Impact and Outcomes of Effectual Risk-Based Planning Applications - Essay Example

IMPACT AND OUTCOMES OF EFFECTUAL RISK BASED PLANNING APPLICATIONS Federal structures and s have been at the receiving end of an oft-repeated criticism of administrative inefficiency in risk-based planning applications. This barrage of criticism is significantly focused on a collateral issue, i.e. an obvious non-immediacy and inadequacy of existing parameters of risk-based planning applications in the Federal administrative system, ranging from local government institutions to central government institutional apparatus. A vital paradigm shift in this respect is, inescapably, needed specially, due to a typical structural imbalance existing in the current planning process. Broad policy alternatives and a process of restructuring the existing practices have to be adopted in order to overcome the present impasse. I advocate a local level policy shift rather than a Federal level overhaul. Introduction Public administration consists of non-profit governmental institutions that form the bulk of a country’s administrative system. The process of planning at institutional level might require a cohesive and articulate strategy with a particular focus on existing inadequacies of the system. Non-profit public sector institutions operate on the principle of public welfare at the grassroots. However, there is an imbalance in these institutions when it comes to efficient management processes and institutional structures. Ill-defined targets often serve as hurdles that have to be surmounted even before the project is started. Project risk perception and management is another such area in which both leadership and intelligence are lacking. It is imperative to question the unprivileged immunity from public scrutiny that is almost taken for granted by local level administrators whose attitudes have, over the years, been conducive to producing negative outcomes in the sphere of public administration. Causal factors include a host of fallacious assumptions too. Risk has a variety of meanings and senses that defy our articulation or assessment capabilities. Therefore in risk-based planning process there can be no perfection or certainty in determining a set of variables that impact on the planning process and the eventual outcomes. Both endogenous and exogenous variables impact on these outcomes, irrespective of our hypothetical presumptions on what shape those outcomes should take. Community or county level administration might seek to exert pressure on Federal bodies to facilitate legislation that cohort principles of public choice theory. For instance the Risk-Based Homeland Security Grants Act of 2007, which seeks to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002, is necessitated by a series of imponderables, including the threat perception of terror attacks. Finally, the risk-based planning process presupposes the existence of institutional bases that could be relied on to promote positive correlates between initiatives, both local and national, and imperatives, again both local and national. Voiding homothetic functional relations between the centre and the periphery to bring about policy shifts is still a prevarication of the aspiring planners. It ought to fulfill a long felt need in the overall risk-based planning process. 1. Risk, risk perception and planning modalities Risk is defined as the probable quantitative and/or qualitative loss incurred in the process of an activity, e.g. risk in project planning and implementation where risk or loss can be calculated. Risk perception is the way or the manner in which, those who are called upon to bear or face risk, will look at it. Planning modalities are those premises and procedures on which the planning activity is shaped. 2. Operational risks versus strategic risks Risks are of two kinds: (a). Operational risks are associated with the short term while strategic risks are those long term risks such as environmental damage or related social costs. When risk- based planning is practiced at either the Federal level or the local level there are three aspects to be considered with reference to risk as an integral part of the planning process. Risk propensity, which is defined as an individual’s desire to take or avoid risk. Risk preference, which is the perceived level of risk and uncertainty a person is willing to accept in a given situation. Risk perception, which is the subjective view of the perceived risk. 3. Planning and risk management Social propensity or willingness to accept risk as an integral part of development has given rise to an inevitable link between planning and risk management. Risk management strategies are intended to indemnify the affected individual or society from the risk to the extent to which risk mitigation is possible (Crouhy, Mark and Galai, 2000, p.499). Once the source of risk has been identified and its impact is assessed the following four point mitigation strategy is adopted by planners to nullify its effect. Avoidance, i.e. avoiding risk by scaling down activities. Transfer, i.e. seeking indemnity against risk by getting insurance cover. Retention, i.e. absorbing risk and going ahead with planning. Reduction, i.e. reducing the amount of risk by adopting mitigating measures. 4. Risk-based planning and federal mandates State and local government bodies have a priority in providing the essential services to their constituents. These local and state bodies have often wondered as to how best to reconcile their efforts to fund an ever increasing number of programs mandated by the Federal government and that of limited sources of revenue. These mandates are typically entwined with such essential services as education, transportation, environmental protection and employment. The US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) in its preliminary report “The Role of Federal Mandates in Intergovernmental Relations (January, 1996) stated: More than 200 separate mandates were identified to ACIR by state and local governments involving about 170 Federal laws reaching into every nook and cranny of state and local activities”. These numbers provide a clear perspective of the inevitable impact of Federal laws on local and state governments. How does this affect the working arrangements between the Federal government and the local and state governments? Risk planning is developing and documenting organized, comprehensive and interactive strategies and methods for identifying risks. It is also a strategic approach to identifying and minimizing collateral and peripheral costs associated with projects. Therefore the main function performed by planners is to help obviate overhead costs that are associated with the process of project implementation. As a corollary of the above we may justifiably advocate a departure from the existing symbiosis in which the Federal mandates are executed by local and state governments despite a resource crunch. For example there is more scope for local and state government initiatives in devising strategies to enhance resource utilization at the local level so that the locally available human capital and material resources might be harnessed in the production effort (Pickett, 2006, p.69). 5. Federal grants, state finances and risk planning Federal grants to states include education, health insurance, employment and infrastructure projects. Buoyed by these grants state and local administrations might carry out surveys to identify target populations and areas and then devise policy alternatives to effectively utilize these grants in projects. This is where the state and local administrations have to play a major role in identifying risk and managing it to achieve policy objectives. For example, the Homeland Security Grant Program for the year 2008 states its purpose to be: “… to build capabilities at the state and local levels through planning, organization, equipment training and exercise activities”. National strategic initiatives taken by the federal administration are accompanied by obligatory conditions on the part of the state or the local administration. Such conditions are stipulated subject to a process of monitoring by federal agencies. Non-compliance with the stipulated conditions might invite penalties that are more likely to hinder efforts at local level to plan and execute viable programs (Kuset and Rist, 2004, p.92). Risk planning involves not only an identification of risk parameters but also devising and building up technological capacities to overcome the negative impact of risk. Federal policy, shrink-wrapped and dished out to state and local administrations, might fail to consider important factors when selecting performance indicator targets (Kuset and Rist). As for state administrations’ discretion to leverage disparate sources of finance to overcome above difficulties associated with federal grants, there is a plethora of hurdles such as how to pay back debt when sources of revenue are curtailed. Above all when it comes to fire, police service and Emergency Medical Services 911 (EMS) local administrative structures have a head-start in risk planning. On the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks the federal fire services were called upon to carry out an exceptionally mammoth task that could have been better liaised at the county level. 6. Community participation and risk planning Both local and state level planning ought to co-opt community participation as a long term strategy so that risk factors such as project failures and losses might be factored in to produce a strong community-centric planning process. Social architecture is viewed as an instrument for transforming both the environment and the people who live in it (Sanoff, 1999, p.24). The author argues that “Community participation, however, is neither a panacea nor a total solution for social change” (Preface). Community participants are more or less change agents but their role may not elevate them to the position of catalysts for they still have a long way to go in bringing about the kind of visible and quantifiable change in the absence of federal finance and patronage. Those who advocate community participation as an alternative to extensive contractual networking in state and local project execution willy-nilly support transparency as the ultimate goal of administration. Yet, there is a causal relationship between inter-state coordination and federal-state coordination. This relationship precludes efforts by zealous local administrators to circumvent federal dictates. Bureaucratic federal structures do not necessarily accommodate deviation from established norms, and still less do they facilitate transparency as a moral obligation. Jurisdictional issues are the most potent barrier to community participation and this is because of the fact that federal laws define how and under what circumstances communities would be enlisted in the planning, design and implementation of projects. Such definitions are too restrictive in scope and application (Thomas, 1997, pp.221-246). The author also makes reference to epistemic communities as “like-minded networks of professionals whose authoritative claim to consensual knowledge provides them with a unique source of power in decision making processes”. (p.221). Agency behavior is determined by federal laws that may not passively tolerate parallel jurisdictions. 7. Priority planning, sustainability and risk The lifecycle of an administration consists of three phases: overhauling the existing planning process, discussing and prioritizing and finally implementation. This approach to planning and execution has been characterized by a haphazard strategy of sustaining the momentum with no particularly impressive results. Continuity of governments does not depend on results, though. Planning at local and state levels ought to be regarded as a very strong alternative to federal planning. Local counties have the necessary expertise to carry out risk-based planning and are more motivated to avoid probable failures that federal planners are more or less prone to. For example planning and zoning efforts of county officials have the same qualitative significance as that of federal administrators who may be, otherwise, indifferent to specific requirements of localities. Last, not the least, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) plays a pivotal role in the risk planning process. Coupled with better Human Resource Management (HRM) practices, ICT can have a long term positive impact on risk planning by state and local level bodies. Why HRM? HRM has thrust itself into the center stage by exposing credibility and quality deficits in federal administration. A steering committee with powers of executive oversight must work on the IT policy of each local level administration (Baschab and Piot, 2007, p.464). From the viewpoint of HRM a quality perspective must be adopted to enhance existing cadre strength. Risk-based planning strategies require prioritizing in the following areas: ICT policy planning and project implementation. ICT infrastructure development. ICT related HRM policy and strategy. Inter and intra federal-state coordination. Local budgetary provision for procurement of expertise. Risk planners have come under pressure ever increasing pressure since the 9/11 attacks and such pressure originates from different quarters for the same reason, i.e. the need to put in place a national contingency plan. There is an expediency to prioritize such planning at the local administrative unit level with an assurance for dynamic supply chain management. Conclusion Modern Management Perspectives and Risk Planning As Conrow, a modern risk management expert puts it risk management strategies have been developed to meet the demands of a complex society (Conrow, 2003, p.9). Right now we are witnessing a very critical phase of the evolutionary process of risk management. Local level policy planners are more suitably disposed to gather and collate information on organizational and individual behaviors that have an inescapable bearing on the efficient management of risk. For example a federal level rapid deployment force on disaster management is unlikely to have the same rate of success as a local force for the sole reason that the latter has a unique advantage over the former in responding to local crises. Management by objective is a structured management technique used to explain how within business organizations the management and employees would agree on a common program to achieve corporate objectives such as production targets, market share and profits. Some management theorists go further to assert that such objectives must be both time specific and achievable (Drucker, 2006, p.127). There is also a reference to the mammoth federal government bureaucracy and its control. Federal governments have often than not failed to set time limits on projects. In the first instance such time limits are irrelevant when the past records show that a very few, if any, projects have been concluded on time. Secondly, governments are elected for a fixed term. When the current administration is defeated at the next election, there is no binding obligation on the new administration to continue with those projects. Finally, let me focus on SWOT analysis as a strategic technique for survival in hostile territory. As much as there are strengths and opportunities available to local bodies there are some weaknesses within and threats without as well, ( Williamson et al, 2003, p.116). The authors particularly remind us of the financial problems of an organization as a weakness because rivals, own opportunities depend on this weakness. In conclusion I would say federal administration has the advantage of plenty of funds at its disposal. On the other hand local governments have little or no funds to carry out projects even within their own jurisdictions. This excess dependence on federal budgetary provisions makes them vulnerable to policy dictates from the center. However, despite all these bottlenecks, local authorities can still seek to successfully implement programs at local level without depending on the federal government. A complete divorce between the two may not be possible yet but it may not be far away to come. References 1. Advisory Commission on Inter-government Relations, (1996), The Role of Federal Mandates in Inter-governmental Relations, Retrieved: June 3, 2008, from www.digital.library.unt.edu/permalink/meta-dc-1108-15k 2.. Baschab, J and Piot, J (2007), The Executive’s Guide to Information Technology, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons. 3. Conrow, E.H, (2003), Effective Risk Management: Some Keys to Success, Virginia, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). 4. Crouhy, M, Mark, R and Galai, D, (2000), Risk Management, New York, McGraw- Hill Publishing. 5. Drucker, P.F, (2006), The Practice of Management, New York, Harper Collins Publishers Inc. 6. Kuset, J.Z and Rist, R.C,(2004), Ten Steps to a Results- Based Monitoring and Evaluating System: A Handbook fo9r Development Practitioners, Washington DC, A World Bank Publication. 7. Pickett, K.H.S, (2006), Audit Planning: A Risk-based Approach, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons Inc. 8. Sanoff, Henry, (1999), Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning, New York. 9. Thomas, C.W, (1997), Public Management as Interagency Cooperation: Testing Epistemic Community Theory at the Domestic Level, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 7(2), pp.221-246. Public Management Research Association. 10. Williamson, D, Cooke, P, Jenkins, W and Moreton, K.M, (2003), Strategic Management and Business Analysis, Massachusetts, Elsevier Butterworth- Heinemann. Read More