Mandated Expertise: Consultants and Local Capacity-Building

Abstract

The article looks at the delivery process in capacity-building assistance. Specifically, federal and state mandated requirements that local governments use certain types of professional expertise, or be denied funding, are examined in the land use policy area. The assumption that both expertise and efficiency can be transferred to local governments from other public-sector organizations or the private-sector consulting firms is analyzed by drawing on findings from a case study of planning professionals and their clients in a six-county region of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Findings about the criteria used by local officials in obtaining expert assista are used to develop guidelines both for local government planning efforts, and for federal and state agencies that attempt to build local capacity for effective land-use management. These guidelines offer procedural and structural changes for assisting local governments in carrying out their land-use planning responsibilities. Suggestions can also be applied to other policy areas.

Notes

1 On the local impacts of slate and federal mandates see: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). Stale Mandating of Local Expenditures (Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1978); Catherine A. Lovetl et. al. Federal and Slate Mandating on Local Governments: An Explanation of Issues and Impacts (Riverside. California: University of California 1979): and Max Nieman and Catherine H. Lovell. Federal and State Requirements: Impacts on Local Government. The Urban Interest, 2, no. I (Spring 1980), pp. 45–51.

 Google Scholar

2 Good summaries of the concerns relevant to this article are found in Daniel R. Mandelker and Lawrence Susskind. “Should State Government Mandate Local Planning? … Yes … No.”Planning, 44. no. 6 (July 1978). 14–20 and Charles Lipscombe. Mandating Statewide Planning Goals: Does It Work? Land Use Planning and Zoning Digest, 28, no. 9 (1976), pp. 6–10.

 Google Scholar

3 See. especially. Tim Maupin. “Municipal Consultants: Patterns and Practices.”Urban Data Service Reports, 11. no. 12 (Washington. D.C.: International City Management Association. December 1979); Patricia S. Florestano and Stephen B. Gordon. Public vs. Private: Small Government Contracting with the Private Sector. Public Administration Review, 40. no. 1 (January-February 1980). 27–34;

 Google Scholar

Anthony Brown. “Technical Assistance to Rural Communities: Stopgap or Capacity Building?”Public Administration Review. 40. no. 1 (January-February 1980). 18–33; Paul Jay Mazychenko. Jr., “Contracting With the Private Sector for Municipal Services: A Dialogue Between Practitioners.”Management Information Service. 12. no. 4 (Washington. D.C.: International City Management Association. April 1980): and U.S. Comptroller General. “Controls Over Consulting Service Contracts at Federal Agencies Need Tightening.” (Washington. D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office. March 20. 1980) for relevant works on capacity building, consulting and contracting. Of great value is Richard Pattenaude. ed., “Consultants in the Public Sector.” a symposium in Public Administration Review vol. 39. no. 3 (May/June 1979). pp. 203–229.

4 The research was funded hy the Appalachian Regional Commission. Findings reported are drawn from a much larger data base that was developed in devising a methodology for studying experts and expertise.