Inquiries and in-depth studies. We may judge that the information collected by the inquiries and studies has been useful and important. This is in part because such information, based on the perceptions of urban administrators themselves, is quite rare. We more often rely on scientific surveys and analyses of aggregate statistical data, from which we can only infer what problems are, and what meanings people-administrators and residents - give to conditions. Or we rely on "expert" judgments of visitors who stay a short while in a city and give us their "opinions" on its problems. Seldom do we expend time and energy in systematic attempt to ask those who spend a life time in the city administration how they identify problems and how they attempt to address those problems. In this respect the AUICK surveys and in-depth studies have been highly innovative.

Further, the combination of AUICK's Inquiries and in-depth studies provides us with instruments that are complementary to one another. The Inquiries give us a wide view of many administrators' perceptions of urban conditions and problems. This also implies, however, a survey instrument, which must use relatively simple questions to which administrators can only respond in a limited way. The in-depth studies allow us to use administrators more as informants than simply respondents, and thus give administrators a greater opportunity to tell us about their problems. In combination, the two instruments provide more information than either can alone.

We believe there is good reason to continue to collect such data, though we can ask whether the schedule of the past should be continued. The three inquiries have shown considerable consistency in the list and relative weight of urban problems. These are unlikely to change rapidly, and might thus suggest a reduction in the schedule. Rather than one every other year, we might consider one every three or four years. That would free resources for other types of data collection.

Data base. Here we should turn back to consider the issue of the data base, which was part of the original plan for AUICK, but which has yet to be acted upon systematically. What data should be included in such a data base, and what would be its use? It can be argued that since there are now many data bases available, and they are easily accessed through computer discs or on-line sources, a statistical data base would only duplicate the work of others, particularly the UN Population Division and Habitat. Moreover, to provide a data base that is distinctive and comprehensive would require more resources than AUICK could ever mobilize. It is also possible to argue, as we shall here, that AUICK's mission of listening to the front line administrators provides it with an entree to a different, more distinctive, and far more valuable type of information.

An alternative might be considered from AUICK's experience collecting information about urban projects. We have asked administrators in both the inquiries and in-depth studies about projects they have generated to address their problems. To date, we have done little more than list most of these, with relatively little systematic assessment or analysis. One could think of expanding this list of projects and developing a systematic protocol for collecting more of such information to build a data base of urban projects. AUICK could work with its advisors and a group of administrators to develop a protocol, a list of questions to be asked about any project, and a standard format for reporting on each project. The information would be designed to be practical and directly useful to administrators. The data base would then accumulate a type of information not readily available, and which could give administrators useful ideas about what others had done with any given problem. The information should include assessments of success and failure, together with reasons for the success or failure.