NBSIR 73-183

USAC Transferability

Donald F. Quigley

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

April 1973

Final Report

Prepared for The Department of Housing and Urban Development

Urban Information Systems Interagency Committee (HUD/USAC)

Washington, D. C. 20410
i
NBSIR 73-183

USAC TRANSFERABILITY

Donald F. Quigley

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

April 1973

Final Report

Prepared for The Department of Housing and Urban Development

Urban Information Systems Interagency Committee (HUD/USAC)

Washington, D. C. 20410

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Frederick B. Dent, Secretary

ISIATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Richard W. Roberts, Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pg. No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the USAC Program 1

1.2 Objectives o£ the USAC Program 2

1.3 Purpose of the Report 3

1.4 Organization of the Report 4

2.0 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE USAC PROGRAM 5

2.1 Current Status of Prototype Systems 5

2.2 The Research Objectives of the Program .. 6

2.3 Emerging Problems Relative to the Research

Objectives 8

2.3.1 Decision-Making and Information

Requirements 8

2.3.2 Privacy Problems 9

2.3.3 Impact of Prototype Systems 10

2.3.4 Systems Designs 11

2.3.5 Data Standardization 12

2.3.6 Cost/Benefit Analysis 13

3.0 THE TRANSFER POTENTIAL OF USAC TECHNOLOGY 15

3.1 The Technology Products 15

3.1.1 Systems Level Products 15

3.1.2 Concepts and Techniques 16

3.2 Transferability of System Level Products. 17

3.2.1 Comprehensive Systems 17

3.2.2 Subsystems 18

3.2.3 Functions and Components 19

3.3 Transferability of Concepts and Techniques 19

4.0 POTENTIAL TRANSFER ORGANIZATIONS 22

4.1 The Elements of A USAC Transfer Program.. 22

4.2 Relationship to Current Efforts in Intergovernmental Cooperation 22

4.3 Existing Structure for Intergovernmental

Cooperation - 23

4.3.1 Federal Assistance Programs ...... 23

4.3.2 Information Systems Coordination.. 26

4.3.3 ADP Standards Coordination 27

4.3.4 Public Technology Transfer 29

4.3.5 The Role of Public Interest Groups 30

4.4 Proposed Structure for Intergovernmental

Cooperation 33

4.4.1 Intergovernmental Information Flow 35

4.4.2 Public Technology Transfer 36

4.5 Consideration of the Alternatives 39

4.5.1 Required Characteristics of Transfer Organizations 39

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Pg. No . 4.5.2 Coordinating Information System

Developments 40

4.5.3 Coordinating Information Requirements 42

4.5.4 Technical Information Exchanges.. 44

4.5.5 Technical Assistance 45

4.5.6 Standardization 47

5.0 PROPOSALS TO FACILITATE USAC TRANSFERABILITY.. 48

5.1 Introduction 48

5.2 The USAC Program Research Objectives ... 48

5.3 The Transfer Products 49

5.4 Organizations for Transfer 49

5.4.1 Federal Level Coordination 49

5.4.2 State-Local Coordination 51

5.4.3 Role of the Public Interest Groups. 52

Appendix A Federal and State Planning Areas 54

Appendix B Intergovernmental Information Flow 58

B.l Problems in Intergovernmental Information

Flow 58

B.2 Intergovernmental Task Force Recommendations 60

Appendix C Bibliography 65

Appendix D Acronyms 67

ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 Background of the USAC Program

The USAC program is an effort to sponsor ?^esearch and

development of transferable and operationally based municipal

information systems. The effort was initiated in 1968 when

the federal Urban Information Systems Inter-Agency Committee

(USAC) was established. This body is chaired by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and includes members

from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and

the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Labor, and Transportation. The Office of Management and Budget, the Office of

Economic Opportunity, the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency

and the National Science Foundation are also members of the

committee.

Six cities were selected competitively early in 1970 to

receive federal assistance in performing research and development tasks leading to the development of municipal information

systems. Each city is the prime contractor for its project,

and heads a consortium consisting of a computer systems firm

and a university as subcontractors. The six cities are as

follows

° Charlotte, North Carolina is developing a comprehensive

municipal information system including all local-area

information resources, and serving all municipal

departments

° Wichita Falls, Texas is working toward the same comprehensive system as Charlotte.

1.
° Dayton, Ohio is developing a system which will cover

the public finance sector of municipal government.

° Long Beach, California is developing a system which

will cover the public safety sector of municipal government .

° Reading, Pennsylvania is developing a system which will

cover the physical and economic development sector of

municipal government.

° St. Paul, Minnesota was developing a system which would

cover the human resource development sector of municipal

government. (This project is no longer active.)

In addition to the six USAC city projects, there are five

USAC management support contracts. These are designed to

afford consultation, technical evaluation, and other services

to the USAC staff. These contractors are Claremont (California)

Graduate School (CGS) , Long Island University (LIU) , The

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) , National League of Cities

(NLC) /International City Management Association (ICMA) , and

Public Technology, Inc. (PTI)

.

Most documentation products resulting from all of the

efforts described above are available from the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS) in Springfield, Virginia.

1 . 2 Objectives of the USAC Program

The primary objective of the USAC program is to create

a capability for combining large amounts of data about a city with the most recent level of technological development

of computer-based information systems, thus allowing a broad

spectrum of users to make better decisions in their respective

areas of responsibility. This primary objective encompasses

the following specific objectives:

2.
° To improve the information and decision-making

capabilities of municipalities through the development of operationally-based information systems.

° To develop solutions to the problem of transferability,

and to generalize these solutions so as to permit, with

only minor modification, their application to other

municipalities

.

° To encourage the standardization of data and inventories

of data.

° To develop solutions to the problems generated by

sensitivity of information (i.e., the protection of

personal privacy)

.

° To demonstrate the payoff of the broader approach.

1 . 3 Purpose of the Report

The prototype systems are now being implemented in the

project cities, and will become operational in incremental

stages over the next two years. It is necessary to continue

planning the future direction of the program toward its

original goal to transfer the results to other municipalities.

The purpose of this report is to support the development of

such a plan. It provides a broad assessment of the transferability of the USAC developed technology from three

perspectives

° The technical results achieved in the prototype systems

in terms of the research objectives of the program.

° The feasibility of transfer of the products of the

program.

° The organizations that could participate in the transfer

considering the potential applicability of the technology.

Proposals relative to future directions of the USAC program are given in each of the above areas.

3.
1 . 4 Organization of the Report

The report consists of five sections, including the

Introduction.

Section 2.0 is an assessment of the program in terms of

its research objectives, in which some emerging problems

requiring further study are identified.

In Section 3.0 the technology products of the program

are identified together with an assessment of their transferability. Proposals to enhance the transferability potential

of certain products are also included.

Section 4.0 contains a discussion of the characteristics

required of organizations to participate in the transfer of

USAC technology. In concludes with a description of those

organizations and their proposed roles which are considered

best suited for USAC transfer.

Section 5.0 is a summary of the proposals to enhance the

transferability potential of USAC.

4.
2.0 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE USAC PROGRAM

2 . 1 Current Status of Prototype Systems

The program to develop and implement three subsystems

and two comprehensive systems in five project cities has been

progressing since March 1970. A sixth project, to implement

a Human Resources Development subsystem, was terminated because

of overwhelming problems with the interjurisdictional nature

of health delivery, welfare services, etc. A new research

approach has been planned for this subsystem.

The concept of the USAC program was that four cities

would each develop a prototype system of one of the major

functional sybsystems of a municipality; i.e., public safety,

physical and economic development, public finance, and human

resources development. The remaining two cities would develop

comprehensive prototype systems encompassing all four subsystems. Thus each subsystem would be implemented in three

cities for comparison of results. The work for each project

is structured into nine USAC defined tasks which are intended

to maintain the research perspective of the program (para. 2. 2).

These tasks are:

Task 1 - Analysis of the current city operations, decision

processes and information requirements.

Task 2 - Systems conceptualization (preliminary design).

Task 3 - Detailed systems design including the implementation plan.

5.
Task 4 - Systems development (programming)

Task 5 - Systems implementation and testing.

Task 6 - Technical evaluation of systems design and

operation.

Task 7 - Orientation and Training.

Task 8 - Organization and Administration.

Task 9 - Monitoring and Impact Evaluation.

All of the project cities have completed Task 1. Task 2

has been completed in three cities, and is almost completed

in the remaining two. All of the cities have started Task 3,

with four of them into Tasks 4 and 5. The remaining tasks

apply throughout the project duration.

The prototype systems in the three subsystem cities will

be in substantial operation by early 1974; the two comprehensive cities by mid-1975. These systems will, at this time,

demonstrate the technology in actual operation. They could,

in addition (although not planned at this time) , serve as

test sites for measuring the degree of achievement of the

research objectives of the USAC program. The research objectives are discussed in paragraph 2.2, and the current status

of the city projects relative to these objectives is assessed

in paragraph 2.3.

2 . 2 The Research Objectives of the Program

The USAC Program is characterized by a substantial program of research into the fundamental problems of urban

information systems and municipal government. A basic premise
of the program was that previous efforts did not adequately

address these fundamental problems. The USAC research program

was directed to the investigation of the following:

° The decisions and information requirements related to

the delivery of services in a municipality.

This required a basic and comprehensive analysis of

municipal operations, their inter-organizational

relationships, and the decision processes required for

effective government.

° The problems in protecting the privacy of citizens and

providing information required to govern.

The privacy of citizens was to be protected procedurally and administratively within the government

by incorporating administrative and technical controls

over the processing of data within the computer system.

° The impact of information systems on the organizational

behavior of the government and upon its citizens.

The impact of the system on the governmental organization, and the impact of the use of the system on

the delivery of services to the citizenry were to be

thoroughly analyzed and documented.

° The technical problem of efficient system design in

relation to the problems of data acquisition, data

management, and data use.

Tne resulting computer system design was to incorporate the concepts of an integrated data base and

generalized data processing based on the information ' needs of the entire governmental structure.

° The technical problems in system design that bear on

the transferability of the results.

~~ The transferability of the systems was to be enhanced

by computer program modularity, generality, and machine

independence, and by the use of conventional hardware

and system level software configurations.

° The possibility to standardize data format and meaning

for intergovernmental information flow.

The design approach was to incorporate the requirements for data flow between governmental jurisdictions

both horizontally and vertically. Data standardization

objectives were also enunciated at the outset of the

program

.

7.
° The demonstration of the costs and benefits of USAC's

broader approach.

The costs and benefits in operating an integrated

management system were to be analyzed and documented.

The prototype systems in the project cities were to

demonstrate, through actual performance, a favorable

cost-benefit ratio.

The transferability of the USAC results will be dependent,

in large measure, upon the degree of achievement of the

research objectives and the adequacy of system documentation.

In the next paragraphs the current status of the city projects

relative to the above areas of research is described, and

additional study efforts required to enhance the potential

for USAC transferability are suggested.

2 . 3 Emerging Problems Relative to the Research Objectives

2.3.1 Decision-Making and Information Requirements

The information requirements for municipal operations and decision-making were analyzed by the project cities

during the systems analysis and conceptualization phases

(Tasks 1 and 2) . The result of these two phases is the basis

for the design of the system. Two problems are now apparent

that should be given further study.

° A uniform hierarchical functional structure

(apart from the organizational structure) of a city's operations was postulated by USAC in

RFP H-2-70. It was determined

by the project cities, however, that such a uniform structure is not feasible. Significant

differences were noted between the analyses of

the same major functional systems in different

cities. An understanding of the functional

structure of each city's system is necessary in

determining those elements of the prototype

system which may be considered transferable

entities. USAC postulated that the component

8.
level, in the sy stem- function -component

1 application hierarchy, would be most acceptable

! for transfer. This postulate may or may not

I hold up after an attempt is made to transfer

I USAC products. However, from the standpoint of

USAC transferability it seems important to

rationalize the prototype systems departure from

i the postulated USAC functional structure. The

' differences between cities and their functional

structures probably reflect varying responsibilities, charters, ordinances, priorities, etc.,

that would be of importance to potential transferees. It would be useful for USAC to be able

to identify these differences and to understand

the effect that each has on the transfer process.

° The initial implementations of the prototype

systems will largely dwell on the routine

operational type decisions in which tasks, goals,

I and resources are well-defined. The more sophis-

' ticated and complex decision-making related to

management control, programs, and planning will

evolve with time. Other municipalities which

will weigh the benefits of the USAC approach,

will soon be aware of the limitations of the

decision-making capabilities of the USAC systems.

Independent analysis and evaluation of these

results should be carried out as the prototype

systems become operational, and should continue

until some improved decision-making result can

be observed.

2.3.2 Privacy Problems

The USAC program has, from the beginning, empha-

! sized the problems of citizen's privacy and data confidentiality

that must be addressed in the city prototype systems. All of

the project cities have addressed the problem of privacy

I through the establishment of policies and administrative

I procedures. There is still, however, much substantive work

j to be accomplished in defining the specific issues that must

be faced by a municipality. This will come only with experience

in actually carrying out the policy and procedures.

9.
The technical problems of controlling and maintaining the confidentiality of the data in a data processing

system are being addressed by the project cities during the

current system design phase. The cities are employing various

techniques to control access to the data. The subject of

access control in computer systems is receiving considerable

attention in the industry today with a variety of techniques

being offered, suggested, or developed. Better solutions to

the problem of access control on a cost-effective basis will

probably be developed in the near future.

The technical solutions to control and maintain

data confidentiality implemented in the prototype systems

should be evaluated in relation to these newer developments in

the state-of-the-art now emerging.

2.3.3 Impact of Prototype Systems

, The project city contracts require the contractor

consortium to monitor and evaluate the impact of the system

on the municipal government and the community which it serves.

Impacts on the government are expected in the areas of

organizational structure and effectiveness in performing

functions and responsibilities. Impacts on the community are

expected in the area of service delivery and in the citizens'

perception of the city management. These impacts are expected

to be evaluated by the municipal consortia and documented in

the final phase of the contract period. While the development of study approaches and methodology for impact analysis

10.
is receiving considerable attention, the level of effort

planned for these studies, and the time available within the

contract periods to conduct them, will severely limit their

value.

The full impact of the system will most likely

occur after it has been in operation for a substantial period

of time. The impact, therefore, will not be fully documented

as the program plan now stands. The impact evaluation should

be carried out beyond the terms of the current contract

periods, and should probably coincide with the implementation

of a transfer program where such evaluation would be most

beneficial.

2.3.4 Systems Designs

The basic design features of the prototype systems

are now apparent. Each, represents a substantial upgrading of

the data processing capability of that city. There is a wide

range of sophistication and complexity among the five cities'

systems

° One system will be primarily batch processing

with discrete applications oriented computer

processes and data files.

° One will be exclusively batch processing with a newly designed data management technique oriented

to an integrated data base.

° One will use a vendor supplied telecommunications

system augmented by newly designed data management software oriented to an integrated data

base for on-line transaction and batch processing.

° Two systems will utilize sophisticated vendor

supplied data management systems for on-line

transaction and batch processing.

11.
The documentation required by Tasks 3, 4, and 5

will provide a complete and detailed description of the system

(including the program listings) to facilitate the transfer

of the systems (or parts thereof) to other cities. There is

little likelihood, however, that the technical quality of the

systems designs will be evaluated adequately for transfer

purposes within the scope of the current projects. Task 6,

while directed to technical evaluation, has been primarily

concerned with evaluating documentation. Furthermore, the

level of effort for Task 6 is not adequate for the type of

evaluation that is needed.

Each prototype system will represent a different

technical approach to the design of its integrated data base

structure and data management software, both related to a

specific hardware configuration. The prototype systems should

be evaluated in the following technical areas:

° The data base structure and its rationale in

terms of the functional performance requirements

of the city.

° The technical capabilities of the data management software and its specific implementation

relative to the data base structure.

° The data processing performance in terms of

response and efficiency under actual use.

2.3.5 Data Standardization

The original plan of USAC , contained in the city

contracts, was to develop lists of standard data elements

and codes for all of the city projects. These lists were to

12.
be classified into mandatory, recommended, and optional

standards for all projects. The standard lists were not

developed by USAC. As a result each city project has developed

its own dictionary of data elements and codes for implementation in its prototype system. The NBS is currently analyzing

these dictionaries to determine the possibility for future

development of standards for municipalities, and the relationships of municipal data to federal requirements.

2.3.6 Cost/Benefit Analysis

A basic premise of the USAC program was that the

prototype system projects would "demonstrate the payoff of

the broader approach." The city projects were required to

analyze the costs of collecting and processing data elements

or sets of data in relation to the benefits to be obtained in

the use of the data. The city projects are approaching this

requirement on a token basis. There is little expectation

that a convincing cost/benefit analysis on a system-wide basis

will be produced for the prototype systems.

A credible cost/benefit analysis of the prototype

systems could be an essential input to those in other cities

who must assess the economic viability of the system in their

environment. The operating costs of the prototype systems

will be known for the project cities. Some of the more easily

identified benefits such as manpower savings, cos t - avoidance

,

etc. have been, or will be identified by the city projects.

Less tangible benefits such as improved services, better

13

.
management decisions, may not be easily assessed. It is,

however, necessary to identify and measure (or otherwise assess)

the costs and benefits of each system, on a system-wide basis,

and to document the results for visibility.

14.
3.0 THE TRANSFER POTENTIAL OF USAC TECHNOLOGY

3.1 The Technology Products

3.1.1 Systems Level Products

The most visible products of the USAC Program will

be the documentation of the prototype systems as provided for

by the contract tasks. Systems documentation will exist at

two levels, i.e., system conceptual design, and implemented

system design.

The conceptual design could be used by another

municipality in the design of its own computer-based functionoriented system. The system design of a prototype system

could be implemented in another municipality in toto, or with

modifications

The systems level products will also represent

different levels of integration of the hierachy of municipal

functions, and different approaches to integration at the

same hierarchical level. The two comprehensive prototype

systems (covering all four subsystems) will represent the

highest level of integration, each containing different

approaches to integration (not precisely known at this state

of development) . The three subsystems will represent integration at the subsystem level of functions, each containing

approaches to integration different from the two comprehensive

systems (also not precisely known at this timej.
3.1.2 Concepts and Techniques

Concepts and techniques related to integrated

municipal information systems will be documented separately

in some cases, or otherwise included within the systems level

documentation. They comprise a body of technology based on

the application of management science and computer systems

science to government operations. The major elements of the

technology that can be considered transferable within these

classifications include:

° Management Science

~ Decision models in the management of government operations and planning.

- Information requirements and availability for

planning and decision-making.

- Inter-organizational functional relationships

in municipal government.

- Rationalization of inter-organizational information flow

- Rights to privacy vs. the government's need

. , for information.

- Inter-governmental information flow.

- Impact of information systems on organizational

structure and behavior.

- Use of geographic information in urban manage-

„, V ment

"v ° Computer Systems Science

~ Integrated data base structures for the urban

environment.

- Data management systems.

- Geocoding techniques.

- On-line processing in urban systems.

16.
- Data security techniques.

- Transferability aspects o£ software design.

- Data element dictionaries for urban systems.

3 . 2 Transferability of System Level Products

3.2.1 Comprehensive Systems

The two comprehensive prototype systems represent

the lowest potential for transfer to other municipalities

for the following reasons. Most, if not all, of the cities

within the population range for which these systems would be

economically viable, are already committed to their own data

processing systems. Transfer of one of these prototypes

would require that the transferee commit itself to the prototype computer hardware configuration, its software system,

and user procedures. The possibility of this type of commitment must be considered quite low.

Even though the transfer of total comprehensive

systems do not afford the best opportunity for payoff, their

existence as demonstration projects do provide some benefits

within the overall scheme of the USAC transfer objectives:

° They provide experience and guidance in the

integration of information flow across the

entire range of municipal functions.

° They represent the only current USAC experience

in the integration of Human Resource Development (HRD) functions within a municipality.

° Their operational experience will provide some

basis for estimating the system performance

characteristics and workload data for a comprehensive system.

17.
° They will also provide an experience base for

evaluating the economic viability of a comprehens ive sys tern

3.2.2 Subsystems

The transfer of complete subsystems could afford

the largest payoff in the achievement of USAC transferability

objectives. Subsystems are comprised of groups of functionoriented organizations that, when working in concert, accomplish

the principal missions of the municipal government. Public

Finance (PF) is part of the process to keep the government

solvent. Human Resources Development (HRD) deals with the

human potential of the population. Physical and Economic

Development (PED) deals with the physical resources and

economy of the community. Public Safety (PS) serves to

protect against threats to life and property. These missionoriented groupings of functions are widely accepted in municipal

governments. The prototype subsystems serve to integrate the

functions and activities of the principal vertical organizations of the municipal government toward common missions. The

USAC approach, therefore, should find acceptance and appeal

in other municipalities for subsystem transfer. The Public

Finance (PF) subsystem appears to offer the greatest potential

for initiating a USAC transfer program. There is evidence,

now apparent from the USAC experience, that PF can be considered

the logical beginning for developing an integrated comprehensive system on an incremental basis. PF functions penetrate

the entire organizational structure of a city. The USAC

18.
integrated approach to PF (particularly the planning, programming and budgeting concepts) introduces performance budgeting

and monitoring to municipal management and decision-making.

This provides the logical starting point for the incremental

adding of the remaining subsystems that are primarily concerned with service delivery. The transferability of the PF

subsystem could be enhanced by designing initial transfer

projects that would demonstrate its adaptability to different

types of jurisdictional responsibilities, and ranges of data

processing sophistication.

3.2.3 Functions and Components

The subsystems are comprised of functions (e.g.

the police function of PS), and components (e.g. law enforcement) . Functions and components are the most transferable of

the system level products. A large number of municipalities

can incorporate them into their own data processing systems

with few technical problems. They can be more readily adapted

to user requirements than complete subsystems. In addition,

the benefits are more easily understood. While their transferability potential is very high, the objectives of the USAC

program are marginally served because the concept of an integrated system is easily lost at this level.

3 . 3 Transferability of Concepts and Techniques

The concepts and techniques developed from the USAC program are applicable to all types of governmental organizations

concerned with information systems. While the system level

19 .
products are primarily oriented to municipal governments of

a given population range, the concepts and techniques are

applicable to all general and special purpose governments.

These include not only state and local municipal governments

of any size, but also county governments, regional governments, townships, special planning districts, multi-county

planning areas, state-wide planning areas, etc. The development of information systems in these organizations is initiated,

in some cases, through local initiative using local resources.

The federal government has, in recent years, expanded its

financial support for information systems within these organizations in support of federal assistance programs. The

transfer of USAC developed concepts and techniques can be

best exploited by addressing both of these situations. In the

case of local initiatives it will be necessary to determine

how to disseminate the technical information and to provide

technical assistance where necessary. In the case of federal

assistance programs, it will be necessary to determine the

appropriate means for applying USAC concepts and techniques

to federally sponsored information systems projects at state

and local levels of government. In either case, the USAC

concepts and techniques need to be identified, classified

and documented for transferability. The major elements of the

technology identified in paragraph 3.1.2 could serve as a point of departure in developing a system of cataloging the

concepts and techniques. The USAC documentation could then

20.
be searched to identify and further describe and redocument

as necessary the potential elements of the technology. The

classification scheme would aid in the dissemination of the

material.

21.
4.0 POTENTIAL TRANSFER ORGANIZATIONS

4 . 1 The Elements of A USAC Transfer Program

In the preceding section, the transferable products of

the USAC program were identified. In this section, the federa

state and local level organizations that could participate in

the transfer are identified. The identification of such organ

izations must be based on an overall strategy of a USAC

transfer program, the elements of which could encompass the

following

:

° Federal assistance projects for general purpose type

governments in the transfer of prototype systems level

products

.

° The application of USAC concepts and techniques in the

development of federally sponsored information systems

related to federal program requirements.

° The application of USAC technology in national standard

ization programs.

° Technical assistance programs for state and local

governments acting on their own initiatives.

4 . 2 Relationship to Current Efforts in Intergovernmental

Cooperation

The elements of the transfer strategy, indicated in the

previous paragraph, imply a cooperative effort among federal,

state, and local agencies in the development of information

systems. In identifying the most appropriate organizations

to participate in the transfer of USAC technology, therefore,

it is necessary to examine the current status of intergovernmental cooperative efforts. This is done in the succeeding
paragraphs. The existing structure of federal and state level

organizations arc examined first. In the succeeding paragraph,

new organizations proposed in special studies to improve

intergovernmental information flow, and for the transfer of

technology J are examined. In the final paragraph, the existing

and proposed organizations are examined for their potential

role in USAC transfer.

4 . 3 Existing Structure for Intergovernmental Cooperation

The existing structure for intergovernmental cooperation

is diagramed in Figure 1. It includes federal assistance

programs, information systems development programs, science

and technology programs, and programs under the various public

interest groups. Each of these is discussed below.

4.3.1 Federal Assistance Programs

Federal assistance programs are handled through

grant or contractual arrangements. Formalized coordinating

procedures for the formulation, evaluation, and review of such

programs have been established at all levels of government.

Additionally, the Federal government encourages states to

establish systems of planning districts which are consistent

with Federal program planning areas. This would afford the

greatest potential for the coordination of Federal assistance

programs with state and local plans and programs; however, up

to this time such alignment has been achieved in only five

areas. These areas and a detailed analysis of the alignment

of Federal programs is given in Appendix A. The information

i 23.

I
CO- CO W M

y

CO o < Eh o< o 5

Eh CJ o <

Eh

C/0 o

fc Eh CO O > C£l 2 O a O w a 2 M O 1 Cd H M tt M <

Bh

w

O

J

Eh CO

u

O 3 K

COw

W o M a Eh

Eh Eh

M < 2 M SO

Eh

K o O o < Cu

PhO

Eh S > a s o o o O 2 O I a

cr;H • a o a H CO a 2 K

as Q

cc

a; o CO < o

a. o o a M Q o a a a o > fiN soH

a:KWooo<

EHs

05iOeM

EhooM

EH<M<M

Eh

COMXaa

X

24.
contained therein is based on an analysis of data developed

by a DOC review of the problem [7] . All of these Federal

initiatives have resulted in the definition of roles and the

establishment of administrative structures at all levels of

government

.

The statutory basis for such federal actions

includes the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Act of 1966,

which authorizes federal assistance for public facilities

and services in metropolitan areas, and the Intergovernmental

Cooperation Act of 1968, which extends the coordination of

federal assistancd programs to include the complete system of

state, regional, and local planning. This latter act also

authorizes Federal agencies to provide special and technical

services to state and local government.

The Federal organizations which are responsible

for the coordination of Federal assistance programs are:

° The 0MB, which has as its basic role the

establishment and maintenance of the rules and

procedures required to implement the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (contained in 0MB

Circular A-97) . Also, it has the roles of

monitoring Federal agencies in their coordination

of Federal regulations affecting state and local

governments (described in 0MB Circular A-95,

which encourages the states to establish a network of clearinghouses for the
coordination of federal assistance projects

prior to formal application) , and of maintaining

and publishing a catalog of federal assistance

programs for communication to state and local

governments (described in 0MB Circular A-89).

° The Office of Intergovernmental Relations (OIR)

,

which identifies and reports on problems in

intergovernmental relationships caused by federal

assistance programs and their administration.

° The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations (ACIR) which represents the executive

and legislative branches of federal, state, and

local government in matters concerning intergovernmental cooperation. 0MB Circular A-85

defines its functions in obtaining state and

local government views on proposed federal

regulations affecting intergovernmental cooperation.

° The USAC program is supervised and monitored by

a federal interagency committee. The federal

agencies are concerned with the improvement in

the management of services at the local level,

and in the data that can be generated and used

in program planning at state and federal levels.

4.3.2 Information Systems Coordination

0MB Circular A-90 encourages federal agencies to

26.
assist state and local governments in developing and operating

information systems consistent with the objectives of their

assistance programs. It also provides guidance and procedures

for coordinating agency programs, consulting with state and

local governments, and cooperating in intergovernmental ventures. Referring to Figure 1, the following organizations

are involved:

° Federal Agencies

In reviewing proposed projects, federal

agencies are required to ensure that proposed

systems are consistent with other state and

local government systems or plans. In addition,

applications are to be reviewed in the context

of other similar types of proposals in order

to take advantage of other experience, promote

compatibility among systems and avoid duplication

of effort.

° Information Coordinating Offices

Each federal agency is required to designate

a single office, registered with 0MB, to act as

the coordinating point for proposals involving

more than one agency, or more than one operating

entity within the agency.

° ACIR

This agency functions to obtain state and

local views on proposed information system

proj ects

4.3.3 ADP Standards Coordination

The Brooks Bill (P.L. 89-306), enacted in 1965,

provides for the efficient and economic acquisition and use

of automatic data processing equipment by Federal departments

and agencies. The major responsibilities, under this Bill,

are assigned to the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) , the

General Services Administration (GSA) , and the Department of

Commerce (DOC) . 0MB is responsible for fiscal control and

27.
policy guidance. GSA is responsible for equipment procurement. DOC is authorized to:

° Provide scientific and technological advisory

services

.

° Make recommendations on the establishment of

' Federal standards.

. I , ° Conduct research in computer science and technology . The DOC responsibilities have been delegated to

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology within

the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) . The Institute is also

responsible for monitoring and coordinating the development

of information processing standards (except for standard data

elements and codes). This responsibility includes the development of voluntary commercial standards, and uniform Federal

standards related to computer equipment, techniques and software. 0MB provides the leadership in the development of

standard data elements and codes for information interchange

by:

° Arranging for federal departments and agencies

to develop specific categories of standards.

° Arranging for liaison with industry, and state

. and local governments on standards of mutual

interest.

0MB policy guidance requires the NBS to give proper

consideration to state and local government needs and views

in developing standards. This is accomplished through contact

with designated ADP coordinators in the 50 states. Standards,

before they are approved as federal standards, are sent to the

28 .
State ADP Coordinators for comment which must be made within

60 days.

4.3.4 Public Technology Transfer

Current activity at the federal level in developing a public technology transfer program can be summarized

as follows

:

° The Office of Science and Technology (OST) and

the Office of Intergovernmental Relations [OIR)

are exercising the lead role in defining the

proper mechanisms at federal, state and local

levels

.

° OST is supported by the inter-agency Federal

Council on Science and Technology (FSCT) in

defining the federal role.

° OIR has available the offices of the Advisory

Council on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR)

to seek and coordinate the input of the public

interest groups.

° FCST has two committees working on science and

technology transfer. One committee is studyingautomation opportunities related to domestic

needs. The Intergovernmental Science Relations

Committee is studying the problem of technology

transfer mechanisms. NSF established an Office

of Intergovernmental Science Relations to explore

ways to improve the application of science and

technology to problems of state and local

governments

.

° NSF has also been sponsoring research related

to domestic problems within its RANN program

[Research Applied to National Needs).

° Two special programs have been established which

were defined in the President's message on

science and technology. The Experimental Technology Incentive Program (ETIP) has been

established in the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS) to investigate new incentives and mechanisms

to bring private technology to bear on national

problems. An Experimental Research and Development Incentives Program (ERDIP) has been

29.
established in the National Science Foundation

(NSF) to study barriers to technological

innovation and alternative Federal policies to

reduce or eliminate barriers.

4.3.5 The Role of Public Interest Groups

The term "public interest groups" refers to those

associations oriented toward the governmental process, e.g.,

legislation, public policy, public management, professional

standards, technical procedures, and the interaction between

governments

.

The principal public interest groups, shown in

Figure 1, that represent state and local governments on a national basis are referred to as the "Big Six." They include

the Council of State Governments (CSG) , National Governors

Conference (NGC) , National League of Cities (NLC) , U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) , International City Management

Association (ICMA) , and the National Association of Counties

(NACO) . They constitute a powerful network of organizations

for achieving the cooperation and coordination of the state

and local governments on matters of mutual intergovernmental

interest. These groups are regularly called upon by the ACIR

to obtain the coordinated views of state and local governments,

as provided for in 0MB Circular A-85.

The CSG is a joint agency of the executive,

legislative, and judicial branches of all state governments.

It provides staff service for NGC, and also for the National

Legislative Conference and other affiliated or cooperative

30.
national associations such as the National Association of

State Information Systems (NASIS)

.

One of the most recent programs of the CSG was

initiated through a federal grant authorized by the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. In this program, the CSG established an Interstate Consulting Clearinghouse to provide for

states to assist one another in solving problems. The CSG is

also cooperating with the federal government in the exploration

and development of means for transferring public technology to

meet the needs of the state and local governments. (Para.

4.4.2)

NLC, ICMA, USCM, and NACO , because of their national

level representation of local governments, have been able to

establish national programs of assistance to local governments

in support of, and funded from, federal grant programs. The

programs have, for the most part, been educational in nature,

seeking to keep local governments abreast of information

systems technology and its application to urban management.

NLC, ICMA and USCM, for example, publish the Urban Information

Systems Report which provides a periodic review of the USAC

program and general dissertations on various technical aspects

of computer systems.. NLC also sponsors regional seminars

throughout the U.S. in which local government representatives

can exchange experience and knowledge in urban information

systems. ICMA publishes monthly Urban Data Service Reports

on municipal activities based on data gathered through surveys

31.
of local governments.

PTI represents a more substantive effort on the

part of the public interest groups to bring new technology to

bear on the problems of urban government. PTI is the outgrowth

of a two-year development effort by ICMA. It is a non-profit

cooperation, sponsored by the Big Six, and created to transfer

available technology to solve local government problems. PTI

participates in the following technology transfer phases:

identification of local government problems, development of

user design requirements, on-site testing, and training. Its

staff is comprised of technical and urban oriented personnel.

A Local and State Government Research Council serves as the

organization for selecting and defining the urban problems

for its research and development program. Currently, its R§D

program is comprised of seven problem oriented technology

areas: solid waste management, law enforcement, fire protection, housing and construction, streets and highways,

management science, and municipal information systems. PTI

is still a growing organization, having been incorporated

since December 1971. Its initial activity has been assisted

by NASA as a logical extension of the NASA technology transfer

program. It has also been studying the feasibility of

establishing a technology clearinghouse for state and local

governments under a N8P grant.

By virtue of their constituencies and their

charters, the public interest groups comprise a comprehensive

32.
network o£ intergovernmental communication. They provide

the channels for conducting professional, managerial, and

technical education for the conveyance of research results,

and for communication of information on governmental programs

policies, issues, positions, etc. These relationships have

afforded the public interest groups the opportunity to play

a significant role in the expanding programs of public technology transfer.

4 . 4 Proposed Structure for Intergovernmental Cooperation

Several studies have been undertaken to explore problems

related to intergovernmental cooperation. Those pertaining

to the various aspects of transferability are discussed below

Proposed organizations which would be set up as a result of

these studies are shown in Figure 2.

33.
d) • Q> w CO 4-> o

Z3 * • (—

4->

O <D (D

H

O CJC cd (in E <D • c O cti CO o m r- S o ti

CO 4-> o

ct3 ^ -H <D "O '"^ c CO

d) to CO CO

C "H

rH <t5 CO CO CO t> > O Eh *^ o

CO C3

— P 'X

r-i CO

C

<D cd CO "H (D • CO o o bO O O CO

E-<

O •rH

O •-3

C f^ cx C (U 1—

(D 0) .C CO t3 O ''"^ •H -P o O 4-> C C I—

O C o * S! o C E-< CO d)

t-J •H Eh CD o Ph

O

O o rH P p

d) cd CO E-* p >> o O TlJ <D * cd bO o •rH C P O o •P O C C > x; c c CO rH o O O hO Cd 1—

o

CO

O o o V-i

C

<D •H >1 o x;

HH Eh Eh CD <D bO o

1-3

O o •P cd c O d> CQ >i c ?-t cd i) CD 1—

I—

Eh

»—

O

C <D cd -P 1—1 "HO o

V* ctf rH Q) CO o o C

K o o CO CO SZ •H o CO >> o c 1—

K O bO <D d) .O o rH o o t-< x: 3 H tH cd )—

rH rH -P PLI cd -p c cd •H O il> O bO o $-4 O C O H C d>

CD •H <D c rH (U

M

•H -p 'CJ X) Cd

(L> o cd CD

O dJ c^ -P -P Ph CO O Eh O Pm CO CO oKOQ

Ei] MO j 9K&

*' (1>

O

rH o r-i •H >H IS O >^ o o C CO -P T3 lH E CO c O CD tH -P si O 4-^ CO CO o ^ CO CO • • CO O ,>> >i ^ cd CO Eh CO M %^ CO 4-> <D d) Eh O rH cd O C o

<^ t/3 cd c CTj

Q •rHO •H ^

•H dj

O o rH ^ > Eh •H •H o -p tH bH

O -P

C •HO cd o K

to CtJ sz 6 nH • B E O o hO O CO bO

O

M c Q) CD c C

O E C

M o -P O E-i o •H CO Cd tH

1—

•H CO **-H o -P to

U -P

-P >iC c w Cd <i ho cd Eh Cti CO 1—

O 1 C o

Is; E •H o •H iH

U •H

rH rH -P •H "O cd 0-A •O

*^

O td cd o c fn -P 4-5 o o O Q) O

PC c C

C o CO o T-i

O o

CD CD (D o to * o bD

C o > E bO to E >3 P CD cd o r-H C C C to ro O CJ c VC P c o t^ cd C <D o CO. o

ccO CD x: bO CD •HO -rHH

O > > iHO bl)O P C CO P

E^ i-J

O o cd cd CO :^ 1 bO C 1 e < M <D U O ^^ u d) 4^ CD 0) •H CD o o

CO -P P 4-1 cd -P C C CO C c c

CO

M

M

M

M CO

M

i-J > l-H i-J J >

u]

1-4

tr;

w

w Eh < Q a; o W Eh o

t/3 k4 34.
4.4.1 J ntcrgovernmcntal Jnformation Flow

The problems related to intergovernmental information flow were largely created by the rapidly increasing

number and types of federal assistance programs in recent

years. This situation was studied in 1968 by an intergovernmental task force. [1] It determined that the essential

ingredients for facilitating information flow are:

° Responsive information systems.

° Technical compatibility of information systems.

This task force recommended that

° Information coordinating offices be established

in all states and in those localities where

size and complexity warrant it.

° Information coordinating offices be established

in each federal department and agency.

° Local governments be encouraged to cooperate

with each other and share system development

costs.

° National associations, and comparable state and

regional associations, should develop appropriate programs of technical assistance.

° Intergovernmental systems teams be established

with representation from each level of government.

° A state-local information advisory council be

established to respond to the above mentioned

systems teams.

° A project should be established to determine a basic set of socio-economic data that would

satisfy the federal agency program requirements.

° State and local governments should adopt and

use standard data elements and codes.

The problems identified in this study concerning

35.
intergovernmental cooperation in information systems developments are directly pertinent to USAC transferability. A more

detailed discussion of the results of this study is contained

in Appendix B.

4.4.2 Public Technology Transfer

The term "public technology", which has come into

common use in recent years, has been defined as "technology

which is explicitly responsive to the policy goals and

operational requirements of civil governments..." [3]. The

USAC program exemplifies this public technology, since it

constitutes a concerted effort to apply the sciences of management and computer systems to the needs of government.

The Federal government view of technology transfer,

as expressed in the President's message to Congress on science

and technology [4], is defined as:

° Stimulating and encouraging the private sector

to undertake R^D.

° Supporting the private sector when appropriate

R^D is inhibited by size and risk factors.

° Orienting Federal R^D programs to focus on

public needs

.

° Massing R^D resources to satisfy public needs

through federal, state, and local intergovern-

/ mental cooperation.

„ ,1 , .„

• ... This last role is, in essence, the public technology transfer process. The basic functions of such a cooperative effort are to open communication channels, provide

access to the resources of federal R^D centers, and aggregate

36.
state and local markets. The President's message also

identified the President's science advisor (head of the Office

of Science and Technology (OST) ) and the OIR as the focal

points for discussions to determine ways to improve intergovernmental cooperation in science and technology transfer.

An FCSX study [3] attempted to view the entire

problem of public technology transfer. The recommendations

of the report include the following:

° Undertake a comprehensive survey to determine

the priority needs of state and local governments. Identify the technology programs and

projects which might be applied to those needs.

° Conduct periodic reviews of federal R^D activity

in consultation with state and local governments

to determine the need for changing direction or

testing prototypes.

° Maintain a scientific and technical manpower

clearinghouse for state and local governments.

Assist states in position classification and

pay structures for scientific and technical

personnel. Provide for intergovernmental

exchange of personnel.

° Provide federal funds for technology projects.

Create new arrangements between academic institutions and state and local governments. Make

federal laboratories available to state and

local governments. Establish a federal data

bank on science and technology projects.

The federal initiative to seek ways to improve

intergovernmental cooperation has not stopped with this report,

however. The OIR, conforming to the President's message, has

initiated plans for working with the major public interest

groups

.

The state view of technology transfer is discussed

37.
in separate studies by the CSC [5] and the NGS and T [6].

Reference 5 presents what may be accepted as a consensus of

the states ' view

° Organize a user group representing the state

and local governments to identify the priority

needs and problems.

° Organize a supplier group comprised of federal

agency and industry technologists to design

. ' the technology to fit the need.

The recommendations contained in reference 5 bear

on the same four elements of the problem which were identified

by the FCST [3]. Reference 6 fully endorses the findings and

recommendations of reference 5. It contains, in addition, more

substantive proposals to establish NSF programs to support each

state in carrying out tasks in public technology transfer.

Three specific programs are recommended:

° A state technology management program with a state

science advisor and advisory group to plan science

policy, anticipate problems and opportunities,

and advise the state government.

° A technology transfer program based on each

state ' s needs

.

° An intergovernmental applied science program to

assist states in developing their own capabilities

to generate new technologies to fit their own

needs

.

Initial local government views on the public technology transfer problem were made to the President's Science

Advisor by Public Technology, Inc. (representing the R^D arm of

tlie major public interest groups):

° Create a committee to coordinate city, county,

state, and federal technology application programs.

38.
° Support a joint federal, state, and local effort

to determine technology applications and evaluate

the results of prototype or demonstration projects.

More official positions on the local government views

are contained in the policy statements of NLC and USCM:

° Create an urban research unit under the President

to serve as a focal point for federal R^D

activity related to urban needs.

° Establish a public technology clearinghouse.

° Establish a joint federal - local program to

support research on urban problems.

° Adopt standard nomenclature and common statistical

reporting procedures.

° Federally fund an R§D grant-in-aid program to

enable state and local governments to engage in

joint ventures with and through PTI and private

industry

.

4. 5 Consideration Of the Alternatives

4.5.1 Required Characteristics of Transfer Organizations

The nature of the transferable USAC technology, and

the possible strategies for its transfer, imply certain character

characteristics required of organizations to participate in the

transfer process. These characteristics are defined as follows:

° Coordination of Information Systems Developments

Organizationally positioned to exercise a coordinating role in the technical aspects of

information systems developments at the federal

level among federal agencies, at the state level

among state- agencies , and at the local level among

municipal or regional combinations of government.

° Coordination of Information Requirements

Possesses the organizational and technical

capability to coordinate the characteristics of

data collected and used at state and local levels,

39.
with the requirements of federal agencies,

° Technical Information Exchanges

Technical capabilities to evaluate and assess

information systems technology and its applicability to federal, state and local requirements;

and organizationally capable of disseminating

such information where it is applicable.

° Technical Assistance

Organizationally and technically capable of

developing and implementing programs of technical

assistance to state and local levels of government .

° Standardization

Organizationally and technically capable of

representing state and local views in standardization activities.

In the following paragraphs, these required

characteristics are used as the basis for determining the

most appropriate organizations to participate in USAC transfer

from the organizations described in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4.

4.5.2 Coordinating Information System Developments

The coordination of information systems that are

part of federal assistance programs is provided for by the

0MB Circulars A-95 and A-90 procedures. The coordinating

organizations for these procedures, as depicted in Figure 1,

include

° The information coordinating offices within

each federal agency as required by Circular

A-90.

° The state and sub-state clearinghouses.

° The mul ti- j urisdictional planning areas.

These organizations can be effective in coordinating systems

within a single federal program area of an agency, especially

40.
in those states where the federal and state planning areas

coincide. They cannot be effective in ensuring tliat proposed

systems exploit the best systems or technology that are

available or under development (viz., USAC technology). In

most cases the states' clearinghouses are administrative

liaison groups. Even where the clearinghouse is also a state

designated planning area, it is highly unlikely that proposed

systems are examined in technical depth to ensure quality and

compatability of systems. The proposals to establish Information Coordinating Offices at federal, state and local levels

(See Figure 2) were directed to this objective. The federal

agency information coordinating offices established under

0MB Circular A-90 serve this objective, however, there is no

procedure or mechanism for coordinating among federal agencies.

A viable organization to accomplish coordination

among federal agencies is in USAC, which is already operating

as an inter-agency coordinating committee for the USAC program.

This committee, supported by its technical advisory board,

could function to inject USAC technology into the federal

assistance programs through an extension of its charter. While

this change would provide a substantial degree of coordination

with respect to federal assistance programs (including USAC

prototype systems transfer programs), it does not move the"

technical coordination process down to state and local levels.

The functions of the proposed Information Coorinating Offices at state and local levels would extend beyond

41.
the coordination of federal assistance projects. They would

operate to improve the technical quality and compatibility of

information systems within their sphere of influence, which is

appropriate to USAC technology transfer. The establishment of

such offices within states has been encouraged through the

federal law enforcement assistance programs, in recognition

of the need for compatible systems. It would seem appropriate

for the USAC program to recognize a similar need, and to

determine ways to encourage state and local level actions.

4.5.3 Coordinating Information Requirements

The existing responsibility for coordinating

federal information requirements with state and local governments resides in the agency information coordinating offices

established under Circular A-90. Agencies are encouraged to

obtain advice and assistance from the public interest groups,

or alternatively to utilize the more formal mechanisms and

procedures of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations (ACIR)

.

The intent of these procedures is to coordinate

data requirements among the federal agencies involving functional

programs such as economic development, agriculture, education,

welfare, etc. Coordination is supposed to be achieved by

consultation between agencies, or by the establishment of

intergovernmental study teams. For the most part, adequate

inter-agency coordination does not appear to take place. Also,

the public interest groups apparently have no effective means

42.
for determining the consensus of state and local governments

regarding specific data requirements. The Intergovernmental

Task Force Study devoted considerable attention to this problem.

They proposed establishment of the federal agency information

coordinating offices and the use of intergovernmental systems

teams, which were provided for under 0MB Circular A- 90. They

also proposed establishing a state-local advisory council

comprised of the public interest groups to represent state

and local government views. While this was also provided

for by Circular A-90, it has not been effective, as already

noted. The task force study also proposed establishment of a one-time inter-agency study project to determine a basic set

of socio-economic data for federal program requirements. This

has not been done, and consequently the entire subject of

coordinated information requirements has seen little progress.

Since the USAC program is involved in this problem area, it

seems logical to consider USAC in the role of an inter-agency

coordination committee in this area on a continuing basis.

In addition, this committee could serve as the focal point

for state and local input. More effective organizations,

however, are needed at state and local levels to ensure

technically sound input. The proposed Information Coordinating

Offices could be quite effective in this role. The Intergovernmental Task Force Study actually suggested a similar

role for these offices.

43.
4.5.4 Technical Information Exchanges

There are two basic aspects to the exchange o£

technical information, each pertinent to the transfer of

USAC technology. The first is that of diffusing information

about the available technology throughout the states, counties,

cities, etc. This is currently being accomplished by the

public interest groups through their general publications

and periodicals, and through seminars and professional meetings

and conferences. The continuation of this role would be

necessary to the USAC Transfer Program.

The , second aspect is that of providing technical

information clearinghouse services in which the objective is

to see that the information systems knowledge is automatically

disseminated to the appropriate organizations within state

and local governments. A technical capability to identify and

assess the value of technical documentation from many private

and public sources is essential to this function. The National

Technical Information Service (NTIS) provides library services,

but does not perform the clearinghouse functions envisioned

here. While 0MB Circular A-90 encourages federal agencies to

share information systems knowledge with state and local governments, no mechanisms have been created to accomplish this.

A public technology clearinghouse sponsored jointly

by the National Science Foundation( NSF) and the Council of

State Governments (CSG) has been proposed to cover all public

technology. This is much broader than the interests of USAC

44.
technology transfer. The Intergovernmental Task Force Study

proposed an Intergovernmental Information Systems Exchange

under the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

(ACIR) . This idea has already been rejected by ACIR as

inappropriate. Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) has, during the

past year, been studying the feasibility of establishing a technology clearinghouse under a grant from the National

Science Foundation.

The technical information clearinghouse function

iH support of USAC technology transfer could be effectively

performed by PTI. While separately incorporated, it is

affiliated with all of the public interest groups representing

state and local governments. It is also staffed with technical personnel oriented to the problems of state and local

governments. The technical aspects of assessing technical

information could be supported by a collaborative arrangement

with the National Bureau of Standards groups who have expertise

in computer systems science and management science.

4.5.5 Technical Assistance

The U.S. Civil Service Commission (CSC) now

provides a variety of technical assistance to state and local

governments under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. In

addition to the exchange of technical personnel, the Act also

authorizes other types of technical assistance associated

with information system developments. These resources are

available to satisfy needs generated by the USAC transfer

. 45.
p roj', ram . I'etlcral agencies arc also empowered to provide

technical assistance in many forms as described in 0MB Circular

A-97. Most of the technical assistance available through CSC

and the federal agencies is provided on some type of reimbursable basis, although outright grants are possible. The Department of Housing and Urban Development could, for example,

establish a federal assistance program for the transfer of

USAC technology. The coordination of proposed projects and

the monitoring of projects under such a program could be

effectively carried out by the structure of USAC, the agency

information coordinating offices, the state and sub-state

structure of clearinghouses and the proposed information

coordinating offices.

The Intergovernmental Task Force Study also

recognized the need to establish programs of technical assistance outside of federal programs. The USAC technology can

and should be made available to state and local groups working

on their own initiative. The types of initiative proposed

would involve the public interest groups and state and regional

associations of these groups developing and sponsoring a variety of programs. One example would be a program of

orientation and training for local governments in information

systems techniques and applications. The National League of

Cities (NIC) is already involved in programs of this nature

sponsored by the USAC program. As the USAC transfer program

evolves, these types of programs should be encouraged and

4'6.
supported. One important area o£ needed support would be

that of providing technical assistance in state-of-the-art

assessments related to USAC technology.

4.5.6 Standardization

NBS is responsible for the coordination of national

ADP standards activities with state and local governments.

The state and local input is now gathered through the state

ADP coordinators. The system is not effective for two reasons.

Comments from the state coordinators are sought only after

the standards committee work is essentially completed.

Additionally, in most cases, state comments are not made. The

deficiencies appear to be due to a lack of state and local

representation in national standards committee work and a lack of procedures for polling the technical views within

states. The Intergovernmental Task Force Study recommended

active participation in the national committees and proposed

representation from the public interest groups. This seems

to be a feasible solution, and it could be encouraged by USAC

on the basis of the potential contribution of USAC technology

transfer to the standardization of data elements and codes.

The most logical organizations for coordinating state and

local input to the committee would appear to be the proposed

Information Coordinating Offices.

47.
5.0 PROPOSALS TO FACILITATE USAC TRANSFERABILITY

5 . 1 Introduction

The proposals to facilitate the transfer of USAC technology are summarized in this section. They are grouped

according to the three aspects of transferability which were

examined in the previous sections of the report as follows:

Section 2.0 - The Research Objectives

Section 3.0 - The Transfer Products

Section 4.0 - Organi zations for Transfer.

In the paragraphs following, the proposals are referenced to

the particular paragraphs from which they are taken.

5 . 2 The USAC Program Research Objectives

The following additional studies are proposed to assess

the achievements of the prototype systems projects in satisfying the research objectives of the program, and to provide

independent and objective evaluations for potential transferees

° Analysis of the prototype systems functional structure

(Para. 2.3.1).

° Evaluation of the decision-making capabilities in the

prototype cities (Para. 2.3.1).

° Evaluation of the technical aspects of data security

and control (Para. 2.3.2).

° Evaluation of the prototype systems impact on the

organization and the community (Para. 2.3.3).

° Evaluation of the technical quality of the prototype

system designs (Para. 2.3.4).

° Cost/benefit analysis of the prototype systems (Para.

2.3.6).

48.
5 . 3 The Transfer Products

The technical products o£ the USAC program can be classified as systems level products, and concepts and techniques

products.

Of the systems level products, the transfer of sybsystems

appears to offer the largest potential payoff for the USAC program transfer objective. The feasibility of establishing a subsystem level transfer program could be enhanced by the selection of Public Finance as the most logical starting point.

This area seems to be most suitable for selection as the initial

transfer project to demonstrate its adaptability to different

types of jurisdictions, and data processing environments (Para.

3.2.2).

For the transfer of concepts and techniques, it is proposed that they be identified, classified and separately

documented for dissemination (Para. 3.3).

5 . 4 Organizations for Transfer

The following proposals concerning organizations and possible roles with respect to USAC technology transfer are

summarized from the discussions in Paragraph 4.5.

5.4.1 Federal Level Coordination

° Use Existing 0MB Circular A-95 Procedures

The existing procedures for review of proposed

federal assistance projects by the clearinghouses

and federal agencies are appropriate for USAC

transfer. The continuing efforts to seek better

alignment of state designated planning areas with

federally sponsored planning areas and the corresponding realignment of clearinghouse reviews,

should contribute to the effectiveness of the

intergovernmental coordination of information

systems projects.

49.
P.xpand the Role o^f I JSAC

Til 1 s comni L 1 1 ce , supported by i ts techni cal review board, should be chartered to function as an

inter-agency coordinating organization for information systems development projects under federal

assistance prograir's . The functions of the committee

should be expanded to include:

° Technical review of proposed information systems

for compatibility with state and local developments .

° Coordination of data requirements.

° Continuing development of a standard socioeconomic data base.

° Serve as focal point for coordination of federal

requirements through the ACIR.

Specify Federal Agency Coordination Role

The role of the federal agency information coordinating offices in inter-agency coordination

should be specified to include active participation

in and support of the expanded functions of USAC.

Federal Standardization

The functions of the NBS in coordinating federal

and national standards activities with the interests

of state and local governments are currently accomplished through the state ADP Coordinators. The

effectiveness of this role will be enhanced by the

proposals to improve the part icipat ion .,'of state and

local governments in the standards programs which

are described in the succeeding paragraphs.

Technical Support

With respect to USAC technology transfer, expertise in computer systems science, management science

and systems analysis could be effectively utilized

in support of the program. Three areas of support

immediately apparent are:

° Provide technical support to the USAC Inter-Agency

Committee in its expanded role.

° Provide technical support to the Information Systems Technology Clearinghouse (proposed below)

.

° Provide technical support to the technical assistance programs developed by the national public

interest groups (proposed below).

50 . .
NBS, for example, has provided such technical

support.

5.4.2 State-Local Coordination

State and local organizations are required to serve

dual purposes in the coordination of information systems development. Each is related to the goals of USAC transferability.

They must operate to coordinate federal projects with state and

local efforts. They must also operate to improve the technical

quality and compatibility of information systems developed under

state and local government initiatives. Based on the considerations in Paragraph 4.5, it is clear that state and sub-state

organizations performing the following functions are vital

links in intergovernmental coordination.

° Planning and coordinating systems development.

° Providing professional and technical assistance

in the design of systems.

° Coordinating the technical aspects of information

and data flow among governments.

While the establishment of such organizations must

rely on the states and local governments, federal level initiatives can influence their response. The establishment of new

organizations for the coordination of prograriis at the federal

agency level, as proposed in this study, represent one such

initiative. It is also proposed that USAC directly explore

the feasibility of enlisting state support in the establishment

of coordinating organizations similar to the proposed Information

Coordinating Offices, in response to the potential benefits of

the USAC technology transfer program. The national public

51.
interest groups would, of course, play a key role in such a study. The use of the National Association for State Information Systems (NASIS) is also suggested. NASIS, which is an

outgrowth of the Intergovernmental Task Force, fully recognizes

the problems of intergovernmental coordination in information

systems. The state ADP Coordinators were established through

collaboration with NASIS. The membership of NASIS is comprised

of members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches

of state governments. NASIS has established a permanent staff

at the headquarters of the Council of State Governments. It is

actively engaged in programs related to the coordination of

information systems.

5.4.3 Role of the Public Interest Groups

The existing role of the public interest groups in

federal, state, and local consultation through the ACIR is consistent with the proposals for federal agency coordination.

However, the focal point of contact for matters pertaining to

information systems developments should be USAC , in lieu of

individual agencies

.

The current role of the public interest groups in

the dissemination of information pertaining to information

systems should continue to expand as the USAC technology

transfer program proceeds.

An organization such as PTI may be the most appropriate organization to function as the Information Systems

Technology Clearinghouse.

52.
It is also suggested that the public interest

groups be encouraged to develop and operate national programs

through state and local associations, directed to providing

technical assistance to local governments related to the

application of information systems technology.

53.
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL AND STATE PLANNING AREAS

0MB Circular A-95 encourages states to establish a system

o£ planning areas which can provide a consistent geographic

base for the coordination of federal, state and local programs.

The jurisdictional problems created by federal programs at

state and local levels has been compiled and published by the

Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration in

its report on Mul t ij urisdictional Planning Areas in the U.S.

dated May 1971 which is the latest compilation. The status

of alignment of federal and state planning areas is summarized

below based on the data compiled in this report.

° State- Des ignated Planning and Development Areas

These substate areas are intended to define the

mult ij urisdictional boundaries of planning areas within

each state and thus eliminate confusion over the planning required in connection with federal programs. As

of January 1971, thirty-eight states had defined substate regions or districts. The areas thus established

are normally coterminous with county boundaries. While

most of the states have established substate regions

and districts, the accomplishments thus far represent

only a modest progression toward the fulfillment of

the A-95 objectives. Most of the areas that have been

designated must achieve some viable organizational

structure representing the interests of the jurisdictions

involved, and must develop a capability to plan and

coordinate the various programs before they could

function as A-95 clearinghouses. Twelve states are

completely organized into substate districts or regions

and have been designated as planning and development

clearinghouses. Four states have no plans to establish

substate areas. The remainder are in various stages

of progress. The ultimate objective of the A-95 Circular

is to cause the alignment of all federal programs with

54.
the state designated planning districts or regions.

E conomic Development Districts (EDDs)

EDDs represent target areas for planning solutions

to problems o£ economic stress. By law an EDD' must

contain at least two labor market areas exhibiting

economic stress, and at least one community with a potential for economic growth and thereby creating jobs.

Designation of an EDD requires that a plan for economic

development be prepared and approved by the Economic

Development Agency (EDA) of the Department of Commerce.

The organization of an EDD is usually a private or

non-profit corporation. There are approximately

eighty-eight EDD's either designated or funded in thirtyeight states. EDD's are most often concerned with nonmetropolitan regions. The alignment of federal programs

with state defined regions and districts is of interest

to the EDA because of the benefits of the coordinated

planning for economic development. Of the thirty-eight

states that have EDD's, the alignment of EDD boundaries

with the substate boundaries has been essentially

achieved in twenty-three of them.

HUD Comprehensive Planning (701) Grants

The 1954 Housing Act provides for comprehensive

planning grants to metropolitan and non-metropolitan

planning bodies. They include, regional planning bodies,

councils of government, Local Development (within the

Appalachian Regional Commission) , and Economic Development Districts (EDDs) . Of the some three-hundred

planning agencies or districts established throughout

the U.S. there is a general alignment with the state

designated districts or regions in only twenty-five

states.

Resource Conservation and Development Areas

The Department of Agriculture provides technical

and financial assistance for the conservation and

development of natural resources. Technical assistance

is provided through the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)

primarily for the development of plans in conjunction

with the sponsoring organization which may consist of

the soil conservation district, a development corporation,

or a governmental body. The target area, depending on

the sponsoring organization, may or may not follow

county lines. Specific conservation or development

projects are funded based upon the plan developed.

Sixty-five project areas have been established in fortytwo states. In only five states is there any substantial agreement between the state designated districts

or regions and the Department of Agriculture project

areas

.

55.
° Comprehensive Health Planning Areas

The Public Health Service makes grants for areawide assessment of available health care services and

resources and the planning for their improvement to

satisfy health needs. The district or regional organization structure may consist of almost any type of

public or non-profit organization. Most districts

were, in fact, formed specifically to receive these

funds. There are about 137 health planning districts

established in forty-five of the states. In twenty-two

of the states, there is a general conformance with the

state designated regions and districts.

° Department of Labor Manpower Planning Areas

Manpower planning areas were established by the

Department of Labor in order to coordinate all of the

manpower programs for a given area. The coordinating

device within the area consists of a committee composed

of representatives from the local manpower programs.

The committees are coordinating bodies only, and not

planning bodies. Planning for management programs

geared to the needs of the area, is presumably accomplished by some other body or agency. In some states,

separate committees have been established to represent

the metropolitan areas, with a single committee designated for the remainder of the state. This appears

to be the case in seventeen states. In only three

states, however, is there any match between the boundn

aries of the state designated districts or regionsand

the metropolitan manpower planning areas established

by the Department of Labor. Except for three states,

(Montana, Alaska, Hawaii) the remaining states are

divided into substate regions. In only seventeen of

these twenty-nine states is there any substantial

alignment of the manpower-planning areas with the state

designated regions or districts.

° Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Districts

The Department of Justice makes planning grants for

the entire field of law enforcement. Grants are made

to the states who allocate them to various types of

organizations. In four states. North Dakota, Iowa,

Kansas and Rhode Island, any general purpose local

government may apply to the state for LEAA assistance

which has the effect of minimizing coordinated regional

or district planning. The remainder of the states

allocate the funds to substate areas. Of these fortysix states, the substate areas designated as LEAA districts correspond to the A-95 state designated regions

or districts in twenty-one states.

56.
° OEO Community Action Agencies

Community Action Agencies (CAAs) are funded by OEO

to plan for the use of available resources in reducing

poverty in urban and rual areas. Area-wide, CAA's can

be concerned with neighborhoods in large cities, counties,

multi-county areas, and Indian reservations. CAA planning

organizations were mostly formed specifically to utilize

OEO funds. CAA's exist in every state. Since some

CAA's were cities or, in some cases, neighborhoods within cities, it frequently happens that such GAA's operate

as separate bodies within a larger regional area. For

the most part CAA regional areas do not correspond to

state designated regions or districts.

° Air Quality Control Regions

Air quality control regions, which cover the entire

U.S. represent areas where air pollution control pro^

grams can be effectively implemented. The boundaries,

established by the Air Pollution Control Office of the

Environmental Protection Agency, are based on national

and jurisdictional factors. The regions have little

relationship to state designated regions.

57.
APPENDIX B

INTERGOVERNMENTAL INFORMA.TION FLOW

B . 1 Problems in Intergovernmental Information Flow

The problems related to intergovernmental information

flow were largely created by the rapidly increasing number

and types of federal assistance programs in recent years. The

development of information systems to support planning require

ments at federal, state and local levels has paralleled the

growth in federal programs. These information systems are,

for the most part, sponsored and developed wholly or partially

with federal assistance to be responsive to the requirements

of a federal program. The problems of geographic alignment

of planning areas, and of consistent data bases for use in

planning, brought into sharp focus the need to create intergovernmental coordinating mechanisms for federal assistance

programs. The necessity for coordination has led to new

relationships among federal, state and local governments and

planning groups requiring the exchange of reliable information

At the technical level, the essential ingredients for creating

this information flow are:

° Responsive information systems within local general

purpose governments to collect and process the required

data

.

° Technical compatibility of information systems among

governments that reduce the problems of media transformation .

58.
° Commonality of data definitions and formats.

Basic problem. areas which impede information flow are:

° There is a lack of centralized coordination of information systems development at all levels of government*

Federal assistance programs for development and operation of information systems in state and local governments are fragmented among the many federal programs

available. Inadequate coordination of programs at the

federal level has resulted in a lack of coordination on

a state-wide basis, and on a local or regional basis.

Duplication of effort with a consequent waste of

resources has resulted. More importantly, the quality

of the systems developed vary greatly, making the

exchange of information difficult and in some cases

unuseable.

° There is a lack of responsive organizations for the

exchange of technical information among and between

federal, state and local governments concerning the

needs and requirements for the exchange of information

among governments. Many governments proceed with

independent systems development efforts because

"systems know-how" gained through similar experiences

in other governments is not readily available to them.

Aside from the enormous waste of resources incurred,

the systems developed vary greatly in efficiency and

economy, and for the most part do not reflect the

latest state-of-the-art in computer system technology.

Additionally, the lack of technical information interchange has resulted in the development of systems in

which the information is not compatible with the requirements of state and federal agencies for coordinated

planning and programming. The lack of coordinated

information requirements for social and economic data

has probably resulted in the greatest incompatibility

of information systems.

° Most local governments do not possess the technical

expertise to cope with the increasing complexity of

data processing technology, and the application of this

technology to the needs of government. They are

severely handicapped in judging the proposals of private

vendors who frequently do not have a complete understanding of the heeds of government and the political

and social environment in which it must operate. Furthermore, local governments are frequently frustrated by

the uncoordinated information requests of the state and

federal agencies which must be coordinated with the

local government's requirement for information. In

59.
addition to a general lack of technical know-how within

local governments, they do not have the resources to

embark on innovative and costly system development programs on their own.

° The establishment and use o£ information processing

standards provides a unique potential for the achievement of compatible information flow between governmental

information systems. Within the context of intergovernmental cooperation in solving national problems, the

development and use of standard data elements and codes

presents the most fruitful area of activity for

achieving information system compatibility. While the

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) provides

a national framework for the development of standards,

there is essentially no active interest and participation

in this effort by state and local governments. Whether

for this reason, or simply because of a general lack

of appreciation for compatible information, there is a notable absence of recognized standards for data meaning

and representation throughout state and local governments .

B . 2 Intergovernmental Task Force Recommendations

The first requirement is for each individual government

to improve its own information systems. A coordinated approach

to solving national problems requires the coordination of

programs and actions among several departments at the local

or regional level, and among several agencies at state and

federal levels. There is a need to centralize coordination

•and guidance over the development and operation of information

systems which support these programs. The Task Force report

recommends the establishment of Information Coordinating

Offices by all states, and by all local governments where

the size and complexity warrant. These offices would perform

the following functions:

° Plan and coordinate the development of information

systems used throughout the government, including

statistical information.

60.
° Provide professional expertise in analyzing and

improving information systems.

° Prepare long-range (5 year) plans for coordinated

information systems development.

° Analyze the requirements of chief executives for

decision-making information and prepare system development plans to satisfy these requirements.

° Audit requests for information by federal agencies and

state governments on lower levels of government.

The Task Force also recommends establishment of Information Coordinating Offices in each Federal department and

agency. It further recommends that the Office of Management

and Budget assume the function of coordination among the

federal offices. The functions of the federal level offices

would be similar to those of the state and local coordinating

offices, i.e., to coordinate systems development within

agencies to prevent overlapping systems and information requirements, particularly when such requirements impact information

systems at state and local levels of government.

The Task Force report recognized functional information

systems in which information is exchanged between federal,

state and local government systems. Examples of such systems

include agricultural production, crime, education, welfare,

health, etc. As this exchange of information continues to

grow, the costs of developing the information to meet this

need will become very burdensome without close coordination

between governments. There is a requirement to ensure

commonality of data definition and formats in order to achieve

compatibility between systems at the several government levels.

61.
'J'here is a particular need to establish a standard set of

requirements for socio-economic data which are in common use

in most of the functional information systems. The Task

Force recommends the establishment of Intergovernmental

Systems Teams with representation from each level of government. The functions of the teams include:

° Continuing review of the needs for information at each

level of government, and the requirements for compatibility, and related formats and procedures.

° Coordination of these requirements across functional

areas

.

In order to @btain widespread and authoritative response

to the above consultation teams, the Task Force recommends

the establishment of a State-Local Information Advisory

Council to be created jointly by the national associations of

state and local governments (i.e., National Governors

Conference, Council of State Governments, National Association

of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of

Mayors, and International City Managers Association). The

function of this Council would be that of representing state

and local governments in providing advice to the federal

government with respect to information requirements. The

Task Force report also recommends an initial, one-time interagency study project be established to determine a basic set

of socio-economic data that would satisfy the federal agency

program requirements. The study would also include consultation with state and local governments through the Intergovernmental Systems Teams.

62.
There is an urgent need for the dissemination o£ information systems technology throughout federal, state and local

governments. For the dissemination of technical information,

the Task Force recommends the creation of an Intergovernmental

Information Systems Exchange under the auspices of the Advisory

Commission on Intergovernmental Relations with a Steering

Committee comprised of federal government and national association representatives. The functions of the Exchange would

be:

° Maintenance of a central index and descriptive character

istics of governmental systems in use or Being developed

° Maintenance of a central index of standard data elements

and codes, statistical standards, and data processing

standards adopted for general use.

° Continuously collect and disseminate the above information .

° Service inquiries from federal, state and local governments .

° Develop an advisory function with respect to system

needs and standards, and specific problems which need

attention.

The Task Force report proposes three distinct ideas as

follows

:

° Alert local governments to the opportunities and

possibilities to participate in local cooperative

efforts leading to the sharing of system development

costs, and in the operation of systems in shared

computer facilities. This could obviously lead to a greater reliance on regional development programs.

° Expand the idea of local cooperation to the regional

and national level. The Task Force report recommends

that national associations and comparable state and

regional associations develop national, state or

regional programs of technical assistance. Examples

63.
of such programs would include the following;

° Pilot studies and programs to develop new concepts

and techniques.

° Orientation, training and promotion programs directed

to local governments on information systems techniques and applications.

° Programs to support and encourage the use of the

Intergovernmental Information Exchange. •

° Programs to involve local governments in standards

activities.

° Enact the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act and the

Intergovernmental Personnel Act under consideration

in the Congress. The Task Force report envisions that

the results of these acts would enable state and local

governments to benefit directly from the experience

of federal agencies, and from the extensive training

facilities of the federal government.

' Many of the problems in the intergovernmental transfer

of information due to incompatibility of data, could be

sharply reduced by a more widespread adoption and use of

standard data elements and codes. The Task Force report

recommends greater involvement of state and local governments

in the adoption and implementation of standards. The sub--

stance of their recommendations include the following:

° Accelerate the federal program to develop standard

data elements and codes and couple these efforts with

the functions of the previously recommended Intergovernmental Systems Teams.

° Provide state and local government representation on

the ANSI X.3 Committee through the national associations.

° The national associations, with the advice of the previously recommended State-Local Information Advisory

Council, should recommend to their members appropriate

executive and legislative actions to implement ANSI

and federally approved standards.

64 .
APPENDIX C

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. "The Dynamics of Information Flow: Recommendations to

Improve the Flow of Information Within and Among Federal,

State, and Local Governments," Intergovernmental Task

Force on Information Systems, Washington, D.C., April 1968.

2. Office of Intergovernmental Science and Research Utilization, "A Selected Bibliography of Reports on Science and

Technology in State and Local Governments," May 1972,

National Science Foundation.

3. "Public Technology a Tool for Solving National Problems,"

Report of the Committee on Intergovernmental Science

Relations to the Federal Council for Science and Technology, May 1972.

4. U.S. Congress, House, Document No. 92-193, "Message

from the President of the U.S. concerning Science and

Technology," 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, 1972.

5. "Power to the States, Mobilizing Public Technology,"

Summary Report of the Governors' Advisory Committee

Science and Technology Project of the Council of State

Governments, May 1972.

6. "Action Recommendations on Intergovernmental Science

and Technology Programs," The National Governors' Council

on Science and Technology, May 1972.

65.
7. "Multij urisdictional Planning Areas in the U.S."

Department of Commerce, May 19 71.

66.
I)

ACRONYMS

ACIR Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

CSG/NGC Council o£ State Governments/National Governors

Conference

ERDIP Experimental Research and Development Incentives

Program

ETIP Experimental Technology Incentives Program

FAR Federal Assistance Review

FCST Federal Council on Science and Technology

ICMA International City Management Association

NACO National Association of Counties

NASIS National Association of State Information Systems

NBS National Bureau of Standards

NGCS^T National Governor's Council on Science and Technology

NLC/USCM National League of Cities/U.S. Conference of Mayors

NSF National Science Foundation

NTIS National Technical Information Service

OIR Office of Intergovernmental Relations

0MB Office of Management and Budget

OST Office of Science and Technology <

PTI Public Technology Inc.

RANN Research Applied to National Need

USAC Federal Urban Systems Inter-Agency Committee

67.

I OKM nns-i 14A (1-/1) U.S. Lu.n. OI-- COMM. 1. IHJIU.lC.Al l(iN OK l<l-:i'()l<r NO. 2. Cov't Arcivs; itiO BlDLIOGRArtllC DATA N"- SH-JET NBSIR-73-183

3. lU-C'i l-i '. Ai c c in.'] No.

'1. 1 11 1.1-, A\n .suiiTi 11. 1-;

USAC Transferability

5. l-'ubiit a 1 ion IXiic

6. l-'crf oiming Oi j-ani/nt i on f'coc7. AUTllOR(S)

Donald F. QuiQley

8. ) rforriii ng Oi^-.iri i z.ition NP)S1]< 70-163

9. PKRFOR.MISJG ORC.A.N'IZAl ION NAMl' AN!) AniM<r;SS

NATIONAL F<LI1U:AU Ol" STANDARDS

DEPAR TMKNT OF C:0MM1;RCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Hrojfcc/ I'ask/ V.'ork Unit 4314568

11. Contrac t/Grant No. IAA-H^2370

12, Sponsoring Organization Name and Address Ij. 1 ype of Report & Period Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. .ABSIRACr (A 200-%vord or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significan:

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) This is a report on the transferability of the USAC program technology.

USAC is a federal Urban Information Systems Inter-Agency Committee whicli

oversees a program of research and development of municipal information

systems. This report examines the transferability of the program results

from three perspectives: the technical results achieved vis-a-vis its

research objectives, the technology products for transfer, and the

organizations that could participate in the transfer. Proposals to

'7. KEY UORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons) Information systems; management information systems; municipal systems; technology transfer

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

^fj UNLIMITED.

rOROEEICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NT IS.

19. SECURH Y CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCI. ASSUMED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIl'TED

21. NO. OF PAGES

67

22. Prn

USCOMM-DC 6b244-P71

jli