USAC: An Evolving Intergovernmental Mechanism for Urban Information Systems Development

USAC: An Evolving Intergovernmental Mechanism for Urban Information SystemsDevelopmentAuthor(s): Kenneth L. KraemerSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 31, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1971), pp. 543-551Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/974976 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 19:41

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

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

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:41:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/974976?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


543

USAC: An Evolving

Intergovernmental Mechanism

For Urban Information

Systems Development

KENNETH L. KRAEMER, University of California at Irvine

VIEWED BROADLY, the Urban Infor- mation Systems Inter-Agency Committee (USAC) is a dynamic mechanism for channeling federal resources to improve local government administration. Its specific purpose is to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation in urban information systems research and development. USAC is important because it is simultaneously conducting an experiment in product research and development and in administrative organization. The anticipated products are operationally based and integrated information systems. The administrative organization is an evolving network of relationships among many governmental and private units designed to build the prototype systems.

The Precipitating Environment

USAC grew out of a unique set of circum- stances at a particular point in time. Among the main influencing conditions were: (1) the creative federalism movement, (2) urban

The author is particularly grateful to Professors William Mitchel and Henry Fagin, who helped bring into focus the ideas expressed herein. He also ac- knowledges the contributions derived from association with fellow USAC consultants, Myron Weiner and 0. E. Dial; the former Chairman of USAC, Roderick Symmes; and the USAC Committee members and supporting HUD staff.

> USAC was created to promote and guide urban information systems research and development by combining federal financial and technical resources with local governmental and private resources. A consultant to the Committee discusses USAC's evolving organization reflecting on the conditions and need that gave rise to its formation, the direc- tions being set, the philosophy and strategy evolved to carry out its mission, and the administrative arrangements forged. Speculating about the Commit- tee's longer-term viability and significance, he con- cludes that now is the time to examine its goals and future organization.

information systems research conclusions, (3) evolving perceptions of information needs, and (4) facilitating legislation.

Among other things, the creative federalism movement represented recognition that local governments are major instrumentalities through which federal program goals are effec- tuated in an urban society. Creative federalism placed emphasis on providing the means of performance to these units through grants-in- aid. In administering these grants, the responsible federal agencies found they needed information by which they could formulate program objectives, choose among the numerous local grant proposals, and evaluate the results achieved. It soon became apparent that local governments, too, needed improved information to administer the various pro-

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1971



ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

grams. Thus, the problems of achieving coordination between federal aims and local implementation in a loosely knit federal system led many people to conclude that increased flow of information was required throughout the intergovernmental system.

This realization emerged at a time when many local governments relied predominantly on cumbersome, costly, and slow methods of data handling. The absence of any commonly used economical way of generating data by local governments led to and justified urban information systems research. The variety of experiments conducted, the approaches used, and some of the operational results achieved are impressive and are discussed elsewhere.1 Although by no means conclusive, the research conducted particularly in municipalities 2 lent initial validation to the following propositions:

1. Federal agency data requirements from local governments are substantially common. The data essential for local government operating systems are

sufficiently common to federal requirements to warrant their consideration as a primary source of data for meeting those needs.

2. High commonality of data requirements exists among local governments. Data needs can be conceived in systemwide terms and provision made for generating such data as a by-product of local government operations, thereby making it possible to provide economically feasible solutions to the data generation problem.

Despite considerable experimentation with urban information systems during the '60's, the comprehensive, integrated, and operationally based information systems, which the research

suggested as necessary to solve the data generation problem, remained to be built. Further, the technical and behavioral problems inherent in the building of such systems required further research in an operational context.

In looking back at the administrative

arrangements under which information systems work had been conducted, both federal funders and local recipients saw inadequacies. Federal

support of urban information systems research

had tended to follow the segmentation of func- tional government and program. This practice perpetuated the very problem the federal agencies were trying to solve: how to develop mul- tifacted data bases from multiple local jurisdictions to serve intergovernmental data requirements, and, simultaneously, to facilitate integrated local planning and execution of functionally discrete federal programs.

Formal recognition of the need for federal interagency and intergovernmental cooperation to develop urban information systems came with publication in April 1968 of the report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Informa- tion Systems.: The Task Force recommended that the federal government promote and guide the development of local governmentwide information systems. It further recommended that when local governments request assistance in developing such systems, those federal agencies with roles in support of urban information

systems development should respond in a coordinated fashion. These and other recom- mendations of the Task Force were subse-

quently recognized by the Office of Manage- ment and Budget (formerly the Bureau of the

Budget) and promulgated as federal policy under BOB Circular No. A-90.-'

Two important tools for such cooperative action existed in prior legislation: the lead agency concept and the pooling of federal funds. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 ' permitted and encouraged joint federal action to assist local governments. The lead agency concept of the same Act provided for several federal agencies to join together for a common purpose. Under the administrative direction of a lead agency selected because of its dominant financial or programmatic interest, the agencies could review proposals, develop funding arrangements, and manage the

projects funded, all on a joint basis. The

Equal Opportunity Act of 1964 and the Delin-

quency Prevention and Control Act of 1968

provided an additional tool.'; Whereas pre- viously several agencies could pursue a joint program cooperatively under their individual

funding arrangements, these acts contributed a skeletal legal means for agencies to pool their funds for commonly authorized programs and to act as a single entity.


544 PUBLIC



USAC

Collectively, these precipitating influences led to the administrative and programmatic philosophy soon to be embraced by USAC. Basic to this philosophy was the idea that execution of federal policies and programs ulti- mately rests upon the capacity of local governments to activate themselves to pursue improvement in urban conditions successfully. One important way to improve local government capacities appears to be the development of information systems which pr6vide the data needed for government action. Such systems could constitute a significant innovative mechanism for improvement, not only through the information they would make available, but also through: (1) the basic reexamination of governmental processes, (2) the rationaliza- tion and automation of routine information and decision processes, (3) the provision of a current and multifaceted data base to support nonroutine decisions and actions, and (4) the facilitation of intergovernmental information flows. Thus, information systems might constitute a means of bringing about fundamentally improved conditions and outputs in local governments.

USAC's Formation

The foregoing conditions and events led people in several federal agencies to perceive the need for a new framework to deal with the inadequacy of existing urban information systems research and development. Under the leadership of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, meetings were held with representatives of federal agencies with roles implying the support of urban information systems development. It became apparent from these discussions that while there was significant federal interest in the subject, no mechanism for marshaling and directing that interest existed. Accordingly, in August 1968 HUD convened a Federal Urban Information Semi- nar to determine the strategy and focus for federal action and how to create an action mechanism.

The strategy adopted was that the federal government should initiate research and development work rather than merely respond to local requests for financial support. It should

therefore sponsor several research and development projects aimed at building and testing prototype information systems and should emphasize transferability of both the research process and the final system products. Munci- palities were adopted as the immediate focus for research, and within these, comprehensive or governmentwide systems and subsystems (groupings of interrelated municipal functions) as the object of development.

As to a mechanism for concerted federal action, no prior model suited all needs of the anticipated program. The seminar participants felt that any new structure would require: (1) multiple federal agency participation; (2) a single source for setting research and development policy, for providing continuity of effort during the research phase and thereafter, and for establishing funding requirements and priorities; (3) pooling of federal funds and legal provisions that would permit such pooling; (4) a lead agency to act for the others in contractual and program management matters; and (5) participation and cooperation by local governments.

These seminar conclusions regarding strategy, focus, and an action mechanism were pre- sented for appraisal to professional and governmental associations and to the participating federal agencies. The reviews were generally positive; therefore, the seminar participants decided to take the next steps. The USAC Committee was formally established through a letter, dated September 16, 1968, from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to the heads of relevant federal departments, agencies, and bureaus.7 The letter asked the addressees to approve the concept of the Com- mittee and the concept of joint federal agency support of urban information systems development, and to appoint representatives as members of the Committee. After affirmative replies and representative appointments were made, a USAC Committee Memorandum of Understanding was drafted and approved during the period October 1968-January 1969.

The Memorandum establishing USAC provided that the Committee would: (1) report to the Secretary of HUD; (2) be chaired by a representative from that Department; (3) develop an urban information systems research


545




plan; (4) undertake sponsorship of several research and development projects in implementing the plan; (5) receive support services from HUD; (6) establish funding requirements and encourage and recommend fiscal support from federal agencies; and (7) constitute its membership from the Departments of

Transportation, Labor, Army, Commerce, Jus- tice, Health, Education, and Welfare, and

Housing and Urban Development; the Office of Equal Opportunity and the Office of Man-

agement and Budget. Several features of USAC's charter merit

elaboration:

1. USAC is intended as a federal inter-

agency and an intergovernmental coordi-

nating mechanism. Its membership presently includes only federal agencies. However, the charter provides that state and local governments and private organizations may participate in the activities of the Committee as members. It also

encourages financial support from these units.

2. Although USAC chose to direct its initial efforts towards municipal information systems, it may support information

systems development for all local governments including areawide agencies.

3. While the USAC Committee can establish funding requirements and

priorities, it depends on the willingness of member agencies to provide fiscal

support from their appropriations. 4. The legal base for USAC's financial

structure, which permits funding contributions from the departments and agencies, rests upon the provision for pooling federal funds in the legislation of two member agencies: the Office of Equal Opportunity and the Department of Jus- tice.

5. By necessity, USAC operates as a consortium of equal partners: each relies on the participation and financial support of the others to maintain its own participation and support; each brings a federal and local perspective that the others

require; each provides special resources

that permit the group to do collectively

what no one member can do individu-

ally. 6. USAC's organization, an approximation

of the collegial model, represents a

departure from traditional federal hierar- chical structures.

Following its formation, USAC developed a research plan and designed an administrative vehicle for implementation of its objectives. The plan called for use of the contract mechanism and the request for proposals (RFP) as the means of initiating the administrative vehicle.

The forthcoming RFP was informally announced to 369 municipalities. Of these, 269 indicated an interest. RFP's were sent to them with the formal announcement in July 1969.8 In October, 99 proposals were received from 79 municipalities in 30 states. Contract awards were announced in January 1970 with

integrated municipal information system contracts going to Wichita Falls, Texas, and Char- lotte, North Carolina. Subsystem contracts were awarded to Reading, Pennsylvania, for

physical and economic development; Long Beach, California, for public safety; Dayton, Ohio, for public finance; and St. Paul, Minne-

sota, for human resource development.9

The Operant Administrative Vehicle

With the award of contracts, the administrative arrangements that USAC designed for

program execution became operational. The administrative structure thus expresses and reflects the current goals of the organization. That structure is a complex web of relation-

ships within and among the award municipalities, HUD as the project management and control agency, several supporting organizations, and the USAC Committee itself.

Although any simple division of roles inade-

quately expresses the complexity of actual

operations, such a division is useful to describe the structure now operating. The role of the USAC Committee, as the primary program planning vehicle, has already been discussed. Other roles performed are discussed next.

The award municipalities are the prime con- tractors for execution of the research and


546 PUB L IC



USAC

development projects. Associated with each municipality is a private systems/software organization and a university or research center. These three-party consortiums are to develop working information system products immediately useful, but which also can be transferred for use in other municipalities with a minimum of revision and conversion being required. The municipality's particular role in each consortium is to provide overall project management, financial and human resource support, hardware support, and the specific working data generated by operations, all of which are needed for developing and operating the information system. The systems/software subcontractor supplies technical management and information systems specialists to work jointly with municipal personnel. The university provides governmental specialists and behavioral scientists for monitoring project impacts, educating and training municipal personnel, and evaluating project results.

The municipality's project staff, therefore, is a composite of people from these three primary units. It is essentially a dynamic matrix organization in that the particular composite of people and their relationships change with the tasks to be accomplished. Each project staff is tied to the municipality's operating units by responsibility to the chief executive, by a policy committee of government officials, and by one or more user committees composed of people in the units affected by the project.

As lead agency for the USAC Committee, HUD is responsible for federal management and control of the projects. The chairman of USAC is the federal program manager. He has established a technical group comprised of people from HUD's internal information systems staff, contracting offices, and legal staff. This group assisted USAC during its formative period, during preparation of the RFP, during proposal evaluation, and during contract nego- tiations with the cities. The group is now the central point for all contract administration. Thus it is a primary element in USAC's administrative structure.

Project monitoring and evaluation is performed by Site Visit Teams which visit each city quarterly. The teams are variously composed to include members from the USAC

Committee, representatives from USAC participating agencies, HUD's technical staff, the USAC consultants, and the National Bureau of Standards. In adition to reviewing the projects for conformance to USAC goals, these teams also provide advice and guidance to the local project staff, exchange information received from visits to other projects, and receive reports from the project staff as to problems requiring resolution by HUD/USAC, or by joint effort among the consortiums. Thus the site teams are a second key element in USAC's administrative structure.

Supporting USAC, the municipal consortiums, and HUD are two other groups which perform various specialized roles. These groups, constituting a third administrative element, are the National League of Cities and its fellow associations, and the National Bureau of Standards.

The National League of Cities, in association with the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the International City Management Associa- tion, provides continuing consultation and advice from among their staff and membership and conducts special studies. One such study currently under way is an investigation of alternative strategies for the transfer to other municipalities of products developed under the current research. The National Bureau of Standards, through its Technical Analysis Divi- sion, provides personnel for the federal site teams and is further assisting the program by conducting a survey and evaluation of available data base management and applications software.

A fourth administrative structure element is the three-man group of USAC consultants who originally assisted in preparation of the RFP and who now continue their consultative relationships serving primarily in aid of project administration, monitoring, and evaluation. They are also conducting research appraising the current state-of-the-art of municipal information systems in an effort to establish a benchmark against which progress can be measured.

Aside from HUD's role, the major vehicle for achieving coordination and exchange of information among all members of the USAC program is the Inter-Consortium Panel (ICP),


547




the fifth administrative element. This panel is designed primarily as a forum for the local consortiums to share project experiences, present ideas or research findings, and explore common problems. However, it also serves as a forum for the general USAC program mem-

bership and for others (e.g., state officials) who have an interest in the USAC program.

The League of Cities, Conference of

Mayors, and City Management Association serve as the basic communication vehicle between USAC and cities throughout the nation. They jointly publish information about USAC programs, projects, and products, and

report on the Inter-Consortium Panel meet-

ings. The USAC consultants assist in this communication function through contacts with the 79 proposal cities while conducting the state- of-the-art study. The Inter-Consortium Panel is also a vehicle for communicating with outside agencies.

Three Perspectives on USAC's

Development to Date

USAC and its implementing matrix of organizations are now in operation and appear to be relatively effective in carrying out the immediate research program. However, in

looking back at USAC's administrative devel-

opment to date, three features are worth dis-

tinguishing: (1) the utility of USAC as a model for launching innovative programs within the framework of creative federalism, (2) the shift in USAC's function from a planning body to a monitoring and review body integral to a larger operating structure, and

(3) certain inherent weaknesses of USAC that are becoming apparent in USAC's functioning as the apex upon which the present administrative vehicle rests.

Creative federalism is aimed at evolving a

working partnership among and between fed-

eral, state, and local governments, and among and between these and the private sector. By necessity, this intergovernmental movement involves a loosely structured network of rela-

tionships to meld the differing goals and

responsibilities, specialized resources and capa- bilities, and unique environmental conditions of each partner. Given this multiplicity and

diversity, the central administrative problem is to organize and mobilize the potential conger- ies of forces towards specific goal achievement. Further, the inherent complexity of research and development means that while the particular goal sought can be specified, it is impossible to know in advance whether that goal can be achieved. Thus, both creative federalism and the research and development task have

required that USAC develop an administrative vehicle permitting flexible implementation within broad goals.

The tool chosen by USAC to achieve this tenuous balance was the contract. That is, in

developing its research goals and program, USAC designed an administrative vehicle based on a web of mutually beneficial

exchange relationships and tied together by a set of contracts. The first contract was among the federal departments and agencies constitut-

ing the USAC Committee and designating HUD as the lead agency for program management. Operating through its lead agency, USAC in turn generated other elements of the administrative vehicle through further contracts: with the award municipalities and

through them with their associated consortium members; with the National League of Cities and through it with the U.S. Conference of

Mayors and the International City Manage- ment Association; with the triad of USAC

consultants; and with the National Bureau of Standards.

The utility of this contract structure, in addition to permitting use of multiple and diverse resources, is that it sets up controlling conditions by calling for specific products but allows flexibility in determining how these

products will be provided. The contract structure further provides for successively more detailed goal specification and specialization of function at each point when subcontracts are created. Thus, the USAC contract structure in the framework of creative federalism per- forms the administrative function of the table of organization and operating plans customarily developed to help administer monolithic organizations. Such linking machanisms are essential to goal accomplishment in a complex task environment. The administrative mechanism chosen by USAC appears well suited to its task


548 PUBLIC



USAC

and environment and may be significant as a model for public administration.

Basically, USAC has been a program planning and advocating body. It conceived the urban information systems research program, planned the extant contractual structure to implement that program, and mobilized federal financial resources to activate that structure. Once the structure was activated, the Commit- tee's planning role ceased and new roles emerged. That is, the administrative vehicle created pursuant to the planning called for both an operational program and a monitoring and review program. USAC has taken on the latter funtion through the participation of its members on project review panels, federal site visit teams, and the Inter-Consortium Panel.

Thus, in the dynamics of operation, USAC's particular role in the program's administrative structure has evolved to one that is basically supportive of other efforts. This has been a salutary shift, making USAC resources available to HUD and to the local consortiums. However, USAC's greatest utility probably remains in its continuing function as a program planning and activating mechanism, a function demonstrated by its creation of the current operational program. As that program nears completion in the next several years, and before planning for the next program phase occurs, USAC's role will probably need to shift once again back to the earlier emphasis. Since the planning lead time for any extension beyond current efforts involves several years, the USAC Committee may now need to consider reactivating its earlier function for the innova- tion of tasks that lie ahead. Therefore, it would seem useful for the Committee to act as though it were a permanent planning body (even though not formally constituted as such), so as to engage in continuous comprehensive planning for urban information systems research and development.

It is helpful, conceptually, to view USAC as the apex from which the entire administrative structure now in operation is supported. It seems clear that the viability of that structure relies heavily upon the continued strength of the apex. Although USAC's structure seems secure for the present tasks, two key factors may tend to weaken its longer-term viability:

legislative authorization and appropriation. USAC is a consortium of federal depart-

ments and agencies which individually have a legislative base for the support and development of urban information systems. These agencies have joined together because their interests and roles are substantially common and because they can do together what no one agency can do even if it has large resources. However, the agencies' continued participation in USAC requires continuation of present legislation authorizing: (1) each agency a role in urban information systems development, (2) a number of agencies to join together for a common purpose, and (3) two or more agencies to "pool" funds for such purposes. Con- tinued participation also requires the mainte- nance of interest within each agency for supporting USAC goals.

Even with permissive legislation and active interest, agency appropriations for urban information systems work are required. And since each agency operates a number of programs in support of information systems development, the alternative demands competing with the USAC program for available funds are great.

These factors underline the substantial accomplishment of the initial USAC Commit- tee and its lead agency in launching the present research projects. They also indicate the importance of demonstrated accomplishments from the municipalities conducting the research. However, more fundamentally, these factors raise a question as to whether USAC can reasonably expect to operate from the present bases for any extension beyond the current effort.

USAC's Future Evolution

Both USAC's demonstrated utility as a mechanism for mobilizing and channeling federal resources and the weaknesses inherent in its present structure argue for early and careful consideration of its future evolution. It seems probable that new as well as modified administrative structures will need to be designed and activated for the next logical phase beyond the present program. USAC as presently constituted may be inadequate to serve these next steps. USAC's present structure was suitable


549




while its task was limited to initiating research

projects in a small number of cities. When the

program is extended, for example to the transfer of prototype products to other municipalities, a different kind of organization may be required to meet immensely more complex program goals. Because of the lead time involved in formulating such goals and creating implementing organizational arrangements, the USAC Committee should consider now how its structure will need to evolve or be replaced for the tasks that lie ahead.

Among the things to be considered are: (1) the direction of future efforts, (2) the administrative structures needed to carry out those efforts, and (3) the environmental constraints that may significantly affect both future efforts and structures.

Assuming the current research and development phase is proving highly successful, the next phase could involve any or all of the fol-

lowing goals: 1. Early testing of transferability to other

municipalities of the system products developed under the current effort.

2. Subsequent widespread transfer of pro- totypes to other municipalities.

3. Further research and development, e.g., extension of information systems devel-

opment to other local jurisdictions, or formal linkage of locally developed information systems to county, areawide, state, and federal systems.

4. Research into the uses of information in an environment where data generation is no longer the limiting problem. Included here might be research into: ways of

structuring the data in the system for

management and planning purposes; analytic uses of data, particularly for

model-building and system simulations; urban research aimed at better under-

standing the structure and functioning of the urban system, the governmental system, and the interrelation of the two.

These then are some possible future direc- tions. Which objectives are chosen will significantly affect the next administrative ar-

rangements to be forged. However, the

arrangements possible may also modify the

goals sought, since administrative structural forms and output products are mutually inter- dependent. Clearly, USAC itself is not a com- plete administrative mechanism, but rather a component program planning mechanism. It must therefore help create an organization for program administration. The form of that organization may be similar to the one presently in being or it may more nearly resemble the pattern of existing executive bureaus; it may be constituted as a quasi-independent agency; it may be designed as a new intergovernmental body; or it may assume a form not now conceived. The particular form chosen for implementing USAC's goals will in turn affect its organization. Thus, the direction of USAC's future efforts, its policy-making structure, and the administrative structures that may be needed to carry out its objectives are all interrelated. They should be examined from a broad perspective.

In conducting this self-examination, several environmental constraints need to be considered, as they may importantly affect the goals sought and the structures evolved. Among the most important of these are: possible federal

legislation, the still-to-be-proven transferability of USAC products, future state, regional and

county participation in information systems development, and the emergence of a national understanding and demand for USAC's program.

Conclusion

USAC is a particular administrative mechanism, shaped by an intergovernmental operating environment, and formed to fulfill a

specific need: urban information systems research and development. It has established a

larger administrative vehicle to carry out its

goals, and that vehicle appears to be function-

ing well. Looking ahead to completion of the current research program, USAC appears to be at an important point in its evolution. The lead time required to initiate extended goals suggests that the USAC Committee might begin now to plan for them. Moreover, USAC itself as an instrumentality appears to warrant fundamental examination. The Committee needs to be viewed broadly as a mechanism


550 PUBLIC



USAC

for bringing about changed conditions in the environment in which it operates-the federal government, states, and urban areas. Thus, USAC might also consider its own evolving organization.

Finally, from the standpoint of the field of public administration, USAC's particular function, useful though it may be, may be less significant than its form and context. A central problem in creative federalism has been to integrate for specific goal achievement the numerous, diverse, and loosely linked units in the society within an administrative framework that permits the flexibility that each requires.

The form adopted by USAC was a set of contractual relationships-first among its member units and then between one of these and several outside entities, each of which formed other contractual relationships, eventually resulting in an operant administrative vehicle. Thus, a spin-off utility of the USAC mechanism may lie in its potential as a general model of flexible administrative organization, especially suited to the framework of creative federalism. That model also appears useful for initiating and testing other innovative programs within a complex interorganizational environment.

Notes

1. Kenneth L. Kraemer, 'The Evolution of Infor- mation Systems for Urban Administration," PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, Vol. XXIX (July-August 1969), pp. 389-402.

2. For example, the work of the Municipal Infor- mation and Decision Systems Group at the Uni- versity of Southern California, the IBM-New Haven Study, the Municipal Technology Pro- gram at the University of Connecticut, and the Cincinnati Urban Data Center.

3. Intergovernmental Task Force on Information Systems, The Dynamics of Information Flow (Washington, D.C.: the Task Force, April 1968).

4. U.S. Bureau of the Budget, Circular No. A-90, "Cooperating with State and Local Governments to Coordinate and Improve Information Sys- tems," September 21, 1968.

5. The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, PL 90-577, October 16, 1968, 82 STAT 1098, USCA, Title 402, Sections 531-535; Title 42, Sections 4201, 4211-4214, 4221-4225, 4231- 4233, 4241-4244.

6. Section 612 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended (42 USC 2962); and Sec- tion 406 of the Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968, as amended (42 USC 3886).

7. Letter from Secretary Weaver regarding "Fed- eral Support of Urban Information Systems Development," dated September 16, 1968.

8. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- opment, Request fo, Proposals No. H-2-70 for Municipal Information Systems (Washington, D.C.: the Department, 1969).

9. The organizations associated with each award municipality as a consortium were: (a) Wichita Falls: BASYS Inc. (Booze-Allen Systems) and the University of Kansas; (b) Charlotte: Sys- tems Development Corporation and the Depart- ment of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina; (c) Reading: Systems and Computer Technology Corporation, UNIVAC Division of Sperry Rand Corp., and the Frank- lin Institute Research Laboratories; (d) Long Beach: Mauchley-Wood Corporation (subsidiary of Scientific Resources, Inc.) and the Institute for Police Studies, California State College at Long Beach; (e) Dayton: Westinghouse Public Systems Management Services (formerly West- inghouse Information Systems Laboratory) and the University of Dayton; and (f) St. Paul: The ARIES-Midwest Corporation and the Manage- ment Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota.


551



Documents

USAC: An Evolving Intergovernmental Mechanism for Urban Information Systems Development