THE PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING SEMINAR UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FEBRUARY 27 - MARCH 18, 1966

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00780R001500100062-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 21, 2003
• Sequence Number: 62
• Publication Date: April 7, 1966
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Rele 31 5t2V C
F 4780R001500100062-9
Nbb
THE PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING SEMINAR
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
February 27 - March 18, 1966
1. This was an inter-agency training program conducted by the
Office of Career Development, U.S. Civil Service Commission in co-
operation with the University of Maryland. The course objectives were:
To provide the student with a grasp of the underlying economic base of
program budgeting; To provide a working knowledge of the structure and
functioning of the planning, programming, and budgeting system developed
by the Bureau of the Budget with particular emphasis on the long range
planning aspects of that system; To introduce the student to sophisticated
quantitative approaches to management planning and control, and improve
his ability to communicate sympathetically and intelligently with expert
quantitative analysts. The Seminar met those course objectives in fine
fashion and my only significant criticism is the relative lack of emphasis
of PPBS as a management tool for asking the right questions.
2. The Seminar was essentially the Department of Defense "Monterey"
course modified as much as possible to a civilian orientation. The course
philosophy is contained in the Bureau of the Budget Bulletin #66-3 which
discusses the integration of planning-programming-budgeting in the
executive branch. Apparently there is a small core of'pioneer" experts
in the PPB system and the Civil Service course uses the same guest
speakers as Monterey uses. In addition, two PhD economists from the
University of Maryland faculty covered concepts of economic analysis
and analytical techniques by intensive lectures and workshop application
of these tools.
3. This three week resident course had frequent evening classes
and ran weekly from Sunday evening through Saturday morning. The
first week was devoted principally to the underlying philosophy of
the PPBS. The second week provided the student with a fairly different
look at some of the more significant concepts of economic analysis.
The third week concentrated on quantitative problem-solving through
the primary medium of a large scale case study in cost utility analysis.
In all three weeks the evening hours were devoted to the rather considerable
reading load required. The reading material consisted of:
The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age by Charles J. Hitch
and Roland N. McKean.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84-00780 R001500100062-9
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP8440780R001500100062-9
Program Budgeting ... Program Analysis and the Federal Budget,
edited by David Novick.
Design for Decision by Irwin D. J. Bross.
Economics -- An Introductory Analysis by Paul A. Samuelson.
The Politics of the Budgetary Process by Aaron Wildavsky.
Measuring Benefits of Government's Investment by Robert Dorfman.
4. There were 40 students in the class with a median grade of GS-15
and median years of service of 18. Most of the students were staff officers
involved with programming, planning, and budgeting in their agencies. The
exchange of PPBS experiences among students was most useful.
5. This course would seem ideal for staff planners at the Directorate
Office level. It should be noted, however, there is no real body of experience
in the application of PPBS to problems of civilian agencies. Even the DOD
experience has proven itself only at the highest centralized level. The
heart of PPBS is quantitative analysis. This is what leads to better
decision making in terms of selecting the best alternative. Even in
agencies where quantitative values are hard to come by, knowledge of
quantitative tools and techniques should permit better qualitative analysis.
However, it is equally important that line managers be familiar with PPBS
and support its objectives in order to improve the quality of information
given to decision makers.
6. It certainly seems evident that PPBS is here to stay. The President
and the Bureau of the Budget are serious about applying the system and it
behooves the Agency to become proficient in the application of PPBS. It
should be recognized that varied levels of proficiency are required depending
upon the individual's function in the Agency. As I see it, we need a small
group of highly skilled quantitative analysts working with John Clarke's
staff and on the planning staffs of the Directorates. We also need staff
planners down to the office level who have had the equivalent of either
the Monterey or the Civil Service course. Finally, line managers of
programs should have sufficient orientation to understand and be sym-
pathetic to the objectives of PPBS.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84-00780 R001500100062-9
STAT