PROPOSAL FOR MEETING THE
BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR RESOURCE PLANNING
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Water Quality Administration
Southeast Region
January, 1971
-------
80OK71O01
PROPOSAL FOR MEETING THE
BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR RESOURCE PLANNING
By
G. V. Lyle
Chief Economist
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Water Quality Administration
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
January, 1971
-------
PROPOSAL FOR MEETING THE
BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR RESOURCE PLANNING -
By
C. V. Lyle
This paper is concerned with the practical aspects of
public and private group efforts at planning—both short- and long-
term. Coordinated planning between programs and areas must be
developed from commonly accepted economic base data projections.
Such projections for small areas can best be achieved through the
creation or reorientation of a center in each state with official
responsibility for developing state and local area projections.
This responsibility would strengthen rather than conflict with the
programs of Federal agencies or of state agencies now in the
Federal-state cooperative programs in such fields as current
estimates of local area population and personal income.
In this connection, please permit me to make the obvious
point, as a matter of emphasis, that a major problem stems from
the fact that we (professional economists, planners, administrators,
and so on) are far better supplied with national, regional, and
state projections than with those of a local nature. However, it
is the local projection which must be used for most investment
planning.
I/ The word "Resource" is used in its broadest sense—the human
resource as well as others more commonly included. It is suggested
that these basic requirements apply not only to plan formulation and
evaluation but to effective implementation as well.
1.
-------
2.
The Nature of Data Projections
My own experience as a professional economist has been
more explicitly related to efforts at developing program and project
plans for Federal agencies. Consequently, this paper will likely
be oriented more toward Federal efforts than might be desirable.
However, we believe it can be demonstrated that the basic require-
ments for meaningful planning (amenable to successful implementation)
are essentially the same; whether Federal, non-Federal public, or
private. Details required for specified purposes will, of course,
be quite different, but all planning must be concerned with assump-
tions regarding changes in population, employment, and industry
during the period for which the plan is developed regardless of
whether planning is for water quality control, education, highway
construction, product and sales, or other action. In brief, our
primary concern is people.
Irrespective of the meaningfulness of such projections,
many Federal plans are required to cover periods of 50 years or
more. One basic argument for these long-term considerations is
that capital is oftentimes "sunk" in structural facilities having
a physical, if not economic, life of 50 years or more. If these
structures, as is often the case, are relatively inflexible
regarding purposes and alternative uses, it is apparently assumed
that they must be demonstrated to have a measurable use value for
the built-in purposes and uses for the estimated life of each structure
-------
3.
or group of structures. Actually, although this phenomenon is
likely more common to Federal projects (such as big dams and
reservoirs) it is certainly not unique to them. Private construc-
tion frequently requires commitments for 20 to 30 years or more.
Poor individual planning for the construction of a private residence
often leads to economic and social hardships, if not near disaster,
for example. Private business and industrial structures and appur-
tenances, particularly the more expensive ones, involve more people
and a longer time span over which they succeed or fail, as a rule,
than does a private residence.
The preceding discussion is not intended to infer that
the best possible planning can always assure success or that the
use of resources will necessarily be optimized in any real sense.
Robert Burns, I believe, put it more succinctly. However, it is
expected that realistic and meaningful planning will minimize the
probability of failure. There are numerous reasons for this, some
of which are quite obvious. The greatest weakness lies in the
assumptions which must be made because there are no "facts" and
relatively few reasonable certainties available regarding the
future conditions, even for the short-run, much less for the long-
run. As a matter of record, I think it can truthfully be said
«
that relatively few facts are available at present. Much of the
data we use as factual are actually out of date before becoming
-------
4.
available for our use. Consequently, about all we can be reasonably
certain of is that which we can see. However, from a practical point
of view, that is approaching too closely the position illustrated by
the story of the two Quakers discussing the trustworthiness of man.
One said, "Brother, I've concluded that I can trust no man except
me and thee—and, sometimes I have my doubts about thee!"
It is patently impossible to plan without some form of
projection. Even assuming that everything remains static and in
its current condition (such as a plan based upon the present situa-
tion with respect to price levels, technology, population, industry,
and so on) an implicit projection of this condition has been used
and it is likely the worst possible assumption that can be made
because experience shows that changes will most certainly occur.
The uncertainty relates to the degree and direction of change.
Rather than belabor this point, however, please permit me to refer
you to a paper by Professor Ormond Corry, which deals with the
problems inherent in attempts to develop rational user projections
21
in considerable detail.— In this paper he differentiates between
projections and predictions or forecasts. As Professor Corry
correctly says in his paper regarding projections, "....the things
to watch are the assumptions, and the implicit assumptions may
2/ "Potential Demand and Current Resources for Medicare Services:
The People, Their Numbers, Ages and Family Incomes to 1975," by
Ormond C. Corry, The University of Tennessee. Paper presented before
the Statistical Section, Annual Meeting of Tennessee Public Health
Association and Conference of Public Health Workers, October 6, 1966.
-------
5.
range from the choices and uses of input data to over-simplifica-
tion of complex phenomena." The most sophisticated projections
have explicit statements regarding what the author considers to
be the major assumptions.
Unfortunately, our experience indicates that small-area
projections are, or should be, influenced to some degree by implicit
assumptions which are not, perhaps cannot, be stated at all. How
does one state the effects of religion, community mores, general
attitudes, political schisms, etc., on community growth? I have
observed some of their effects within numerous communities during
more than 30 years of involvement in water resource development
studies. In many of these studies, primary data were collected
through interviews with thousands of individuals and firms. In
many instances, it was found that the economic status of an entire
community, sometimes an entire county, was significantly influenced
3/
by one or more of the mathematically "non-quantifiable" — factors.
How else, for example, does one explain the absence of the most
lucrative agricultural enterprise from a community located in
the middle of a larger region noted for producing the commodity
in question? Other factors being essentially the same, individual
explanations were that "it was against their religion to use the
product or to produce the crop." These and other similar experiences
3/ Not usually quantified or taken into explicit account in
mathematical projections.
-------
6.
and observations have convinced me that the most acceptable small-
area projections must take into account the factors which are difficult
to quantify, even though a somewhat generalized and subjective adjust-
ment for them is resorted to. This element of the problem was one of
many reasons for creating, using, and encouraging the continued use
of advisory committees comprised of the most knowledgeable local
people practicable in each State of the Southeast Region for arriving
4/
at mutually acceptable projections for use in planning.—
tjj See "Georgia County Population Projections as Developed by the
Georgia Social Sciences Advisory Committee," by C. V. Lyle and
published by the Industrial Development Division, Engineering Experiment
Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, February 1968, (pp 1-7), and
"Economic Problems of Water Pollution Control in the Southeast" by
C. V- Lyle, USDI, FWPCA—a paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Association of Southern Agricultural Workers, Louisville,
Kentucky, February 5-7, 1968, (pp 2 and 3).
-------
7.
Need for a Commonly Accepted Projective Economic Base
Meaningful planning, responsive to minimum needs for evalua-
tion, requires that attempts be made to describe the following
situations:
1. The future condition expected to prevail in the
absence of the planned effects of new programs or projects
proposed. A curve drawn to describe this condition over
time may be called the "normal" — growth path.
2. The future condition as modified by expected effects
from the planned program or project. A curve drawn to
describe this condition may be called the "planned" —
growth path.
V "Normal growth path or "normalized"projections—
As used, this refers to expected future growth in the absence
of newly planned or unanticipated programs, projects, technological
developments, and so on. All major assumptions, as well as assumed
inclusions, should be stated. Pertinent parameters involved are
specified separately, with interactions and interrelationships
taken into full account.
6_/ "Planned" growth path—
This is intended to reflect the new rate of growth assumed to be
caused by the program or project under consideration. The same
major parameters are described separately for the "planned" growth
path as for the "normal."
-------
8.
3. Obviously, if all reasonable alternatives are
examined and taken into appropriate account, a growth
path must be developed and described for each alterna-
tive. An evaluation of each alternative, when compared
to others assigned to meet essentially the same objectives,
can be expected to result in one being recommended over
the others for achieving the program or project objective
for changing the "normal" (without program or project)
growth.
4. The differences between the "normalized" growth
path (without program or project conditions) and the
"planned" growth path (with program or project conditions)
provide the information required for describing the impact
of any plan or alternative plan when implemented. As
inferred in item 3, above, it also provides the appropriate
basis for evaluating such impact.
The evidence is clear that plans are commonly made and
evaluated without reference to a common and mutually acceptable
point of departure—such as the one we have chosen to call the
"normalized" growth path. However, when this is done, practically
all possibility of achieving comparability between plans is lost.
An engineer, for example, who accomplished his work through the
use of "temporary bench marks" does essentially the same thing in
principle and, although it may serve his immediate purpose just
-------
9.
as well, no other engineer will know how to check his work or
compare it with similar work performed by others. On the other
hand, however, if he uses "mean sea level" as his point of departure,
others can determine his point of departure, can check his results,
and can perform their work in a manner designed to secure comparable
results.
"Normalized" projections may be viewed as the social
scientist's equivalent of the engineer's "mean sea level" for survey
and related planning purposes. At this point, it should be emphasized
that, although it makes comparability of results possible, it does
not assure such comparability. However, use of a common base does
make it possible, as well as feasible, for others to check for
comparability with other programs and projects. Without it, however,
such checks are practically impossible (at least, not usually
feasible). Much more, I am sure, could be said in favor of the
use of a commonly acceptable point of departure for planning
purposes. Much may also argue against such procedures. Most
arguments, however, which militate against this approach are
equally applicable to any other approach utilized for estimating
future conditions. Planning, by its very nature, is futuristic
and demands either deliberate or indeliberate use of projections.
-------
10.
Need for a State "Center"
As I see it, adequate organizational and institutional
arrangements for implementing a satisfactory solution to the
problem of providing a commonly accepted projective economic base
will involve the use of state "centers" in which the professional
competence has been developed to perform the analytical work, the
projections, and the coordinating functions required. It will also
involve the use of advisory committees to provide the input of
local knowledge required to take account of the effects of the social,
cultural, and religious peculiarities of each small area for which
projections are developed. The advisory committee — should also
serve as a competent group for reviewing results produced by the
"Center" to ascertain their mutual acceptability for planning and
implementation purposes—Federal, non-Federal public, and private.
This will require the maximum "feedback" practicable, if it is to
function most effectively and in a manner satisfactory to most
participants. Another advantage of the committee approach is its
ability to provide a meaningful forum for communication on the
development and uses of projections.
Justification
It is said that "an idea whose time has come will not be
denied." Numerous Federal and state actions (many of them recent)
recognize the need for coordination and cooperation in many fields
11 See footnote 4 above.
-------
11.
of mutual interest. The tremendous response to the individual and
purely voluntary State Social Sciences Advisory Committees created
on an informal basis throughout the Southeast, beginning over five
years ago, indicated the widespread realization that a problem existed
(and still exists) in the area of economic base projections which
needed correction. Among planners, this conclusion appears to be
almost unanimous.
The need for a recognized and competent "center" in each
State to develop and, especially, to coordinate small-area economic
base projections to serve as the underlying basis for planning is
indicated by the following observations:
1. The tendency to proliferate unnecessarily—i.e., the
development of too many duplicative projections which are
often not only unrelated but inadequately described and
substantiated. This propensity has appropriately been
described as the "reinvention of the wheel."
2. The tendency to leave gaps—i.e., the failure of
current "hit or miss" methods to develop any projections
for certain small areas. Any tendency in this direction
can be avoided by the use of the "Center" concept.
3. The tendency to produce small- and intermediate-area
projections in a "vacuum"—i.e., the failure in too many
instances to appropriately relate projections of the expected
growth of one area to that of other closely associated areas
-------
12.
and to the nation as a whole. Interrelationships and
interdependencies among and between areas must be taken
into appropriate account if projections are to have
acceptable validity for planning purposes.
4. The tendency of most projectionists to omit adequate
statements of assumptions, methods, and techniques used.
This leaves the potential user in a quandary not only as
to the validity of the projections for any purpose but,
even if accepted on "good faith," uncertain as to their
applicability in solving his planning problems. The ones
the Committees are currently using fall in this category.
Although they are used as the "best available," we would
».certainly prefer more acceptable ones. A "Center" adequately
staffed for this purpose can be expected to help correct
this situation.
5. The tendency of each individual or group, irrespective
of competence, to assume an "accuracy" in their own projections
and an "inaccuracy" in all others. This only leads to con-
fusion. Except for the mechanics of the calculations used,
we contend that obtaining "accuracy" in a projection is as
impossible as developing "perpetual motion." What we are
seeking is "acceptability" to users. This must, of course,
include "validity" for the purpose for which the projections
are used. To achieve mutual acceptability, we feel the
-------
13.
initial effort of the "Center" must be limited to developing
a "normalized" projection designed for use as a basis for
planning—not a projection that embodies the effects of any
new plan or technological development in addition to the
effects of normal growth trends in their absence. Developing
projections with this in mind avoids implications of pre-
empting the authority and responsibility of others for developing
future plans designed to modify growth patterns (whether delibe-
rately or indeliberately). It also avoids the impossible task
of foreseeing and measuring the impact on growth of unknown
future technological developments, economic movements, and so
on. It does, however, provide a stable basis for measuring
impacts of new programs, projects, technological developments,
and so on, as they emerge and are clearly defined.
I think it is obvious that tremendous inefficiencies exist
because current procedures utilized in developing projections for use
in planning are basically unsound and ineffective, and they are most
certainly far from satisfactory to most professional people involved
in planning (i.e., economists, planners, engineers, administrators,
and so on). Great savings of both public and private capital can be
expected to result by eliminating duplicative efforts and the results
will certainly be more acceptable for planning and program evaluation
and implementation purposes.
-------
Responsibilities of the "Center"
A first responsibility of the "Center" should be to develop,
coordinate and disseminate all official current estimates of State
and small-area demographic and related economic base values required
for use in planning. Most states already have one or more centers
which perform portions of such work. None, however, with the possible
exception of Georgia, have explicit charges to develop long-term
economic base projections which are compatible with those Federal
water resource planners are required to use. Georgia now has an
Act entitled "Georgia Act 1066, 1970" which recognizes the need for
intergovernmental cooperation and which meets the same requirements
of the Bureau of the Budget Circulars Federal agencies must meet.
And, by interpretation of the Act's provision by the Director of the
"Bureau of State Planning and Community Affairs", which was created
by the Act, this State agency will develop the competence required
and act as the "Center" for the State of Georgia.
A statement provided by Professor Ormond C. Corry in response
to my request for a review of an earlier draft of this paper sum-
marizes work now underway by state agencies in the fields of current
!/
estimates of local-area population and personal income.
8/ Also see Ormond C. Corry, "Filling the Intercensal Data Gap:
Census Bureau Cooperative Estimate Program," Tennessee Survey of
Business, April 1970, pp. 3-6, 16.
-------
15.
"The Georgia State Planning Bureau and state university
centers or bureaus of business and economic research in other
southeastern states are participants in the Bureau of the
Census' Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Area
Population Estimates. These agencies have been designated
as state representatives by the governor's office in each
state and the Census Bureau has created a new publication
series for national distribution of their annual population
estimates. Thus, the estimates should attain official
status for intrastate uses and provide bases for more
extensive demographic work.
"Also, the university bureaus of the southeastern states
have accepted for analysis and publication the Office of
Business Economics annual estimates of personal income by
county. Reports have been published by the Kentucky,
Mississippi, and Tennessee bureaus and other state reports
are being prepared. The bureaus are now developing plans
for expanding this interstate cooperative work, which has
been done through the County Income Conference, to include
broader based economic analyses and projections for local
areas. The projections are to be consistent with official
or authoritative national data such as those on population,
personal income and employment developed for the Water
Resources Council by QBE, and, possibly, the employment-
occupation manpower projections by BLS."
-------
16.
Responsibility for historical information and current
estimates requires coordination among various Federal departments
and agencies having a legislative mandate to provide, among other
data, the input elements of the economic base. Thus, in addition
to the programs cited above, the Water Resources Council has
current responsibility for coordinating the planning for all
Federal water resources agencies. With support provided by the
Council, the Office of Business Economics, Department of Commerce,
and the Economic Research Service, Department of Agriculture, have
made, and are now revising to completed form, statistically con-
sistent population, employment, and personal income projections
for selected years to the year 2020 for the "QBE Economic Areas"
and the Water Resource Planning Areas of the nation, as jointly
delineated by Federal, State and local agencies.
The essence of this proposal is that the "Center",
whether it is a State agency with a broad multiple purpose
program or a new special mission one, should have officially
designated responsibility for developing, coordinating, and
disseminating short- and long-term State and small-area economic
base projections. Principal concern at present should be the
development of State and small-area projections which are completely
-------
17.
9/
compatible with (and as disaggregations of) — those being developed
by the Office of Business Economics and the Economic Research Service
(OBERS) for the Water Resources Council. The authoritative and compre-
hensive nature of the Water Resource Council projections gives them an
"official" status other projections do not have. They provide the
normalized growth paths for QBE Economic Areas and Water Resource
Planning Areas required by many agencies and groups. They also provide
an ideal basis for the development of disaggregated and commonly accept-
able projections for smaller areas and other area combinations which,
in turn, provide the flexibility required of the economic base values
if the many and diverse planning purposes of the various planning
groups are to be served.
As the "Center" develops staff competence and capability, it
can be expected to accept contractual responsibility, as may be found
mutually desirable, for providing expert assistance needed by "action"
agencies having specific authority and responsibility for formulating,
evaluating, and implementing programs and projects. Both public and
private agencies and corporations (including consulting firms) can be
expected to utilize the services of such a "Center" in the interest
of their own internal efficiences and flexibilities as well as in the
interest of the general public.
9/ There is a disagreement among experts in the field regarding this
point. Comparability and compatibility are of vital importance and may be
more easily obtained through use of the same statistical procedures in
disaggregating "OBE Economic Areas" to smaller areas as were used by QBE
in disaggregating national values to Economic Area values. However, there
are other important considerations to be accounted for in making small-area
projections, as previously indicated, which are not accounted for in the
OBE model or any other purely disaggregative model with which I am familiar.
-------
18.
Staffing and Cost of State "Center"
Staff requirements and cost can vary tremendously, depending upon
what view is taken regarding the scope of responsibilities of the "Center"
as well as upon the acceptable output made available by other closely
related agencies and groups. Most Bureaus of Business and Economic Research,
for example, already have the authority and staff capability to develop
the demographic and economic estimates required as a basis for projections,
to analyze current and historical data, and to make both small- and
large-area forecasts (usually short-run—one year or less). A few have
become involved in relatively long-run projections. None, however, have
yet integrated these with the national projections of the Water Resources
Council in a manner calculated to make them useful for planning by both
Federal and non-Federal resource planners (particularly, water resource
planners who are coordinated by the Water Resources Council). Thus far,
the latter statement is also applicable to State planning agencies.
In the preparation of this paper, advice was sought from numerous
knowledgeable individuals within the major universities and State planning
agencies of the Southeast. In responses received, some of the variations
as to the size and composition of a staff for the "Center" are likely
explained by the differences in usable related work currently being per-
formed in each State. Most of the variations, however, appear to involve
conceptual differences regarding the appropriate functions of such a center.
-------
19.
All respondents — who specified staff composition were generally
agreed on the disciplines required for the task to be performed by
the "Center". Most of the differences involved specialties within
the broad disciplinary groups. In all cases, it was proposed that
the director of the "Center" be an economist (either an economic planner
or analyst, regional economist, "an economist with broad experience
in Macro theory and applications," and so on). As was pointed out by
Mr. Trott — "he [the director] should have the capability to come to
conclusions in the area of socio-economic and demographic problems for
small geographic areas. Also, he must be able to make these decisions
in the absence of 'perfect' data... Additionally, the director should
be.... politically astute at both the State and local level...."
In one way or another, it was recognized that (in addition to the
economist-director) staff competence must be available to the "Center"
on a routine basis for the following specialties: (1) demography,
(2) computer programming, (3) agricultural economics, (4) graphic
illustration, (5) sociology, (6) civil engineering, and (7) statistics.
10/ The term "respondents" is used here to refer to those reviewing
preliminary drafts of papers on the subject under discussion in this
paper and is comprised of professionals given credit under the section
on "Acknowledgments" for contributions to it.
ll/ Edward A. Trott, Jr., Supervisory Economist, Economic Service
Branch, Regional Economics Division, USDC-OBE.
-------
20.
I would also add: (1) industrial engineering, (2) industrial economics,
and (3) hydrology (flood and drought probability analyses in particular).
If program and project impact studies are to be undertaken, photo inter-
pretation specialists can also be of great help in reducing the cost of
identifying significant cultural features of the landscape ahead of
necessary field investigations. This specialty, however, may be expected
to be a part of the qualifications of one of the others already mentioned
(particularly one of the engineers). When, and if, impact studies are
undertaken many other disciplines will also be required. However, it
can be expected that the agency authorized to perform the work will
provide them.
Most of the disciplines and specialties would not be needed by
the "Center" on a full-time basis. Consequently, a major problem is
contingent on arrangements for having them available to the "Center"
when needed—without employing all on a full-time basis at a prohibitive
cost for the purposes at hand. Solution to this problem, as a first
step, involves the careful analysis of institutional, organizational,
and staffing arrangements available within the State (on a practical
basis) for accomplishing any part of the total task visualized as the ulti-
mate responsibility of the "Center".
There are two basic organizational approaches to the problem which
either have been or may be used successfully in the above connection.
Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. One involves location of
-------
21.
the "Center" in a unit of State government (particularly in instances
where current legislation requires that a unit of State government have
responsibility for all estimates and projections for planning purposes
as was indicated for Georgia). Another involves locating the "Center"
within a Bureau of Business and Economic Research (or its equivalent)
at a major State university. It is my understanding, for example, that
the latter is the most probable course of action to be followed in the
states of Alabama and Florida. In other states of the Southeast, the
course is not equally clear. Some combination of the two basic approaches
may be required in some states and would likely prove more efficient in
all. In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Planning Board is clearly
recognized by all Commonwealth agencies as the appropriate one in which
to locate the "Center". Plans are currently under way through which
cooperative efforts between the Planning Board and the Office of
Business Economics, U. S. Department of Commerce, will be utilized to
create an effective "Center" within the Planning Board while, at the
same time, generating needed small-area data and developing both large-
and small-area economic base projections for use in planning. Required
personnel are already available to the Planning Board. Specialized
training of a designated nucleus will be required, however, to form the
"Center" for the purpose at hand. A part of the QBE effort will be to
provide the necessary training. In Virginia the basic elements of the
"Center" suggested in this paper already exist within the Research
Section, Division of State Planning and Community Affairs, Governor's
Office, Commonwealth of Virginia.
-------
22.
Minimum Initial Staff
To develop the "normalized" small-area economic base projections
required as a basis for planning (item 1, page 6), a minimum full-time
staff will be required. From the expert advice received, it appears that,
to be acceptable and effective, the minimum initial staff for the "Center"
should be comprised of one economist (regional or similar background) as
director, one assistant (demographer, economist-demographer, engineer-
planner, or planner), one research assistant and one clerk-typist. At
9/
the salary rates indicated by Mr. Griffis — as current in Virginia, the
minimum staff described is estimated to cost approximately $60,000
annually (including overhead at 20 percent and travel at $10,000). This
minimum staff can function effectively only if it maintains near perfect
communication with and receives complete cooperation from the following
groups, as we understand is the case in Virginia: 1. The Bureau of
Population and Economic Research of the Universi'ty of Virginia (or its
equivalent), 2. The Bureau of Vital Statistics of the State Health
Department (or its equivalent), 3. The Employment and Security Commission
(or its equivalent), 4. The Department of Labor and Industry (or its
equivalent), 5. Industrial Development Division (or its equivalent), and
6. all user agencies (such as Department? of Conservation, Highway Departments
and so on). In addition, liaison and cooperation must be maintained with
QBE, Census Bureau, and other related Federal data generating agencies as
well as with Federal user agencies. A Bureau of Economic and Business
9/ Mr. Robert J. Griffis, Economist, Research Section, Division of State
Planning and Community Affairs, Governor's Office, Commonwealth of Virginia.
-------
23.
Research (or Center for Business and Economic Research) could be expected
to function equally well, perhaps better, with the minimum staff suggested
(or, possibly, with even less addition to existing staff). In either case,
however, arrangements must be made to take account of the impact on growth
of agriculture (including forestry and fisheries). Close cooperative
working relationships with the agricultural experiment station, particularly
with the department of agricultural economics, may be utilized to solve
this problem. Whether this will add to the annual cost of operating the
"Center" will, of course, depend upon how much of the work required is
being performed under existing and continuing authority and appropriations.
In all cases, unnecessary duplication of effort should be avoided in the
interest of efficiency.
Under current circumstances and institutional arrangements in
Virginia, Mr. Griffis indicates that, in his opinion, an adequate staff
would consist of- the minimum described, plus an additional assistant to
the director, another research assistant, and a data clerk. This would
add at least $20,000 to $22,000 to the annual cost of the minimum staff
previously described.
The preceding evaluation is in close agreement with five of the six
responses specifying both staff and costs received from university and
State and Federal agency representatives (estimated annual costs suggested
by them ranging from $40,000 to $100,000). The highest cost estimate,
however, placed annual costs of the "Center" at $225,000. It included a
-------
2k.
programmer, a graphic illustrator, one or more reference clerks, an
agricultural economist, and a demographer, in addition to the minimum
staff previously indicated. In addition to considerably higher salaries
than Mr. Griffis indicated for Virginia, this cost presumably allowed for
some computer time also. However, the estimate assumed that "some specific
components of the Center's work would be 'contracted out'," and did not
include the contract amounts. So, in effect, the highest estimate was
$225,000, plus the cost of any required contract work.
It is possible that the higher cost estimates indicate a less
desirable institutional and organizational arrangement for accomplishing
the task at hand rather than a more sophisticated product. Consequently,
they may indicate a lower degree of efficiency in performing the required
work. From a practical standpoint, however, it must be recognized that
under certain legal, institutional, and organizational arrangements the
higher estimates may well be in order if an acceptable output is to be
obtained—at least until the indicated constraints can be removed.
Flexibility of the staffing pattern (i.e., the ability of the
"Center" to utilize specialists from other departments on a part-time
basis; purchase required computer, graphic illustrator, and other services;
and utilize data and analytical output from other competent sources) can go
far toward minimizing the annual cost of work performed. It can also add
to its attractiveness as a center for performing work required by planners
and others in helping to evaluate the impact of proposed development
programs and projects (items 2 and 3, page 6).
-------
25.
Potential
The ultimate potential of the "Center" is probably beyond one's
ability to visualize. I think it is clear, however, that evaluation
of social and economic impacts of proposed programs and projects, as
well as of new discoveries and related technological developments in
terms of their effects upon the economic base, requires the same expertise
as is required in the development of the normalized economic base itself.
Consequently, it follows that the competent group brought together in
a "Center", as described, and properly trained to develop acceptable
values as a basis for planning can be expected to serve as the nucleus
around which a most efficient and effective staff for evaluating the
impact of proposed programs and projects can be developed. Because of
the probable variations in requirements within a State at different
points in time as well as the variations between states, any attempt to
specify the number of staff members and cost at this place and time would
be relatively meaningless. However, we will attempt to indicate some of the
uses and potentials. The nature of the projections undertaken, the
geographic and parametric detail required, the availability of data
required (whether staff effort is required to generate data), and
similar factors will dictate the ultimate size, character, and composi-
tion of the "Center's" staff as well as its overhead and operating costs.
Assuming acceptability and availability of the "Center's" output,
all planners (Federal, State, and local—public and private) can be
expected to make use of the basic projections developed. As previously
-------
26 o
indicated, it is anticipated that many, if not all, of the user agencies
(users of the basic projections) will eventually recognize and make use
of the capabilities of the "Center", if fully developed, for purposes of
evaluating the social and economic impacts of proposed programs and
projects, to the extent possible. This is expected to occur in the
interest of internal efficiences and increasing the acceptability and
effectiveness of their proposals. Some of the major user agencies and
groups, as indicated by participation in our various State Social Sciences
Advisory Committees, are as follows:
Federal— (1) Department of the Interior: FWQA, BOR, and
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries; (2) Department of the Army,
COE; (3) Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(4) Department of Agriculture; SCS, ERS, FS, and FHA;
(5) Department of Commerce, EDA; and (6) TVA.
State— (1) Planning and development offices, bureaus, or
departments (or their equivalents); (2) departments of health,
particularly air and water pollution control activities and
comprehensive health planning; (3) departments or boards of
conservation; (4) departments of commerce (or equivalent),
particularly offices of research and planning; (5) departments
of industry and trade (or equivalent); (6) regional (or area) planning
and development commissions which are officially a part of State
government, and (7) waterway authorities.
-------
27.
Local Public— (1) City planning boards and commissions; (2)
committees of 100; (3) county planning boards and commissions;
(4) regional (or area) planning and development groups not
officially part of State government; (5) local and regional councils
of government; and (6) city and area chambers of commerce.
Private— (1) Telephone and telegraph companies, (2) power and
light companies, (3) market planning and research corporations,
(4) consultants, (5) news and related companies; (6) industrial
development associations, (7) gas corporations, and (8) research
institutes.
In addition to the preceding, the Resources Advisory Board;
Southeast River Basins, is a multi-state entity which is currently a
user of the population projections from the Advisory Committees. Many
other agencies and groups can be expected to use the output from the
"Center" when approved by the "Advisory Committee". The Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare—particularly planners for Hill-Burton
Hospitals and those responsible for educational needs within the Office
of Education—can be expected to become a major user. State and local
planning to meet these needs must also become a user. The same is true
for local, State, and Federal planning for transportation.
As was indicated by Mr. David Kay, Economist for HUD, Atlanta,
the need for implementing the "Center" concept is so obvious and the
potential savings in Federal, State, and local costs so great as to suggest
-------
28.
that implementation should not be delayed any longer than absolutely
necessary. He pointed out that HUD can be expected to use the output
"in all of its program allocations, particularly in housing, plus local
planning agencies funded by HUD (such as local councils of government,
regional metropolitan and local planning agencies, and so on)."
Acknowledgments
During a period of approximately 30 years of working with
many individuals and groups interested in improving the situation
with regard to planning (six years in water quality control), I have
received much help and encouragement and many new insights into the
many problems involved and into a few of the possible solutions.
Important contributions have come from so many that it is impossible to
give diie credit to all. Each member of the State Social Sciences
Advisory Committees (which have been operative for about five years)
has contributed in one way or another and the vast majority in a most
constructive manner.
Although the errors and omissions in this paper are entirely
those of the author, as previously indicated, much of the inspiration
and encouragement and many of the ideas came from discussions and
written communications from others. Some of those who have been
especially helpful are: (1) Mr. Kenneth A. Ackley, Jr., State of
Tennessee; (2) Mr, Daniel E. Alleger, University of Florida;
(3) Mr. Owen D. Belcher, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army; (4) Dr. R. E.
Beller, University of Florida; (5) Professor J. H. Blackstone,
-------
29.
Auburn University; (6) Mr. Dean Bogart, U. S. Geological Survey;
(7) Dr. Stephen J. Brannen, University of Georgia; (8) Mrs. Ellen
Bryant, Mississippi State University; (9) Professor Ormond C. Corry,
University of Tennessee; (10) Dr. James C. Gotham, III, University
of Tennessee; (11) Mr. John F. Davis, State of Florida; (12) Dr. T. S.
Deitrich, Florida State University; (13) Dr. Miguel Echenique,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; (14) Mr. Don K. Fry, Carolina Power and
Light Company; (15) Dr. Robert E. Garren, Georgia State University;
(16) Mr. Robert E. Graham, Jr., Office of Business Economics, Department
of Commerce; (17) Mr. Robert J. Griffis, State of Virginia; (18) Mr. Hubert
Hinote, Tennessee Valley Authority; (19) Mrs. Elizabeth Pate Johnson,
East Carolina University; (20) Mr. T. E. Johnson, Florida Power and
Light Company; (21) Mr. J. David Kay, Department of Housing and Urban
Development; (22) Dr. W. J. Lanham, Clemson University; (23) Dr. Joe A.
Martin, University of Tennessee; (24) Mr. Owen Martinez, Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico; (25) Dr. Roger A. Matson, Tennessee Valley Authority;
(26) Dr. Ernest E. Melvin, University of Georgia; (27) Mr. Pedro F. Mora,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; (28) Professor Henry B. Moore, University
of Alabama; (29) Mr. James E. Noblin, Noblin Research; (3) Dr. Carter C.
Osterbind, University of Florida; (31) Dr. D. W. Parvin, Mississippi
State University; (32) Mr. C. E. Poovey, Duke Power Company;
(33) Mrs. Therese H. Ramsey, State of North Carolina; (34) Mr. John Robins,
State of Georgia; (35) Mr. Ronald F. Scott, State of North Carolina;
-------
30.
(36) Mr. George K. Selden, Jr., Southern Bell Telephone and
Telegraph Company; (37) Dr. W. D. Toussaint, North Carolina State
University; (38) Mr. Edward A. Trott, Jr., Office of Business
Economics, Department of Commerce; (39) Dr. Kenneth C. Wagner,
State of Mississippi; (40) Mr. Stanley Warth, Jr., Southern Bell
Telephone and Telegraph Company; (41) Dr. George I. Whitlatch,
Georgia Institute of Technology; and (42) Dr. J. H. Yeager,
Auburn University.
Special thanks are due Mr. John L. Kesler of the Federal
Water Quality Administration for his patient and most helpful
editing of all drafts of this paper, and to Messrs. Frederick D.
Knapp and Wallace Greene of our adjacent Regional offices
(Charlottesville, Virginia, and Dallas, Texas, respectively)
for both moral support and material help in the committee work
associated with this effort. A particular debt of gratitude is
owed to Mr. Owen D. Belcher, COE-SAD, Atlanta, who provided con-
tinuous moral and material support from the beginning of the
Committee work in seeking a common and mutually acceptable base
for planning.
------- |