In an effort to develop a comprehensive theory of the relationships between different levels of government in the implementation of federal programs, the authors of this report conducted a study of four federal programs operating in both Baltimore (Maryland) and Milwaukee (Wisconsin). Three hypotheses were tested: first, that when program goals at the local level are redistributive rather than developmental, relations between federal and local governments are more complex and conflictual and policy implementation is less complete; second, that administering redistributive programs professionally rather than politically reduces intergovernmental conflict and improves policy implementation; and third, that political administration of developmental programs may increase intergovernmental cooperation and policy implementation. In the study, developmental efforts were represented by the federal government's vocational education and Community Development Block Grant programs, and redistributive efforts by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's Title I and by the Section 8 Rent Subsidy for Existing Housing program authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act. Interviews with government officials and informed observers supplemented documentary source materials for the study. The findings generally upheld the hypotheses, suggesting that redistributive policies should be a federal prerogative while developmental policies should be pursued through state and local agencies. (Author/PGD)