As public funds become ever more scarce and demands on them ever greater, public scrutiny of their use increases. Means are sought to determine exactly how such funds are being used, and to determine where and how they could be better allocated. The quantitative evaluation of performance provides some measure of rational justification for political and policy decisions. 

Public transit is today in this position of stabilized or decreasing funds and increasing demands, yet there exist no readily applicable means of evaluating transit performance. Transit must adapt the evaluation techniques and learn from the experience of other public fields. 

Performance evaluation has long been an issue in the fields of public education, housing, and health. Many volumes of research are available discussing evaluation theory and experience with techniques ranging from performance contracts and peer ratings to subjective ratings of "satisfaction". 

Performance evaluations are also conducted in many other public service fields, e.g. fire and police services. Yet, the fields of education, housing, and health are similar to public transit in that they: (1) must be provided on a continuous basis; (2) cannot be nor mally justified on a public safety basis, as can police and fire ser vices; and (3) are not utilized by the entire population on a regular basis. 

This paper will investigate each of the fields (public education, housing, and health) in turn, discussing the predominant evaluation techniques used or suggested for that field and the problems inhibit ing' evaluation. For each area, appropriate parallels will be drawn to the evaluation of public transit.

The Institute of Transportation Studies has undertaken a year long study aimed at increasing our knowledge of organizational structure in the transit industry and its relationship to performance and attitudes of employees. This report is a preliminary discussion of the results. Analysis of the data collected in July of 1978 has not been completed so the conclusions and interpretations put forth in this report must be considered tentative and subject to change. The following discussion will be based on the interviews with general managers of the transit properties visited. It will attempt to incorporate some of the more subjective impressions and less quantifiable information contained in the interviews. 

This study collected data from 16 transit properties in California. The sample includes a representative cross section ranging in size from 21 to 837 buses and from 50 to 2000 employees and includes a variety of service areas, population densities and types of operations. In all but one case, the general manager was interviewed by the researchers. 

This report is divided into three sections based on the information obtained in the interviews and subjective impressions of the interviewers: structural variations, factors influencing structure, and uses of structure by management. Although the research project studies attitude and performance in addition to structure, the attitude and performance data is still being compiled and analyzed at this time. Consequently this report will be concerned primarily with structure and its components.