of highly complex multi- variable probability models. We do, however, believe that insight into reality is a greater virtue than the aesthetic satisfaction of mathematical

simplicity and elegance.

William L. Holland

Chief, Plans, Budget and Evaluation Division

OEO, Region IV, Atlanta

CAA's and Organization Theory

To the Editor:

Harold Wolman's application of organizational theory to community action agencies (Public Administration Review, January/February 1972) is both fascinating and useful. Since its inception, the Community Action Agency has been the focus of continual analysis with a mixed range of results.

Individuals and institutions alike have been slow to recognize that community action agencies are "a new institution in the urban political system." The fact that CAA's have become an institution attests to the primacy of survival needs within newly created organizations. In theory, under a congressional mandate to eliminate pov- erty, each CAA should have had a goal of

self-elimination; instead, they have established themselves in thick layers of bureaucracy insuring their survival, but significantly reducing movement toward their set goals. The applicable portions of

organization theory as selected by Wolman can be a framework for self-examination by operating CAA's.

The "war on poverty" is now eight years old, and very few CAA's have failed the survival test. There is continuing pressure at the federal level to reduce funding to OEO and force the CAA's to seek more local funding from both public and

private sources. As pointed out in the article, the

funding process is the major constraint on CAP in

determining program flexibility. With this knowl-

edge and with mounting pressure, each CAA should be applying various evaluative techniques to its operating. Resource suppliers must be

expanded and competitors must be identified and

co-opted. This effort will demand that CAA's enter into meaningful negotiation with the system. The negotiation will be based upon the ability of the CAP to perform functions and deliver services.

CAA's and Organization Theory

To the Editor:

Harold Wolman's application of organizational theory to community action agencies (Public Administration Review, January/February 1972) is both fascinating and useful. Since its inception, the Community Action Agency has been the focus of continual analysis with a mixed range of results.

Individuals and institutions alike have been slow to recognize that community action agencies are "a new institution in the urban political system." The fact that CAA's have become an institution attests to the primacy of survival needs within newly created organizations. In theory, under a congressional mandate to eliminate pov- erty, each CAA should have had a goal of

self-elimination; instead, they have established themselves in thick layers of bureaucracy insuring their survival, but significantly reducing movement toward their set goals. The applicable portions of

organization theory as selected by Wolman can be a framework for self-examination by operating CAA's.

The "war on poverty" is now eight years old, and very few CAA's have failed the survival test. There is continuing pressure at the federal level to reduce funding to OEO and force the CAA's to seek more local funding from both public and

private sources. As pointed out in the article, the

funding process is the major constraint on CAP in

determining program flexibility. With this knowl-

edge and with mounting pressure, each CAA should be applying various evaluative techniques to its operating. Resource suppliers must be

expanded and competitors must be identified and

co-opted. This effort will demand that CAA's enter into meaningful negotiation with the system. The negotiation will be based upon the ability of the CAP to perform functions and deliver services.

CAA's and Organization Theory

To the Editor:

Harold Wolman's application of organizational theory to community action agencies (Public Administration Review, January/February 1972) is both fascinating and useful. Since its inception, the Community Action Agency has been the focus of continual analysis with a mixed range of results.

Individuals and institutions alike have been slow to recognize that community action agencies are "a new institution in the urban political system." The fact that CAA's have become an institution attests to the primacy of survival needs within newly created organizations. In theory, under a congressional mandate to eliminate pov- erty, each CAA should have had a goal of

self-elimination; instead, they have established themselves in thick layers of bureaucracy insuring their survival, but significantly reducing movement toward their set goals. The applicable portions of

organization theory as selected by Wolman can be a framework for self-examination by operating CAA's.

The "war on poverty" is now eight years old, and very few CAA's have failed the survival test. There is continuing pressure at the federal level to reduce funding to OEO and force the CAA's to seek more local funding from both public and

private sources. As pointed out in the article, the

funding process is the major constraint on CAP in

determining program flexibility. With this knowl-

edge and with mounting pressure, each CAA should be applying various evaluative techniques to its operating. Resource suppliers must be

expanded and competitors must be identified and

co-opted. This effort will demand that CAA's enter into meaningful negotiation with the system. The negotiation will be based upon the ability of the CAP to perform functions and deliver services.

Perhaps the major contribution of the article is Wolman's description of the role of the poor in the

decision-making process. Nowhere are CAA's more

open to suspicion than in this area. They have created a facade of participation which alienates the poverty organizations from the establishment, but because the participation is only a facade,

many CAA's are also separated from the poor. Each CAP must evaluate its operation vis a vis the actual or perceived participation of the poor or client group. The goal of real participation should dominate over all others.

The article by Wolman should be read by all of us interested in or connected with Community Action Agencies. The application and implementa- tion of organization theory to CAA's could insure their survival, but more important, could make them more effective in meeting the needs of the

poor.

Dwight Wells

Principal Planner Chairman of Board

Schenectady Action Program Committee

Perhaps the major contribution of the article is Wolman's description of the role of the poor in the

decision-making process. Nowhere are CAA's more

open to suspicion than in this area. They have created a facade of participation which alienates the poverty organizations from the establishment, but because the participation is only a facade,

many CAA's are also separated from the poor. Each CAP must evaluate its operation vis a vis the actual or perceived participation of the poor or client group. The goal of real participation should dominate over all others.

The article by Wolman should be read by all of us interested in or connected with Community Action Agencies. The application and implementa- tion of organization theory to CAA's could insure their survival, but more important, could make them more effective in meeting the needs of the

poor.

Dwight Wells

Principal Planner Chairman of Board

Schenectady Action Program Committee

Perhaps the major contribution of the article is Wolman's description of the role of the poor in the

decision-making process. Nowhere are CAA's more

open to suspicion than in this area. They have created a facade of participation which alienates the poverty organizations from the establishment, but because the participation is only a facade,

many CAA's are also separated from the poor. Each CAP must evaluate its operation vis a vis the actual or perceived participation of the poor or client group. The goal of real participation should dominate over all others.

The article by Wolman should be read by all of us interested in or connected with Community Action Agencies. The application and implementa- tion of organization theory to CAA's could insure their survival, but more important, could make them more effective in meeting the needs of the

poor.

Dwight Wells

Principal Planner Chairman of Board

Schenectady Action Program Committee

New Life for PPB New Life for PPB New Life for PPB

To the Editor:

Outside the old Executive Office Building, the home of OMB, is an old tree. It looks like it is

dead; however, this is not so, the roots are very strong. It will probably bear new and better shoots this spring.

The PPB system nurtured and hurriedly im-

planted by OMB throughout the various govern- ment agencies has died as far as the acronoym and

original system is concerned. The roots however have been strongly implanted in the agencies' "real

world," and there is every indication that there will be new life springing forth from its dead trunk

(system), with new and realistic concepts and

procedures in the program, planning, and budget- ing areas.

Keith Marvin, GAO, head of systems and

procedures, feels that a survey is needed to

actually determine if PPB is dead or alive. However, he has indicated that "the single PPB system is dead" if you are talking about definition.

The Department of Defense is modifying its

system by taking a "bottoms up" approach to

To the Editor:

Outside the old Executive Office Building, the home of OMB, is an old tree. It looks like it is

dead; however, this is not so, the roots are very strong. It will probably bear new and better shoots this spring.

The PPB system nurtured and hurriedly im-

planted by OMB throughout the various govern- ment agencies has died as far as the acronoym and

original system is concerned. The roots however have been strongly implanted in the agencies' "real

world," and there is every indication that there will be new life springing forth from its dead trunk

(system), with new and realistic concepts and

procedures in the program, planning, and budget- ing areas.

Keith Marvin, GAO, head of systems and

procedures, feels that a survey is needed to

actually determine if PPB is dead or alive. However, he has indicated that "the single PPB system is dead" if you are talking about definition.

The Department of Defense is modifying its

system by taking a "bottoms up" approach to

To the Editor:

Outside the old Executive Office Building, the home of OMB, is an old tree. It looks like it is

dead; however, this is not so, the roots are very strong. It will probably bear new and better shoots this spring.

The PPB system nurtured and hurriedly im-

planted by OMB throughout the various govern- ment agencies has died as far as the acronoym and

original system is concerned. The roots however have been strongly implanted in the agencies' "real

world," and there is every indication that there will be new life springing forth from its dead trunk

(system), with new and realistic concepts and

procedures in the program, planning, and budget- ing areas.

Keith Marvin, GAO, head of systems and

procedures, feels that a survey is needed to

actually determine if PPB is dead or alive. However, he has indicated that "the single PPB system is dead" if you are talking about definition.

The Department of Defense is modifying its

system by taking a "bottoms up" approach to

JULY/AUGUST 1972 JULY/AUGUST 1972 JULY/AUGUST 1972

375 375 375

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:16:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions