O'N'&r f'l
(
Joh n J-

Kcl(s

" .a tA PE 44^8





NIVEKfjiil ur ]<ui al urtivit LIBRARY

THE ESSENTIALS

OF PLANNING

A Personal View

by

JOHN J. O’NEILL

Secretary for Planning

National Conference of Catholic Bishops

and

United States Catholic Conference

1975

Publications Office

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005





This project was undertaken in response to an

increasing number of suggestions and other

indications that a publication of this nature

might have considerable informational and

operational value for individuals involved in

planning for Church institutions at both the

national and diocesan levels.



The National Conference of Catholic Bishops

(NCCB) is a canonical entity operating in accord-

ance with the Conciliar Decree, Christus Dominus.

Its purpose is to foster the Church’s mission to

mankind by providing the Bishops of this country

with an opportunity to exchange views and in-

sights of prudence and experience and to exercise

in a joint manner their pastoral office, (cfr.

Christus Dominus, #38)

The United States Catholic Conference (USCC)

is a civil entity of the American Catholic Bishops

assisting them in their service to the Church in

this country by uniting the People of God where

voluntary, collective action on a broad diocesan

level is needed. The USCC provides an organiza-

tional structure and the resources needed to in-

sure coordination, cooperation, and assistance in

the public, educational, and social concerns of the

Church at the national, regional, state, inter-

diocesan and, as appropriate, diocesan levels.



Preface

This study is being published in conjunction with the fifth

anniversary of the appointment of its author as the first Secretary

for Planning for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and

the United States Catholic Conference, an appointment which

signalled the initiation of formalized planning for both Confer-

ences.

The intent is not to provide yet another general planning text-

book or specific procedures manual. It is rather to set forth what

the writer views as the key concepts of planning as a discipline

and the basic elements of planning as a process, and to illustrate

these by providing (in the appendix) an informal and relatively

detailed description of the most recent operational model in which

they have been incorporated and tested.

The study makes no claim to breaking new ground, although it

is hoped that it may represent a fresh approach to some of the

matters treated. It relies primarily upon the records and experi-

ence of the past five years as well as upon the recollections of

twenty prior years of planning experience in both industry and

government, rather than upon any extensive new research.

This limitation, which arises out of a realistic assessment of

the availability of time and other related resources, may actually

prove advantageous since what appears to be called for in the

present context is a concise and straightforward working docu-

ment rather than a complex and extended technical treatise.

There may be a further advantage if the writer is correct in his

view that there is a persistent and growing tendency among

professional planners to complicate, or at least to obscure, what

is essentially a very simple and unmysterious subject.

With reference to the total process this tendency most fre-

quently takes the form of excessive resort to complex technical

jargon. With reference to individual elements of the process it

most frequently takes the form of isolating a particular step and

surrounding it with a particular mystique.

When confronted with evidence of this tendency the writer has

often found it salutary to reiterate the characterization of this field

1



by one of his own distinguished mentors as common sense made
difficult.

If the present study has succeeded in avoiding this pitfall

without lapsing into the equally serious but far less common error

of over-simplification, it should be well on its way to achieving

the purposes for which it was undertaken.

Although this publication is a Conference project, neither the

study itself nor the appended process description should be

viewed as official NCCB/USCC documents. Full responsibility for

the content of both as well as for any errors or other deficiencies

rests solely with the author: thus the designation as a personal

view.

At the same time, grateful acknowledgment is made of the

contributions of many members of the two Conferences and

many staff associates. The number of individuals involved pre-

cludes a specific listing. It does seem appropriate however to

single out for special recognition Miss Edie Frost, who is respon-

sible not only for editing and producing the present manuscript,

but also for performing essential services in connection with all

of the documents as well as the operational model upon which

the entire study is based.

April 15, 1975

2



THE ESSENTIALS OF PLANNING

A Personal View

Introduction

Planning, if its full potential is to be realized, must be viewed

not only as a specific annual exercise or process but also as a

general ongoing organizational method or discipline: an organi-

zational state of mind.

The long-term effectiveness of the planning function is to be

measured not only in terms of the smoothness or effectiveness of

the formal process, but also and more importantly in the extent to

which the totality of the organization—personnel, function, and
structure— is permeated by the open and orderly approach to the
future which planning is designed and intended to foster.

The impact of truly effective planning can normally be expected

to extend well beyond the limits of the formal process, and even

well beyond the sphere in which the planning office itself ordinar-

ily functions.

For example, the initiation of a program-oriented planning

system frequently leads to a relatively radical restructuring of

the total organization within the first three to five years. This

should not be seen as surprising since a structure which has not

been kept abreast or ahead of function is likely to be one of the

most immediately recognizable impediments to program effective-

ness.

This point is not made to add to the “organizational nervous-

ness” which almost inevitably accompanies the introduction of

formal planning. It should be seen as an argument for planning,

not as an argument against it. It is indeed a reflection of the

broad challenge of planning as a discipline: the challenge to part

with yesterday’s accidentals (and even its legitimate preoccupa-

tions) in order to deal more effectively with today’s essentials,

and to identify those of tomorrow.

Focus

In order to reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding, it is

important to note that the particular focus of the present work

3



is on program planning: the identification of the objectives to

which the organization is to be formally committed, and the

development of a specific action agenda designed to meet these

objectives in the most effective manner consistent with present

and anticipated resource availability.

This definition of focus is emphasized since the term “plan-

ning" can be used to refer to a wide range of activities, a situation

which appears to be particularly widespread in the Church at the

diocesan level.

The term “pastoral planning" is a case in point. Based upon

published materials and individual inquiries received at the na-

tional level there appears to be no generally accepted definition:

the term continues to be used to refer to a broad spectrum of ac-

tivities ranging from program planning (in the sense referred to

above) to the identification of meaningful assignments for diocesan

priests and other individuals. It is only when the term is confined

to the first of these meanings that the material in the present

study can be viewed as generally applicable.

A second relatively common usage is that coupling the term

with “development" to describe general fund-raising activities.

Although this usage is also excluded from the present study, a

number of the basic principles can doubtless be effectively ap-

plied in designing fund-raising programs.

Essential Conditions

The conditions which are essential to planning can be defined

in many ways. This particular listing reflects the view that per-

sonel rather than procedures hold the ultimate key: it is with indi-

viduals that the planning function stands or falls. From this

perspective the conditions essential at all levels of the organiza-

tion include:

• Commitment

• Competence

• Communication

• Cooperation

• Compassion

Commitment is particularly important at the highest levels.

While this is doubtless true with regard to all dimensions of

4



management, it is normally a more critical issue in the case of

formal planning. The reason for this is that planning continues

to be viewed in many quarters as essentially optional. This posi-

tion is particularly persistent in organizations which have func-

tioned over a long period without recourse to formal planning.

For this reason there is a significant element of risk that without

the clear and direct support of executive management the plan-

ning function will continue to be regarded as optional by many

potential participants, even after a planning office has been acti-

vated. The truth of this observation is attested to by the fact that

in all too many instances the planning office exists as little more

than a status symbol or a token commitment to the planning

discipline.

Competence is required not only among those directly respon-

sible for the planning function but also among all who will ulti-

mately be called upon to participate in the related formal and

informal processes. Indeed, it is recognition of this requirement

for competence at all levels which accounts for so much of the

“organizational nervousness
7

' referred to above as commonly

accompanying introduction of the planning function. What is most

often involved is the realization that an all but inevitable side-

effect of planning is the gradual elimination of all of the “hiding

places" within the organization.

Communication can play an important supportive role, par-

ticularly in organizations with no previous experience of formal

planning. Complete openness is essential not only to the achieve-

ment of the required understanding of the total discipline but also

to its acceptance: to the early allaying of the suspicions, fears,

and conflicts which tend to arise with the first experience of

planning, and at times even with the mere announcement that

its introduction is contemplated.

Cooperation is simply another word for mutual involvement.

Effective planning is not normally achieved by an organizationally

and operationally isolated planning office. In point of fact, wide-

spread involvement is so critical to long-run effectiveness that a

strong case can be made (though for obvious reasons it seldom

is) for operating the planning office with severely limited staffing

levels in order to “force" as much as possible of the planning

function out into the planning units themselves to ensure broadly

based understanding and participation.

5



Compassion simply belongs to planning, as it does to any di-

mension of life in which individuals are placed in situations in-

volving potential misunderstanding or conflict.

Underlying Assumptions

Organizational planning as a discipline and as a process is

frequently defined in terms of the major assumptions upon which

it is based. Following this approach it can be said that organiza-

tional planning assumes that it is possible to:

• Express the fundamental purpose of an organization in a

straight-forward and concise statement of essential mission.

• Translate this statement of essential mission into a series of

general long-range organizational goals.

• Set forth an agenda for the achievement of these long-range

goals in the form of more specific short-range program objectives.

• Convert these short-range program objectives into a definitive

plan of action stated in terms of individual programs or specific

activities.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented plan of action

by measuring operational results against the predetermined

mission and objectives.

Major Elements of the Process

The following definitional listing of the major substantive and

procedural elements of the planning process relates specifically

to the introduction of a formal planning process into an already

existing organization. With only slight and fairly obvious modifi-

cations it can of course be made to serve equally well in the case

of an entirely new organization.

• Development of a precise statement of the essential mission

and long-range general objectives of the organization as a whole.

• Preparation of a forecast of the future social, political, re-

ligious, economic, and cultural environment within which the

essential mission and general objectives of the organization are

to be pursued.

• Development of statements of essential mission and short-

range program objectives for each major component of the organi-

6



zation, within the framework of the more general statements for

the organization as a whole.

• Completion of an inventory of the ongoing and anticipated

activities of each major organizational component, including

information on the origin of and rationale for such activities.

• Consolidation of these activities into major categories or

programs on the basis of commonalities of content or process.

• Development of detailed program agendas or proposals relat-

ing the results of the inventory and subsequent consolidation to

the statements of essential mission and program objectives.

• Assignment of priorities to individual programs or groups of

programs.

• Allocation of available human, physical, and financial re-

sources on the basis of established priorities and individual

program needs.

• Provision for ongoing internal review through a formal system

for the measurement of program performance in relation to

predetermined criteria.

• Consolidation of results at appropriate points in the process,

including as a minimum the assignment of priorities, the alloca-

tion of resources, and the provision for ongoing review.

As already noted, an operational model incorporating all of

these elements is described informally and in considerable detail

in the appendix.

Assignment of Program Priorities

An essential element in the rationale for organizational plan-

ning is that all long-range goals and short-range objectives cannot

be simultaneously achieved, and that as a consequence individual

program priorities must be systematically determined and pur-

sued.

The assignment of program priorities is generally recognized

as among the more complex and difficult dimensions of the total

planning process. A major reason for this is that it is seldom

possible to devise completely objective guidelines for what must

often be a largely subjective exercise. More often than not the

most that can be done is to identify certain techniques which may

serve to facilitate the process under specific circumstances.

7



One such technique which is frequently overlooked as a result

of the tendency to think exclusively in terms of “program priori-

ties” is that of assigning priorities to individual facets of the

essential mission as these are elaborated in the goals and objec-

tives, and then assigning individual program priorities on the

basis of the relative urgency of the goals and objectives each pro-

gram is intended to achieve.

Another useful technique is that of assigning priorities to groups

of programs rather than one-by-one. This technique should norm-

ally be employed only after failure of the effort to assign individual

program priorities. Three separate categories should normally

be defined as the minimum for a useful and meaningful exercise.

Finally, it is useful to remember that the relative amount of

staff time or other resources expended on a given program is

not in itself a reliable index of priority. The inverse of this rela-

tionship is frequently an unavoidable fact of organizational life.

Measurement of Program Effectiveness

One of the principal keys to the long-range effectiveness of

planning (and to the meaningful survival of the organization) is

provision for formal performance evaluation: the systematic

measurement of program effectiveness through the application

of predetermined criteria.

Too often there is little or no provision for such an evaluation

system in the post-implementation stage. It is simply assumed

that a good plan will work well; or that relevant subject matter

guarantees an effective program; or that the budget review process

can be relied upon to perform the necessary measurement; or that

one year’s problems will be automatically resolved in the follow-

ing year’s plans.

In these and other essentially passive approaches (or non-

approaches) to performance measurement there are doubtless

elements of truth. However, the weight of experience argues

forcibly that reliance on any one of these approaches, or even

several of them in combination, is not a satisfactory long-run

substitute for the inclusion of formal systematic measurement of

program effectiveness as an integral element of the total planning

process.

The identification of specific evaluative criteria is basic to any

such systematic approach. While such criteria necessarily vary

8



from organization to organization and even from program to

program, it is possible to set forth certain fundamental considera-

tions and to identify certain types of criteria which can normally

be expected to apply on an across-the-board basis.

Effectiveness in achieving the established goals and objectives

is the ultimate yardstick against which individual programs must

be measured. Certain other broad general measurements can

also normally be applied as a part of overall program evaluation.

Among these are consistency with the essential mission and

existing priorities of the organization as a whole, internal con-

sistency with other programs of the organization, and compara-

tive effectiveness in relation to parallel programs of other organi-

zations.

More specific criteria normally evolve out of the intrinsic nature

of each individual program. For this reason it is not possible to

provide an exhaustive listing: the range normally extends across

a broad spectrum, from precise and specific quantitative criteria

to such qualitative measurements as professional judgment (pref-

erably by consensus) or past experience with similar programs.

The following are examples of commonly accepted evaluative

criteria or techniques: external or independent internal audits;

cost-benefit studies; specific budget performance; number of

individuals or groups serviced; constituency response (as meas-

ured by formal surveys or unsolicited evaluations); paid member-

ships; paid attendance (at workshops, seminars, and the like);

paid circulation rates (or rates based on individual requests);

support from foundations or other independent agencies; adher-

ence to predetermined time schedules and other quantitative

targets. In connection with specific quantitative measurements,

it is often more useful to rely on trends than on individual figures.

The ultimate purpose to be served through the employment of

such criteria is identical with that of the total performance evalu-

ation exercise: to provide the best possible basis for determining

which programs should be continued, broadened, modified, or

redirected; which should be curtailed, gradually phased out, or

immediately terminated; and which new ones should be under-

taken.

This clear and continuing relationship between performance

evaluation and forward program decisions is among the more

9



effective demonstrations of planning as an ongoing cyclical process

rather than as a once-a-year event.

Planning and Decision-Making

Within the fixed and often relatively narrow limits established

by formal management action, the planning process may be

viewed as a decision-making exercise. However, in the broader

organizational context it should be seen as a facilitator rather than

as an ultimate actor.

Except in the final review stages involving executive manage-

ment and ownership, it is the role of the planning process to

present options rather than to foreclose them. Where the planning

process is not seen in this light it is likely to become a source of

organizational conflict rather than a key to operational freedom, a

prison rather than a tool.

In this connection it is essential to focus on the cyclical nature

of planning in order to ensure that decisions made within or

facilitated by the planning process are viewed in their proper

light: as beginnings rather than as conclusions.

The dynamism of an organization ultimately depends upon this

ability to view the decisions of today as the starting-points of

tomorrow. Planning must be seen as “relating to temples building,

and not to temples built."

Where planning is thus seen at all levels of the organization,

where it is recognized as something more than an interesting

exercise and something less than a stifling and arbitrary process,

it can come into its own as one of the best of all practicable

answers to the desire for “shared responsibility": meaningful

participation in the decision-making process.

Viewed realistically, it is likely that the specific moment of

decision, the formal decision-making act, will continue to “belong"

in most instances to executive management, if only for practical

reasons of timing and logistics.

This final formal act is, however, but one small step (not always

the most significant) in an extended process. More often than not

the decision is actually arrived at in the course of the process

rather than at the end: the act with which the process ends tends

to be little more than the formal ratification of an informal deci-

sion reached much earlier in the process.

10



For this reason, those who relate meaningful shared respon-

sibility exclusively to participation in the final formal act may

often find that they have been chasing a will-o'-the-wisp, just as

members of management who limit their participation to the same

final act are those most likely to find that their formal role has

fallen far short of their original expectations.

This is not to say that the process in and of itself somehow

diminishes or dilutes the legitimate role of executive management

and ownership. If this were the case, there would doubtless be an

almost immediate exercise of the undoubted prerogative of turn-

ing off the process.

Rather, it is to say that maximum feasible involvement in the

process from beginning to end, or more accurately continuing

participation in the ongoing planning cycle, is the key to shared

responsibility at all levels. Where this situation obtains the likeli-

hood is that organizational history will with very few exceptions

be a record of “mutual decisions mutually arrived at": the very

few arbitrary decisions will more often than not reflect the failure

of participants at all levels of the system to offer meaningful

options.

Relationship to the Financial Function

A major purpose of planning is to ensure the most effective

possible employment of available resources. For this reason it is

essential to provide for the necessary ongoing relationship be-

tween the planning and financial functions.

In some instances this is achieved structurally by assigning

the two disciplines to a single office. Where separate offices are

involved it is usually advisable to supplement informal arrange-

ments with a fail-back position involving formal guarantees, along

the lines of those provided for in the two-office model described in

the appendix.

The relationship needs to be particularly close in the areas of

budget development and the subsequent review of budget per-

formance. Again, reference to the specific arrangements set forth

in the appendix appears more appropriate than the development

of a parallel set of illustrations.

It is particularly important in this context to realize that plan-

ning is not necessarily, nor even primarily, expansion oriented. In

11



fact, a case can be made that formal planning has more to offer

in periods of financial stringency than in times of relatively un-

limited resource availability.

Under both sets of circumstances, a key to successful planning

is the identification of no longer needed programs. This is par-

ticularly urgent in organizations which have operated over a long

period without recourse to formal planning.

Programs, like structures, tend to take on a life of their own.

It is almost always more difficult for an organization to terminate

long established programs than to initiate new ones.

The implications of this fact are self-evident. Continuation of

a no longer needed program, even in the best of times, repre-

sents irresponsible stewardship of resources. In less favorable

times it may actually threaten organizational survival.

Thus planning must look to the past as well as to the future.

It must do more than facilitate the development of new programs.

It must also provide for the systematic reevaluation of existing

ones. This begins with a review of the original motivation for each

program in question. What purpose was it designed to achieve?

Is that purpose still consistent with the mission of the total orga-

nization? Is the program still achieving it? Are there other ways

in which it might be achieved more effectively?

Here again, as so often, the stress needs to be on planning

as an ongoing cyclical function rather than as an annually re-

curring event: initial decision, action, evaluation, new decision.

The decision to implement a given program must be viewed as

but the first of a series of decisions with regard to that program,

a decision which should be renewed annually, even in the case

of programs with a predetermined life-span.

The sorting-out process belongs to the planning function. The

necessity for it most frequently arises out of the financial context.

Thus the critical necessity for the mutual involvement of these two

disciplines in what must be viewed in this context as one plan-

ning-financial process.

Use of Professional Consultants

It may be useful to include a word about the employment of

professional consultants on a fee basis, since this is a question

which frequently arises in connection with various aspects of the

12



planning function. The view here is that consultants are most

likely to be helpful in instances in which they are employed to

address themselves to precise and specific questions which have

been identified by those retaining them.

Retaining consultants to address themselves to more general

questions often proves more expensive than anticipated and

produces mixed results at best. The likelihood of such an out-

come is greatest in instances in which the consultants themselves

have identified the specific questions to be addressed.

More expensive: In addition to possible cost overruns, there is a

very real problem of hidden costs. In conducting studies which

are too general or ill-defined, the demands of consultants on in-

house staff time are likely to be excessive, to the extent that on-

going work may be delayed or otherwise affected. A morale factor

may also be involved since a general approach tends to raise

questions regarding possible hidden agendas. In addition there

seems to be a persistent tendency to understate or completely

overlook the future cost of present recommendations. These

problems are normally less severe when the questions are precise

and the scope of the study predetermined.

Mixed results: When the questions addressed by consultants

are too general their answers are likely to follow suit. Unfortunate-

ly, many consultants are engaged in trying to find questions to fit

their answers, rather than vice versa. Thus, particularly in more

general studies, there is a relatively high risk of receiving an

objectively valid answer which simply does not fit the question

which should have been asked. Risks of this nature are even

greater where there are major misconceptions on the part of the

consultants with reference to the fundamental nature of the

particular organization, or unrealistic assumptions as to future

resource availability.

Another area which often needs a closer look is the proposed

financial arrangement. It is essential to question proposals which

tend to be too vague to be relied upon, too generous to be real-

istic, or too reassuring in their confidence that foundations or

other independent agencies can be expected to underwrite a

major share of the expenditures involved.

With specific reference to planning for the Church at the di-

ocesan level, there are a number of options which can usefully

13



be explored prior to the retention of professional consultants on

a formal fee basis:

• Use of information on the experience of other dioceses of

comparable size and complexity, including unsuccessful experi-

ence, which is often equally instructive.

• Enlistment of the voluntary assistance of planning profession-

als active in the Church or civil community, many of whom are

likely to be more than willing to assist the Church in the par-

ticular area of their professional competence.

• Reference to standard planning literature on a selected basis.

Planning Office Size

Finally, it may be helpful to offer a number of observations

relative to the optimum size for a planning office since this ques-

tion also has a tendency to recur periodically in most organiza-

tions.

It is obviously not possible to set forth any hard and fast guide-

lines, given the wide range of structures through which the

Church (to adhere to the present context) functions at the na-

tional, regional and local levels.

Ultimately of course the size of the planning office should be

determined by application of the norm for all organizational com-

ponents: the scope of the assigned task in relation to available

resources.

In the specific case of planning there is, however, at least one

particularly important option which has a significant bearing upon

office size: the actual locus of the detailed work of planning.

The importance of this option is frequently overlooked, par-

ticularly in the all too common approach capsulized as follows in

a proposal submitted at the diocesan level by a professional

consulting firm: “but a larger office would be able to do a better

job.”

The contrary view here is that as much as possible of the

planning function should be “farmed out” by the planning office

to the activities for which the proposals are actually being de-

veloped. This is perhaps the most effective way, and at times the

only way, to ensure the full and active participation of these

14



operational activities in the total planning process, and in the

“organizational state of mind” of which the process is a part.

Because the particular base from which this study has been

prepared represents an appropriate case in point, it may be per-

missible to end this study as it began, on a personal note.

Many professional colleagues have been surprised and not a

few have been dismayed to learn that even after five years this

particular office continues to function with a total staff of two.

Within the Conferences, however, it appears to be the view of

those responsible for making such judgments that the task of the

office (in both its planning and organizational dimensions) has

been and continues to be effectively carried out. The correspond-

ing view within the office is that the deliberate size limitation has

contributed significantly to whatever may actually have been

achieved.

The size factor is believed to have had this intended effect by

making it clearly impossible for the planning office to function in

any other capacity than that of the instrumentality through which

the operational units were (necessarily under the circumstances)

to become fully and actively involved in every important dimen-

sion of planning.

It is further believed in the light of actual experience that a

larger office might long since have ceased to exist (or at least

to function effectively), submerged under the sheer weight of its

own accumulation of unused processes and unimplemented plans.

It is doubtful whether anyone beyond the immediate staff

—

“we two”—fully realizes just how much planning has been done
during the past five years, or just how little of it has been done

within the planning office itself.

It is recognized that this approach to planning office size may

not be the accepted norm among a majority of those in the plan-

ning profession. It is hoped that one day it may be.

15





APPENDIX

THE NCCB/USCC PLANNING PROCESS

AN INFORMAL SUMMARY

17



APPENDIX

THE NCCB/USCC PLANNING PROCESS

AN INFORMAL SUMMARY

Origin and Responsibility

The original source document for the existing NCCB/USCC

forward planning function is a forma! management study approved

by the general membership. Although a number of relatively

important procedural changes have subsequently been made, the

fundamental rationale and basic process remain essentially as set

forth in that study.

The Committee on Research, Plans and Programs has been

assigned basic responsibility for the forward planning function

with respect to NCCB Secretariats and all USCC activities.

Necessary staff assistance to the Committee is provided by the

Office of the General Secretary, usually through the Secretary for

Planning.

The Committee on Research, Plans and Programs

This Committee is comprised of the Conference President as

Chairman, the immediate past President, the Vice President, the

Treasurer, and the General Secretary.

With respect to the NCCB Secretariats the Committee functions

as an instrumentality of the NCCB Administrative Committee; with

respect to USCC activities the Committee functions as an instru-

mentality of the USCC Administrative Board.

The Committee is responsible for review and evaluation of the

goals and objectives, plans and programs, and ongoing opera-

tional performance of NCCB Secretariats and all USCC activities.

With regard to specific programs at the staff level, a key con-

cept is that the initiation of any new program, or the substantial

modification of any existing program, requires the prior approval

of the Committee.

18



While such Committee action is subject to review by the NCCB

Administrative Committee or the USCC Administrative Board, and

the general membership, it can nevertheless be said from the

standpoint of day-to-day operation that specific responsibility in

this area rests primarily with the Committee.

Other Conference Committees

Direct involvement by the Committee on Research, Plans and

Programs is but one element in the overall participation in the

NCCB/USCC planning function by the membership of both Con-

ferences.

Separate committees function actively in every major area of

concern. The NCCB operates primarily through its extensive

committee structure (with the assistance of separate staff secre-

tariats where required), while each major program area of the

USCC has its own related committee.

In the case of the NCCB the individual committees are the

primary source of the separate planning proposals, while the

USCC committees perform a key role in the development and

evaluation of staff proposals.

The Secretary for Planning

The Office of Research, Plans and Programs was formally acti-

vated on April 15, 1970, with the appointment of its first director,

subsequently designated as the Secretary for Planning.

In addition to providing staff assistance to the Committee on

Research, Plans and Programs, the Secretary for Planning has

primary responsibility for developing, implementing, and monitor-

ing the internal planning process. More specifically, this respon-

sibility includes:

• Elaborating the overall process and related instructional and

procedural materials.

• Evaluating individual planning proposals submitted by

NCCB/USCC activities.

• Identifying questions and issues relative to these proposals

and their implementation.

• Preparing agenda documentation for review meetings of the

Committee on Research, Plans and Programs, and maintaining

appropriate records of Committee deliberations and decisions.

19



• Assisting the General Secretary in communicating Committee

decisions and in monitoring their implementation.

• Evaluating the structures and systems through which ap-

proved plans and programs are implemented.

The First Step: An Essential Pre-Condition

The first formal step toward full implementation of the planning

system was the development by the Committee on Research,

Plans and Programs (with staff assistance from the Secretary for

Planning) of a formal definition of the nature, role, and purpose

of the USCC, including its relationship to the NCCB and to indi-

vidual dioceses and regional and state conferences.

Completion of this statement in June 1970 (together with its

ratification by the general membership in November 1970) repre-

sents what may with some justification be regarded as the single

most important step in the implementation of the overall planning

system, since the statement provides the essential framework or

context within which all other planning activities must be carried

out, and is one of the principal yardsticks against which these

activities must ultimately be measured.

A general measure of the importance of such a definitional

statement is that its development is frequently considered not as

an integral part of the planning process, but rather as a necessary

“pre-condition’' without which there can be no meaningful process.

A more specific measure in the present context is that the

approved USCC “Statement of Goals” has been included in the

official NCCB/USCC handbook of statutes and bylaws.

Major Elements of the Process

Following the definitional process described in the preceding

section, the first specific procedural step was the development by

the Secretary for Planning of a detailed internal planning process.

Since this process incorporates substantive and procedural

elements identical with those set forth under the same heading in

the accompanying study, the duplicate listing has been deleted

from this appendix.

The process was formally initiated in mid-1970 with requests

to the NCCB and USCC program units for planning proposals for

20



1971, to be submitted according to guidelines contained in a

detailed procedural package accompanying the requests.

Related Financial and Budgetary Matters

As in all organizations in which there are separate offices for

planning and finance, there is a need for an ongoing relationship

between the two, particularly in the areas of budget development

and the evaluation of budget performance.

In the present instance, this involves day-to-day contact between

the two offices and, in addition, a significant amount of staff work

by the Secretary for Planning on behalf of the NCCB/USCC Com-

mittee on Budget and Finance, which, like the Committee on

Research, Plans and Programs, is an instrumentality of the NCCB

Administrative Committee and the USCC Administrative Board.

To further ensure the necessary coordination of the two disci-

plines, two Conference officers (the Treasurer and the General

Secretary) serve as members of both of these key committees.

In addition, the Secretary for Planning serves as a member of

the in-house staff budget committee in its review of budget pro-

posals prior to their submission to the Committee on Budget and

Finance.

Related Organizational and Procedural Matters

The responsibility of the Committee on Research, Plans and

Programs, and thus of the Secretary for Planning, extends to the

review of the specific organizational structures and related pro-

cedures through which approved plans and programs are carried

out. This arrangement reflects the fact that these matters are

closely related to program planning and implementation in the

specific NCCB/USCC context.

The Process Itself: A Narrative Description

In early June of each year the Secretary for Planning forwards

to the various NCCB and USCC planning units a procedural pack-

age containing general instructions for the preparation of plan-

ning proposals for the following year. An outline of the required

content of these individual proposals is provided in the final sec-

tion of this appendix.

21



The completed proposals are submitted to the Secretary for

Planning in mid-July, after such preliminary review as may be

considered appropriate within the individual program areas.

These proposals are then subjected to an intensive review by

the Secretary for Planning in the light of: (a) the mission and

objectives of the Conferences as a whole; (b) the proposals for

the current and previous years; (c) the recorded decisions of the

Committee on Research, Plans and Programs; and (d) the existing

policy of the two Conferences and the context within which this

policy was developed. (In order to obtain the necessary back-

ground for this final policy dimension, the Secretary for Planning

attends all meetings of the general membership, the NCCB Ad-

ministrative Committee, the USCC Administrative Board, and the

USCC departmental committees.)

On the basis of this review, the Secretary for Planning prepares

a documentation package for mailing to the members of the

Committee approximately one month in advance of the regular

annual review meeting of the Committee, which is usually con-

ducted in the latter part of September.

This advance documentation package normally includes: (a) the

planning proposals themselves, or abridgments thereof; (b) a

separate summary analysis of the results of the review of each

proposal; (c) similar information on special action items which

are not encompassed in the individual planning proposals; and

(d) a covering analytical memorandum summarizing the major

issues to be addressed by the Committee in its pre-meeting

review of the proposals.

After this package has been forwarded to the Committee on

Research, Plans and Programs, the internal review process con-

tinues along two major lines: (a) discussion of the USCC planning

proposals by the appropriate departmental committees; and (b)

analysis of the financial implications of the planning proposals,

individually and as a group.

With reference to the first of these, review of all regular and

special USCC planning proposals is assigned to the departmental

committees by the USCC bylaws, and a major segment of one

committee meeting each year is normally set aside for this pur-

pose. Action by these committees normally takes the form of

resolutions addressed to the USCC Administrative Board. The

22



Secretary for Planning serves in a resource capacity in connection

with these committee reviews.

In the case of NCCB, in view of the different statutory relation-

ship between the various committees and their secretariats, the

process is somewhat different. Each initial planning document is

normally a “joint venture" of the individual committee and its

secretariat and “disputed questions" are normally resolved at the

episcopal rather than the staff level.

The financial dimension of the review is normally carried out

after the mailing of the advance documentation package. This

practice relates to the overall timing of the budgetary cycle, which

in turn is dictated by the nature of the budgetary process itself.

While it is possible at least in the preliminary stages to review

the planning proposals without reference to their specific financial

implications, the budgetary process is necessarily more detailed

and precise, even in its earliest stages. This is true because in a

sense no individual budget proposal is firm until all are firm—

a

proposition which is not true except in a most general way of the

individual planning proposals.

For this reason, the budget review process provides for a

formal internal review of the individual proposals before they are

finalized for presentation to the Committee on Budget and Fi-

nance. This review is conducted by a staff budget review com-

mittee, and one of the key resource materials is the documenta-

tion package concurrently under review by the Committee on

Research, Plans and Programs.

The primary functions of this staff budget review committee are

to: (a) conduct a line-item review of each individual budget pro-

posal; (b) conduct special reviews of selected individual expense

categories; (c) conduct a separate review of individual income

forecasts; and (d) develop an “alternative budget" which is in

balance, as mandated by the general membership of the two

Conferences.

The relationship of the planning proposals to this task is clear:

it is the planning proposals which provide the essential raw ma-

terial for the financial decisions, based upon their potential impact

upon general Conference priorities and individual Conference

programs.

23



The Secretary for Planning attends the formal annual review

meeting of the Committee on Budget and Finance, in order to

provide information on questions relating to the programs en-

compassed in the various budget proposals.

The Committee on Research, Plans and Programs, using the

advance documentation package, the summarized results of the

internal reviews discussed above, and specific material referred

by the Committee on Budget and Finance, then conducts its own

formal review of the planning proposals.

In each of these formal NCCB/USCC Committee reviews, the

question of “hearings" with individual staff members or commit-

tee chairmen in relation to individual budget or planning proposals

is decided on an ad hoc basis. Initially, such hearings were held

by each Committee in connection with each proposal. However,

it was subsequently decided that such hearings were necessary

only in connection with major unresolved issues. This modified

approach makes it possible for the Committees to carry out the

kind of in-depth review of critical issues which was simply not

feasible within a reasonable timeframe when each individual

budget and planning proposal was discussed with the staff mem-

bers by whom it had been prepared.

The specific actions of the Committee on Research, Plans and

Programs are recorded by the Secretary for Planning. These ac-

tions are then summarized by the Secretary for transmittal to the

general membership of both Conferences for ratification in the

November general meetings. The formal transmittal vehicle is the

report of the Chairman of the Committee on Research, Plans and

Programs to the general membership.

In addition, the decisions of the Committee are transmitted to

the appropriate members of the NCCB/USCC staff, with a nota-

tion that all such decisions are subject to ratification (and thus

to possible modification) by the general membership.

The November review and the dissemination of its results

completes the “documentary phase" of the planning process, a

phase which began with the early June request of the Secretary

for Planning to the various planning units to undertake the devel-

opment of planning proposals for the following year.

However, the more general process goes on, and the Commit-

tee on Research, Plans and Programs has found it necessary,

24



each year, to hold one or more interim meetings to review pro-

gram effectiveness, to resolve new questions which have arisen,

or to consider related organizational matters.

Thus the total process is by nature a continuum rather than an

annually recurring event, with the primary emphasis shifting

back and forth between the formal documentary aspect and the

less formal but equally important elements of program imple-

mentation and performance evaluation.

25



Content of Individual Planning Proposals

The content of the individual proposals can normally be ex-

pected to vary from year to year to meet the varying needs of the

general membership or those of executive management. However,

the following material from existing procedures can be expected

to remain relatively constant, as it has in each year since the

initiation of the NCCB/USCC process.

Date

Each separate planning document should carry the date of its

finalization in the upper-right-hand corner of the first page.

Heading

The heading of each separate planning document will consist

of three lines, as follows:

(Conference: NCCB or USCC)

(Department, Office, or Secretariat)

Planning Proposal for (Year)

Sections

Each separate planning document will consist of four major

sections, and an optional fifth, as follows:

A. Essential Mission

A concise general statement (normally in one or two para-

graphs) of the basic purpose of the organizational component

covered by the document.

B. Major Objectives

An elaboration of this purpose in the form of a listing of the

more specific objectives which have been established to ensure

its accomplishment.

C. Program Summary and Priority Rating

A summary listing of all individual programs in the order of

their priority, accompanied by an indication of the particular

26



objectives each is intended to achieve. This can be done by cross-

referencing each program to the numbered objectives.

D. Individual Program Descriptions

Relatively brief summary descriptions of the content of each

of the individual programs, including specific criteria to be ap-

plied in measuring performance against objectives, and an indi-

cation of the relationship to similar Church programs at the

regional, state, or diocesan levels.

E. Other Activities

A simple listing of significant additional functions or activities

which have not been included in the programs listed above (e.g.,

service on internal committees, or on the boards of related

organizations).

Appendices

Each separate planning document will contain three appen-

dices, and an optional fourth, as follows:

Appendix One: Program Changes

For each new program listed and briefly described in the body

of the proposal this appendix should provide a more extended

description, a statement of the rationale for undertaking the pro-

gram, and an analysis of the potential impact on existing pro-

grams or staffing.

Appendix Two: Individual Personnel Assignments

This appendix should include a summary of present personnel

strength, including the specific program assignments of each

individual, and the same information in relation to any proposed

changes.

Appendix Three: Three-Year Outlook

This appendix should provide a brief summary of external

factors (such as possible changes in the Church, in society in

general, or in the constituencies served) which are likely to affect

the nature, scope, timing, or general effectiveness of future pro-

gramming efforts.

27



Essentially, this section is intended to cover these specific

questions: What is the expected nature of changes in the environ-

ment in which programs will be carried out? What new service

requirements or opportunities are likely to arise from these

changes? What are the principal internal strengths and weaknesses

in relation to these requirements or opportunities?

In addition, each proposal should include additional informa-

tion which is seen as having potential value to the Committee on

Research, Plans and Programs in its efforts to ensure optimum

longer-range use of the limited resources of the two Conferences.

Appendix Four: Other Supplemental Data

This optional appendix is intended to provide visibility for any

additional supporting material an activity wishes to submit, which

is not specifically requested in the basic package or the preceding

appendices. In most instances, because of limitations on the size

of the total package, it is unlikely that material in this appendix

will be forwarded to the Committee on Research, Plans and Pro-

grams prior to the formal review meeting. It will, however, be made

available as reference data during the meeting to the extent that

this appears necessary.

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME LIBRARY

28