Comparison of Perceived Effectiveness of MPA Programs Administered under Different Institutional Arrangements

Abstract

When the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) became the official accrediting agency for academic programs in public administration in 1986, a substantial element of the public administration academic and practitioner community saw that as a significant step to consolidate and legitimate the field and to enhance the quality of public administration education. Yet, some feared that the accreditation process would be accompanied by a much more rigorous attention to standards than had characterized NASPAA's peer review process. Fears have tended to be more prominent among programs not associated with independent departments or schools of public affairs and administration, programs in unconventional institutional arrangements (e.g., nonindependent, nonpolitical science departments), and programs that are relatively new and small. Despite a policy allowing flexibility and innovation in curriculum design and means of delivery in master's degree programs, NASPAA's desire for public administration faculty and administrators to exercise initiative and substantial determining influence in such areas as the appointment, promotion, and tenuring of faculty and in the use of financial and other resources provides a sobering signal to Masters of Public Affairs or Administration (MPA) programs not housed within independent academic units. Although an element of academia may always question the biases of NASPAA, perhaps a more important question than whether NASPAA standards favor, encourage, or promote certain institutional arrangements is whether a variety of organizational arrangements can effectively deliver the desirable outcomes of MPA programs and whether NASPAA standards enhance the effectiveness of MPA programs. To explore these questions, the author conducted a survey in 1985-1986 of MPA program directors' perceptions of their programs' effectiveness. The survey allowed the author to compare the perceived effectiveness of MPA programs located within departments of political science, departments of public administration, combined departments, separate professional schools, and combined professional schools. I It also allowed the author to compare the perceived effectiveness of MPA programs on the basis of their broader disciplinary affiliations (i.e., colleges of arts and science, schools of public affairs and administration, and schools of business or business and public * This article reports the findings from a nationwide survey of MPA directors' perceptions of their programs' effectiveness. The survey explored the directors' general perceptions of their programs' effectiveness, perceptions of their programs' capacity to achieve 17 specific goals, and the characteristics of effective and ineffective MPA programs. The findings reflect most favorably on programs administered by schools of public affairs and administration and departments of public administration, but generally they indicate that school and departmental affiliations do not have a major impact on MPA program effectiveness. In contrast, NASPAA accreditation does seem to be related to MPA program effectiveness. The findings are discussed in relation to choosing a MPA program structure and NASPAA accreditation.