This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Public Policy Analysis and Evaluation
Brandy Parker Inayet Hadi Emmy Glancy
Matt King Michelle Warren Aneka Patel
P AD 5001: Introduction to Public Administration and Public Service Fall 2006 Professor Bob Gage
2 PAD 5001 PANEL Public Policy Analysis and Evaluation
I. Policy Outputs vs. Policy Outcomes – Michelle Warren………………………2 II. Outcome Analysis (impact analysis) – Emmy Glancy…………………………4 A. Pure Experimental Design B. Quasi-experimental Design C. Non-experimental Design III. Process Analysis and Implementation Studies A. Managerial Perspective – Inayet Hadi………………………………...6 B. Political Perspective – Brandy Parker………………………………..12 C. Legal Perspective – Emmy Glancy…………………………………..19 IV. Application – Aneka Patel and Matt King…………………………………..20 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..27
Editor – Matt King Panel Moderator – Michelle Warren
2 I. Introduction – Compiled and edited by Matt King Anyone involved in the public policy process -- a president, a legislative staff member, a judge, an administrator -- analyzes public policy in some sense. Those who analyze public policy professionally, however, must use a variety of tools to do their job effectively. We present four perspectives that can be used to analyze policy and to evaluate the policy’s implementation: traditional public management, new public management, through a political perspective or through the law. II. Policy Outputs vs. Policy Outcomes – Michelle Warren A policy output, defined by Rosenbloom is, “an official statement of governmental intent, delineation of powers and methods, and allocation of resources. Statutes, congressional resolutions, presidential proclamations, and the allocation of staff and funds are policy outputs.” 1 The outputs are in essence, activities. They are statements of goals rather than the achievement of a policy objective. Policy outcomes are the next step after an objective has been stated. They seek to study the efficiency and effectiveness of a policy objective. They are concerned primarily with implementation and performance. They ask questions like: Are we hitting the intended target? What are the side effects? What is the cost? Is this sustainable? There are many aspects to how policy outputs become outcomes. John Kingdon’s book, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy does a good job of trying to attach some predictable reasons to an arena that can appear to be more reactive than proactive. There are three primary forces that drive both agenda setting and specified alternatives. The three can simply be stated as problems, policies, and politics. All three of these aspects are key factors to bringing not only an agenda to the forefront, but also following it through to effective implementation. Problems capture the attention of legislative officials and citizens and can bring light to a need that requires attention. The community of policy specialists, comprised but not limited to:
Rosenbloom, David H., Kravchuk, Robert S. Public Administration, Understanding Management, Politics, and the Law in the Public Sector. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
3 Hill staffers, academics, researchers, bureaucrats, and interest groups, are always looking for an opportunity to apply their ideas to a rising issue. Politically charged activities like swings in national mood, elections, changes in administration, interest group pressures, and other factors can be the third aspect to enabling their policy to take flight. Players in the game of public policy are diverse, but politically elected officials are the ones who are most credited for enabling their ideas and agendas to make the cut. “No one set of actors dominates the process, but elected politicians and their appointees come closer than any other.” 2 Bureaucrats are given the most credit for enabling a policy to be implemented effectively. “Political appointees come and go, but the bureaucracy endures.” 3 Because the bureaucrat is so focused on the implementation aspects of public policy, trying to oversee programs that already exist, they are not trying to promote new agenda items. However, throughout the implementation stages, they are able to see the efficiency and effectiveness of the policies that can lead to innovation. With that newfound insight and innovation, they are then dependent on the officials in the political arena to productively enable their ideas to become visible. Typically, their alternative solutions are developed while waiting for the perfect storm of problems, policies and politics to create the open window needed to push a policy through. One policy analyst for an interest group, quoted in Kingdon’s book, compares pushing specific alternatives to surfing, “…As I see it, people who are trying to advocate change are like surfers waiting for the big wave. You get out there, you have to be ready to go, you have to be ready to paddle. If you’re not ready to paddle when the big wave comes along, you’re not going to ride it in.” 4 Since events cannot be controlled, players in the public policy arena must be prepared to respond when the situation makes itself available. Unfortunately, need is not necessarily the criteria to push a policy through to the implementation phase. Many factors weigh into the elevation of agendas and alternatives to be implemented. This may explain why the dilemma of social
Kingdon, John. “Participants on the Inside of Government,” Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1984. pg. 47. 3 Kingdon, John. “Participants on the Inside of Government,” Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1984. pg. 35. 4 Kingdon, John. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984. Chapter 9.
4 security and healthcare still remain virtually untouched. Many advocates are most likely hanging in the balances, surfboards in hand, waiting for the perfect time to catch the big wave that will let them ride in with their ideas. III. Outcome Analysis – Emmy Glancy “Growing concerns with policy analysis” is the title of our chapter on public policy analysis and implementation. Why is there a “growing concern” with the methods used? The two ways to analyze a policy: through its outcomes or the implementation, are often not sufficient to ascertain what effect (if any) a policy is having. There are always factors not taken into account that should be considered when analyzing its impact, especially with experimental designs used in outcome analysis. There are three main models utilized in outcome analysis which assess the impact of a particular policy. These include a purely experimental design, quasi-experimental, and the nonexperimental model. It is rare that one of these models would be used alone, whereby combining several for one analysis proves to present more thorough findings. Pure Experimental Design is the classic and most sought after model, which includes a random selection of participants who are then placed into two groups: those who’ve received the services/treatment and those who have not (control group). As we’ve learned from large-scale human experiments in the past, there is a very limited opportunity for this type of model due to the highly charged legal, moral, and ethical problems. Take for instance, the “Tuskegee Study” which studied the effects of untreated syphilis in African American men from 1932-1972. Under the direction of the United States Public Health Service, 399 men with syphilis and 201 men were part of the control group. The government eventually settled out of court with the untreated men and their heirs, and its tragic outcome continues to be a reminder and warning for this type of questionable experimentation today. Many are familiar with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their work around the world to help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. Recently, one of their grant recipients was researching the effects of the vaccine Tenofavir. They were paying Cambodian prostitutes $3 a month to take a daily pill, one containing the vaccine and the other a placebo for an entire year. Although
5 it seemed logical to test in areas where the disease is rampant (Cambodian prostitutes are infected at a rate of 4-10% per year), withholding treatment to some and using a group of poor sex workers from another country seems a bit more than misguided. Clearly, a purely experimental design is often limited in public administration. The second model of outcome analysis, Quasi-Experimental research will often be used instead as it determines the impact on groups exposed to policy compared to those who were not; rather than withholding services or treatment to a group. Federalism provides a great opportunity for quasiexperimental models because of the differences in which a state will choose to employ a particular governmental policy. For example, a quasi-experimental approach may be developed to study the effects of seatbelt laws in reducing the rate of unrestrained fatalities. Take Colorado and Iowa, whose seatbelt laws are enforced at two very different levels of severity.5 In Colorado, a seatbelt violation is considered a secondary one in which a driver over the age of 18 cannot be ticketed or stopped for that violation alone. In Iowa, there were a large number of unrestrained motor vehicle deaths so the state has increased funding to provide an increase of police presence, roadblocks, and “Click It or Ticket” signs and public information campaigns. Studies have found that states that pass a primary seat belt law increase average seat belt usage by nine to 14 percentage points. This, in turn, decreases crash fatalities by an average of eight percent and decreases the severity of injuries in crashes. So, according to the quasi-experimental model, since Iowa has fewer fatalities this year than Colorado, it suggests the seatbelt policy is, in fact, working. But what about all the other factors that would impact Colorado’s fatality rate? Important factors such as the number of high-risk drivers (namely the teenaged and aging drivers), or rural versus city fatalities and differences. These questions illustrate the limitations of the quasi-experimental design. Without taking into consideration all of the components related to the impact of a public policy, it becomes dangerous to assume a quasi-experimental model will provide a conclusive answer.
“Primary Enforcement of Seat belt Laws – Issue Brief.” MADD online. 10 December 2006. http://www.madd.org/madd_programs/7609
6 Finally, the third main model used to determine the impact of a particular policy is what’s known as the Non-Experimental design. As its name suggests, this type of research alone is often not enough to discern if a policy is working well or not. By assuming a “cause-and-effect” between the opportunity and availability of programs/services to a target population. This model would link the nutrition of kids in schools with free and reduced school lunch program. If researchers found the nutrition is inadequate, there are many factors and variables not considered that may explain why the federal school lunch program was not working. Without a control group, the non-experimental model just doesn’t provide a strong enough argument. As in this example, we can’t be sure what they would eat in the absence of school lunch programs and the significance nutritionally. In conclusion, all three experimental models used in policy analysis may be inherently cause for “growing concern.” They do however, allow researchers to draw general conclusions and offer a reasonable starting point to discussing a particular policy’s efficacy in attaining the goals set out by its lawmakers. The principal recommendation is to keep each model’s merits and limitations in mind when approaching policy evaluation. IV. Managerial Perspective on Implementation Evaluations – Inayet Hadi The traditional management (TM) perspective and new public management (NPM) perspective on implementation evaluation offers different answers to the following type of questions regarding policy: how can we determine if its execution is ‘optimal’ or whether it is ‘satisfactory’ or ‘not good enough’; to determine if the policy is appropriate or not is based on the values that the two different perspectives emphasize.6 Woodrow Wilson conceptualized the “traditional managerial approach” in an essay titled "The Study of Public Administration" written in 1887 that called for studying of public administration, the action part of the government, as business is studied because public administration “…is removed from the hurry and strife of politics.”7 Separating politics from public administration was in response to the “spoils systems,” where the elected political leader appointed
Rosenbloom, David and Kravchuk, Robert. Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector. 6th ed. Boston Burr Ridge: McGraw Hill, 2005. p. 359. 7 Starling, Grover. Managing the Public Sector. 7th ed. Australia: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005. p. 36.
7 their supporters to public offices without merit.8 The effect of the “spoil systems” was hampering the effectiveness, cost, and efficiency of government. Thus the aim of scientific management, later to be characterized as traditional management (TM), was to make government more efficient, effective, and cost conscious using private business models. The new public management (NPM) began during the early nineteen nineties with the launch of the national performance review (NPR), spear headed by Vice President Al Gore, which deemphasized outputs of governmental agencies and placed more importance on outcomes or results.9 Traditional management evaluations placed heavier importance on internal policies and procedures to gage the effectiveness of a program or the output. While NPM evaluations focused on the outcomes or the end results. Traditional Approach to Policy Analysis and Implementation Evaluation According to Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, “[t]he traditional managerial perspective values effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in implementation,” in order for a program or policy to be considered good, and places less importance on “customer satisfaction, public participation, and procedural due process”.10 Programs or policies that are evaluated according to the TM approach will tend to focus on the program’s effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in implementation. Even though a program will meet the intended objective or will have the intended impact, it will be considered a “bad” program or policy because it did not meet the three requirements listed above. Some examples of policies that could be considered “bad” by the TM perspective is if a bureaucrat is giving discretion in implementing programs or policies, or there is no way to monitor how discretion is being used as intended by the policies or program. This could cause disruption to the program or policy if similar cases could be treated differently due to the personal whims of the “street-level” bureaucrat.11 Programs or policies that have a component of public interface, i.e. law enforcement, teachers, county clerks, etc. are collectively known as “street-level” bureaucrats. There is a possibility that “street-level” bureaucrats “…might…engage in ‘triage,’ that is, to invest their time
Merriam, Charles Edward. The American Party System: An Introduction to the Study of Political Parties in the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1923. Questia. 29 Nov. 2006. http://questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=1023797. 9 Kurian, George Thomas, ed. A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Questia. 29 Nov. 2006. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99163540. 10 Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, p. 360. 11 Ibid. p. 361.
8 and other resources where they can do the most good. … [or] may engage in ‘creaming.’ They will devote their efforts to the cases that are easiest to deal with and will make their performance look best.”12 The “street-level” bureaucrats will interpret, act upon, or sabotage the policies or programs for which they are required to carry out with different approaches depending on their mood, time of day, or certain other variables that are natural parts of living.13 The traditional managerial perspective views such professions as being least effective because employees must interpret the policies to make a decision based upon their personal opinions, which can be considered as straying from formal guidelines that were put in place to ensure that policies and programs were applied uniformly in both weight and scope for their intended purposes. In order to counteract the possibility of “creaming” or ”triage” from disrupting the implementation of a program or policy, a manager who advocates the traditional managerial approach “…will try to develop performance measures that constrain the street-level administrator more to the formal guidelines and expectations of the organization.”14 The regulations intended for ensuring uniformity could be potential barriers from correctly implementing the program or policy as intended because the regulations have the potential to restrict the administrator from fulfilling the policy or program’s intention on the macro level. On the micro level, those same regulations could be determined by the street level administrator, and not necessarily with the intention to accomplish the ultimate good, or to fulfill the spirit of the policy, program, or to uphold subsequent regulations.15 Methods that are favored by the traditional managerial perspective for evaluating the implementation of programs or policy are the following techniques as identified by Rosenbloom and Kravchuk. The first technique is a “[s]ite visit by teams of high-ranking administrators…to assess operations at various installations.”16 This method has many downfalls; the important one is that the teams will get an impressionistic view of the implementation process without the ability to fully realize over a period of time if the program is meeting the objectives and goals over a sustained period of time. The next two techniques deal with the process of the program imple12 13
Ibid. Harris, Lloyd and Ogbonna, Emmanuel. “Exploring Service Sabotage: The Antecedents, Types and Consequences of Frontline, Deviant Antiservice Behaviors.” Journal of Service Research 4.3 (2000): 174. 14 Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, p. 361. 15 Wood, B. Dan and Waterman, Richard. Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994. p. 25. Questia. 29 Nov. 2006. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100250914. 16 Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, p. 362.
9 mentation, and comparing the program with professional standards. Both of these techniques of evaluation intends to view the activity over a sustained period of time by comparing and analyzing data that can be gathered as result of the operation of the program. Evaluating the functions of the organization with “…standards [that] have been established independently by engineers, educators, health professionals [and etc.] ...” can provide alternative methods to review the program's effectiveness, efficiency, and economy.17 The last technique used by TM in evaluating implementation is benchmarking, either internal or external, from which later evaluations can be judged to. These four techniques in order to be used correctly under the TM perspective must be “under the control of an agency’s hierarchy”, because of its main concern with bureaucracy having clear line of authority and responsibility from which to apply correcting solutions if a policy or program has been found not meeting the three requirements of effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in implementation.18
New Approach to Policy Analysis and Implementation Evaluation The new public management approach to implementation evaluation wanted to focus more on “steering” rather then on “rowing”19 to determine if a program or policy was considered good or not. Privatization was a central focus of the NPM perspective. It held the belief that “…government should arrange for the provision of public services rather then deliver them directly.”20 It viewed programs that directly were competitive with the private sector and did not jeopardize national security as being a waste of taxpayers’ funds that deteriorated public trust.21 When there is a perception on the part of the public that a service could be provided by the private sector at a lower cost and same quality then the one currently provided by the government can breed discontentment on the part of the public. Rosenbloom and Kravchuk summed up E.S. Savas’ tools that the government could use to involve the private sector in delivering to the public the goods and services that it
Ibid. Ibid. 19 Denhardt, Robert and Denhardt, Janet. “Then New Public Service: Service Rather Than Steering.” Public Administration Review. 60.6 (2000): 549. Questia. 1 Dec. 2006. http://www.questia,com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001131214. 20 Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, p. 368. 21 Ibid. p. 20.
10 could not do well in comparison.22 Only three tools will be discussed due to space limitation. The first tool is to contract out to a private firm to deliver a public service, for example, to fix the roads when in need of repairs. Second tool is to franchise certain public needs to private firms where they would have a near monopoly over the services provided. One such need is a transportation system, for example taxi companies must receive permission to operate a taxi service from the state. It would be unwise to allow unlimited free market principals to this sector, where anyone with an automobile would use it as taxi; this could pose serious public health issues. On the other hand, to allow government employees to provide this services would come at a greater cost than a private firm providing the same service at a much lower cost. The last such tool that governments can use are grants to museums, performing arts centers, health facilities, etc. to provide a needed and wanted service through the medium of private or non-profit organizations. Again, it would be extremely expensive for the government to provide those wanted and needed services directly with its own employees. These three tools can be used alone or in any combination. A local example would be the Regional Transportation District (RTD), which has franchised certain routes to private firms, but at the same time it provides those companies with a grant each year to provide those services. The NPM perspective favors employees’ empowerment “…to find commonsense responses to situations not fully anticipated even by voluminous sets of rules. It often prefers negotiations to rule-bound regulation.”23 Another characteristic of NPM that is different from the TM perspective is giving employees the discretion to implement programs and policies, rather than writing new regulations to constrain employees’ actions. The justification for this approach is best noted by Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, “…discretionary government will work better and cost less … the NPM reflects the belief that in results-oriented public administration, discretion will not breed corruption.”24 This can only be true if the expected results are clearly understood by the employees responsible for achieving them. If this criteria is not met, then the employee can justify any action as to meet a certain result as understood by the employee, but not intended by the program or policy as originally designed.
Ibid. p. 368. Ibid. p. 369. 24 Ibid. p. 370.
11 How can a program or policy be evaluated according to the perspective of NPM, if it is good or not? The first three tools discussed above require a written understanding between the government and the private organization who is asked to implement a certain policy or program of the government. In this written contract, Rosenbloom and Kravchuk suggest that specific performance measurement and monitoring requirements be designed before writing them into the contract. Possible requirements in the contract could include “…specific observable and measurable performance… the contractor to periodically submit its work records to an agency for inspection…[schedule a] surprise inspection….”25 These limited methods can be supplemented by conducting surveys among target groups that the program has an impact on, providing opportunities for citizens to let the government know if a program is not being implemented according to the contract via telephone calls or the internet. NPM is most interested in results if a single governmental agency is involved and not on its internal process or output. Being concerned with the output of an agency might be useful if multiple governmental agencies are involved “…to assess the contribution of each administrative unit to the government’s overall performance.”26 Evaluation analysis of the output of several agencies will determine if there was adequate intent on the part of an administrative unit to follow through the output measurement to achieve its intended result. Both TM and NPM want public administration to act and behave as private business do, with the exception that private business should be refocused to serve the public interest. The difference between TM and NPM arises with the importance of outputs and outcomes. Where the former is mainly interested in outputs rather then outcomes, and vise versa. V. Political Perspective Approach to Public Policy – Brandy Parker Many approaches can be looked at in public policy. The political perspective is an important approach in public policy analysis. This approach has four areas that make it important in the policy process. These areas include participation, representation of demographics and constituency interests, responsiveness, and accountability. Each one of these areas makes for efficient, effective, and equitable public policy.
Ibid. Lavery, Kevin. Smart Contracting for Local Government Services: Processes and Experience. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1999. p. 94. Questia. 29 Nov. 2006. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6844176. 26 Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, p. 372.
12 Political Representation: The first aspect of policy is representation. It is important to take into consideration demographics, the needs, and characteristics of the constituents in the formulation of public. It is important that target populations are being served and at the lowest cost to government and taxpayers. When forming public policy and policy alternatives Charles Lindbloom talks about including values and objectives that appeal to the masses. He mentions an example of where it is difficult for public administrators to do this. “One policy might offer price level stability at the cost of some risk of unemployment; another might offer less price stability but also less risk of unemployment.”27 This example illustrates the difficulties of targeting all constituents. He mentions ranking values and then leaving it up to the administrator to prioritize values. A real world example of representation is as current as the mid-term elections in Denver this past November. Denver, in attempt to cut back costs of precinct voting centers, the city shut down over half of the voting centers in Denver and opened 40 voting centers. This was to appeal to the voter that is very mobile and might not have time to vote at their precinct. These mobile voters might want to vote closer to work, on the way home from the grocery store, or on the way to work. This policy action represented a small number of the voting population in Denver. This policy did not appeal to the physically disabled who now had to travel 3 to 4 miles to the nearest voting center. This was also bad policy because elderly people who were use to walking down the street to their nearest church had to drive several miles to a voting center. Most elderly people cannot drive this far or drive at all. This example represents policy that is not representative of the interests of the people in Denver. As a result 20,000 people did not have a chance to vote. Therefore, in balancing the cost and benefit of this policy, the Denver Election Commission failed in making this policy. This policy did not represent the interest of the people. Political Participation: The next part of the political approach is participation. It is important that policy is created so that citizens can participate. This participation is important in how effective the policy is.
Lindbloom, Charles. “The Science of Muddling Through.” Classics of Public Administration. Washington, DC: Wadsworth, 2004. Pg. 177
13 It also affects the longevity of the policy and the positive impacts it has on the target population that is designed for. A policy that limits participation is not representative of a healthy democracy. An example of participation is the Indianapolis Model Cities Program which was an outgrowth of a 1966 Congressional Act called the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act. This Act provided financial assistance for cities which wanted to solve neighborhood problems with new ideas and local agencies. In 1968 Mayor Richard G. Lugar began work on a Model Cities Program for Indianapolis.28 As a result of poverty the federal government implemented this act to remedy poverty and ghettos in the major cities. The way this policy was implemented involved 3 ways of providing services to cities poorer neighborhoods.29 One way was to direct City Demonstration Agency which provided jobs to paraprofessionals, clerical, technicians, laborers and operatives. Provided employment in municipal and non-profit, “delegated agencies (DA).” Created jobs in new construction. The goal was to provide 25,000 new jobs to the urban poor and surrounding target neighborhoods. “The programs function was to give participants (model-neighborhood residents) direct economic benefits and skills, to “encourage” city agencies to become more responsive to the needs of the poor, and to challenge “credentials” as a barrier to the public employment of the disadvantaged.”30 Further evidence found that there was no delivery of services to poorer communities, especially communities that did not participation. To get these communities to participate it was important to provide more access to services and job opportunities to remedy poverty.
Larson, Karen. “Indianapolis Model Cities Program, 1970-1982.” William Henry Smith Memorial Library. August 1, 1995. http://www.indianahistory.org/library/manuscripts/collection_guides/m0664.html#CAT.
14 Political Responsiveness: The third characteristic of the political perspective is responsiveness. This characteristic is important in policy because policy needs to be responsive to the needs of the people it is representing. Responsiveness comes in a few forms. It can take the form of providing checks on administrators to prevent tunnel vision. Sometimes government can be so specialized that it is not in touch with reality. Specialization can be described as being an expert or trained in one area and one area only; therefore government operates in a tunnel. Government agencies become so specialized that the services that they provided become useless and serve no purpose. Another area that responsiveness can be seen in the political perspective is in the decentralization of government agencies. When departments become decentralized they become more responsive to the needs of citizens. There are five principals of a decentralized government which helps citizens. Principal one is that “the traditional American philosophy teaches that decentralization of governmental power, to the maximum practicable extent, is essential to the security of Man's God-given, unalienable rights.”31 The second principal of a decentralized government is that it “asserts that these rights are most securely protected by a federated system of government, consisting of a central government and State governments. Under this system, the whole quantity of governmental power is not only limited by written Constitution, Federal and State, but also decentralized so that the vast majority of powers are kept on the State and local levels.”32 The third principal of a decentralized government was to delegate power to government which was granted by few and have limited powers; while each State's government is a full-power Republic under the State Constitution, subject to its restrictions, also to that grant, and to the few restrictions specified expressly in the United States Constitution as applying to the governments of the States.”33 Therefore, greater quantity of power is retained by each State.
LEXREC. 2006. “A Principle of the Traditional American Philosophy.” November 1, 2006. http://lexrec.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr6.html.
15 The forth principal is “to preserve maximum "Home Rule" by the States, to keep the greatest feasible quantity of power as close as possible to the source, the people, where they can best watch it alertly so as to check and prevent its abuse or misuse, as well as to prevent its unsound, or unnecessary, expansion, to the peril or perhaps doom of their liberties.”34 The fifth principal “includes the system of individual, private, competitive enterprise (called Individual Enterprise, the term used by President Jefferson in his 1801 Annual Message to Congress). This system features a free-market economy, free from Government-over-Man controls, although subject to just regulation as authorized by the Constitution's pertinent provisions) under just laws expressive of "just powers" (to use the term of the Declaration of Independence) designed to protect the equal rights of all individuals and thus to safeguard sound competition. The free-market gives full play to the individual initiative, which is inspired by the incentive of the economic liberty of the Individual.”35 This principal is important in the decentralization of government because “the free-market economy is controlled by the people as a whole through their acting as buyers and sellers, a multitude of individuals generally acting individually as both buyer and seller of things or services a number of times each day in the ordinary course of life's daily activities, involving transactions great or small. Through their exercise of freedom of choice daily, even hourly; for example, the free-market economy is both a result and instrument of the exercise of this freedom of individuals and not a mechanistic, independently operating "Thing" which oppressively controls human beings.”36 Another type of responsiveness in policy is called reactionary. Policy reacts to a need in the community. Policy is created in response to the needs of the public and changes over time. An example of where we see responsiveness result in public policy is the Mother’s Against Drunk Driving interest group. In the 1980’s people were upset about the rates of drunk driving among adolescent teens. As a result DUI laws were rewritten and more strictly enforced.37
Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.
Rosenbloom, David. 2005. Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector, 6th ed. New York: Random House. Pg. 376.
16 When looking at when responsiveness conflicts with representation of the general public, MADD did bring a rise to a few controversies. Through their interest in seeing the protection in teens and bringing more awareness to the issue a few costs where passed on to different parties. Increased police caused a hindrance to sober drivers, more money was spent on fuel to monitor the roads more. With increased arrests for DUI related offensive, court systems saw an influx of people on their dockets. Therefore, there is always trade offs with policy. Effective policy might cost another group time and money. Policy makers always have to do a cost benefit analysis when creating policy.38 Political Accountability: The last and the most important part of the political perspective is accountability and legislative oversight. An important part of accountability is Sunshine Laws. The first Sunshine Laws were enacted in FL and UT in 1898 and 1905. The actual Act was passed by the Congress of the United States in 1976. The major point of these laws was to “require for the first time that all multithreaded federal agencies (meaning those which have units that work independent of each other) hold their meetings regularly in public session. The bill explicitly defined meetings as essentially any gathering, formal or informal, of agency members, stretching so far as to include conference calls.”39 Many government agencies fall underneath this important legislation. An example of this setup can be found in the five commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission. “These agencies make most of their decisions through discussions and voting by the board or commissions members. This law was created so that these meetings would be in the public domain for all of us to review, so that if we wish, we can investigate the procedures and decisions of any multithreaded federal agency.”40 The bills history dates back to the days of Watergate scandal. This was a time when “American mistrust of government was running very high. The government responded by creat38
www.everything2.com. 2006. “Government in the Sunshine Act.” November 1, 2006. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Government%20in%20the%20Sunshine%20Act.
17 ing various committees to open the meetings of the government, but without a legal backbone to stand on, these groups were wholly ineffective. There was pressure from the public. The Sunshine Act was passed in order to provide a legal backbone for the opening of meeting records to the public.”41 This remedied the problems of government operating in secrecy. An example of where we see Sunshine Laws in action are on our local television networks. “This act helped open the door for the cable networks C-SPAN and C-SPAN2, which air virtually all significant hearings in Congress, as well as a great number of federal agency meetings.”42 The goals of Sunshine legislation involve two characteristics: Laws are viewed as an extension of pluralist democratic traditions and provide a check on government powers. It also provides information to public about how the government operates. Viewed as making government officials more accountable to citizens. The functions of this law are: Academic honesty, fiscal soundness, financial stewardship, institutional effectiveness and efficiency. Procedural and outcome equity in decision making. Openness of government, and access to government. Another area of accountability is Sunset Clauses. In public policy, a sunset provision or sunset clause is a provision in a statute or regulation that terminates or repeals all or portions of the law after a specific date, unless further legislative action is taken to extend it. Not all laws have sunset clauses; in such cases, the law goes on indefinitely.43
Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.
18 Last is legislative oversight. Congress keys roles are making sure that the laws it writes are faithfully executed. Congressional oversight is meant to keep mistakes from happening or from spiraling out of control. It helps draw out lessons from catastrophes in order to prevent them or others like them from recurring. An example of this more recently is the government’s response to hurricane Katrina. There are pros and cons to legislative oversight. Good oversight cuts waste, punishes fraud or scandal and keeps policy makers on their toes. Cons are that a department or agency, its personnel, and its implementation policies are time-consuming. Investigating possible scandals can easily lapse into a partisan exercise that ignores broad policy issues for the sake of cheap publicity. There has been a trend of legislative oversight being used less and less by our political agents. The political perspective is important in the policy process. It evolves representation, participation, responsiveness, and accountability. All of these characteristics provide good policy. If one is missing, public policy can not be effective in carrying out what it is aimed to do. VI. The Legal Perspective on Implementation – Emmy Glancy The appropriate implementation of a policy is studied through various perspectives including Traditional Managerial, New Public Management, Political and Legal approaches. As we’ve learned, the TM perspective favors effectiveness, efficiency and economy in implementation. The NPM favors implementation by “steering” or arranging for the provision of public service rather than delivering them directly.44 The political perspective evaluates a policy based on its conditions of representation, responsiveness, and accountability. Conversely, the Legal perspective asks a very different set of questions and is more suitable for different types of policies than the other three approaches. The Legal perspective values individual rights and maintaining Constitutional integrity. Due process and distributional issues are also highly regarded by this approach. For this reason, it is often relied upon for authority with regard to regulatory policies because it seeks to balance both public and private interests and equal protection for both.45
Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, pg. 368. Ibid. Pg. 386.
19 When public policy conflicts with constitutional provisions, constitutional integrity is at risk. The legal perspective ensures a separation of powers and constitutional procedures are upheld. For example, if a procedural issue would be questioned, like the democratic bi-cameral Congress, the Legal perspective would be evoked to protect this process. As in the case of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chada, the prevailing argument found it to be unconstitutional.46 Distributional issues or “who gets what?” are often at the forefront of day-to-day politics and policy implementation. According to Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, the Legal perspective, “focuses on whether individuals or groups are afforded equal protection of laws.”47 It asks if the policy places members of some social group at a disadvantage or intentionally discriminate historically disadvantaged groups. Policy issues such as systematically more funding for better roads or schools in mainly white neighborhoods are a big issue. Another common case is the use of social characteristics as proxies for some other attribute. "Driving While Black" is a great example of unconstitutional behavior which threatens equal protection of its citizens. Procedural Due Process and the protection of individual rights are also values considered of utmost importance in determining whether or not a policy is “good.” The legal approach favors providing those dependent on administrative services or who are subject to administrative regulations with procedural protection against adverse action. It also takes an expansive position on the importance of individual rights and liberties. VII. The National Performance Review - Matt King and Aneka Patel When Clinton was elected into office in 1993, he promised to reinvent the federal government. He was able to begin immediately given his circumstance; he was the first democratic president in 12 years and was able to work alongside a democratic congress. Clinton asked Gore to come up with a set of recommendations and gave him a 6-month deadline. From 1993 –1997, Vice President Gore led the effort to reform the US Federal Government, which consists of 1.9 million civil servants and 1.5 million military in 14 cabinet departments and 140 other agencies.
Ibid. Pg. 379. Ibid. Pg. 381.
20 In 1993, Gore laid out the original recommendations. A second set came again in 1995 and a third time in 1997; all to make the government work better and cost less. Gore found that we could create a government that works better and costs less by: Putting customers first Empowering employees on the front lines Cutting red tape, and Refocusing on the original main mission of each agency or program.48 He talked about focusing on what works instead of what doesn’t work; trying to replicate other agencies and even other countries. He focused on administrative fixes rather than legislative ones and on how government works instead of what government does. When he focused on all of these in 1993, he calculated a 108$ billion in savings over a 5 year period. In 1995, he added another 70 billion in savings. Cutting regulatory policies in 2000 would cut another 28 billion a year.49 Purpose Under President Clinton’s Executive Order 12862 and the recommendations of the National Performance Review team, federal agencies were required to survey their customers to see what kind of service people wanted and whether they were getting it. Clinton wanted to get feedback from the people on the front lines of government. He wanted government to deliver service equal to the best in business. President Clinton and Vice President Gore realized that whether customers were dealing with Verizon or the Social Security Administration, that they would want the same thing. They all want things done right, the first time. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, was a Clinton initiative that created service standards for 214 agencies and provided methods for measuring how each of them was holding up. Training programs were created to prepare employees to deliver results to cus48
National Performance Review. “Putting Customers First ’97.” 1997. President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore.
21 tomers instead of pleasing bosses or headquarters or management committees. Standards were set low for the first year so that agencies could accomplish their goals.50 And they did just that. Thus, by 1997, there were over 4,000 standards for 570 departments, agencies, organizations and programs.51 This illustrated the expansion throughout the departments into their organizations and specific programs, a huge decentralization of authority. When President Clinton told agencies to measure their performance and report the results to customers, he was taking a big risk. Customer service standards were to be part of the strategic plans, training programs and personnel systems of each agency, and publishing those standards and measures requires taking a big risk. Everybody will know as soon as someone makes a mistake. But the President and Vice President valued service to customers more than saving face on behalf of the federal government. Take the Postal Service for example. They began publishing standards in 1993 and found that performance for most deliveries fell in the range of 50%. Vice President Gore’s Christmas cards were lost in New York and mail was found burning under a bridge in Chicago. The Postal Service reported all of this. Was that worse than before they set standards and measured performance? Who knows? Did they improve after setting standards the very next year? Absolutely. Delivery performance rose to above 80% nationwide, proving that when you measure performance you create performance, especially when you make everything a public affair. By 1997, the performance rate of delivery was above 90%. Additionally, look at the Social Security Administration. Business Week rates all of the top companies in America for customer service. In 1995, Business Week rated the agency top in customer service nationwide, beating out companies like L.L. Bean and Federal Express. Another good example, the Department of Veteran Affairs promised veterans no longer than a 30-minute wait in 1994 and 20 minutes in 1995 and the next goal was to eliminate the wait entirely. Now, the VA waiting room has been turned into a museum on six wars in order to get people to come. What was accomplished? The Clinton administration (1992 – 2000) National Performance Review (NPR) promised major reforms and an overall culture change in federal administration. There are many different
National Performance Review. “Putting Customers First ’95.” 1995. President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore.
National Performance Review. “Serving the American Public: Best Practices in Customer-Driven Strategic Planning.” 1997. Federal Benchmarking Consortium Study Report.
22 view points from which to describe the accomplishments of the National Performance Review.52 By some accounts, it had a very ambitious agenda that was met with partial success. On the other hand, many believed in the agenda and were proved right by the numbers. There are hundreds of examples of what worked, and continues to work, in both large and small ways. The viewpoint from the White House saw a wide range of success across the government with some very specific accomplishments. By 1997, nearly half of the 1,500 recommendations proposed had been completed.53 The recommendations resulted in an overall reduction of 291,000 positions and savings of $118 billion. By 2001, the NPR had reported a reduction in full-time federal work force by 426,000 positions, including 78,000 managerial slots and savings of $137 billion.54 Additionally, agencies cut 640,000 pages of internal regulations, equivalent to 130 cases of copy paper, and created and publicly committed to meeting 3,500 customer service standards. Regulatory agencies cut regulations affecting the public by nearly 16,000 pages from the rule book, the Code of Federal Regulations and rewrote another 31,000 pages to make them more understandable.55 President Bill Clinton also signed an executive order requiring rules and was other public documents to be rewritten in “plain” language. He emphasized using understandable language in federal administration. “Bureaucratese” was thought to alienate and confuse the public, create mistakes, cause complaints, and waste a lot of time resources.56 Experts urge periodic reviews of all documents, forms, regulations, etc., especially those used by the public. The failure to use plain language undoubtedly cost the public sector a lot of time and money in reviewing these complex documents. At the agency level, individual groups have taken a wide range of initiatives to improve their internal operations. Most of these activities went far beyond the recommendations made by NPR. The Federal Aviation Administration reduced 155,000 job descriptions to fewer than 2,000
Kamensky, John. THE U.S. REFORM EXPERIENCE: The National Performance Review. Washington D.C.: U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1997.
Ibid. Rosenbloom and Kravchuk, pg. 63. Ibid. Ibid. Pg. 472.
23 and replaced a foot-thick stack of personnel rules with a 41-page booklet. The State Department absorbed a 40-percent increase in passport work with no increase in staff. The Commerce Department rewrote export rules for the first time in 45 years. Individually, many of the actions seem insignificant, but the depth and range of actions is breathtaking. At the unit level, there have been hundreds of successes. The Vice President recognized over 1200 teams with his Hammer Award -- given to teams that have reinvented their operations. Agencies have also created more than 340 reinvention labs -- units within agencies that are piloting innovations and are granted waivers from their own agency's internal rules. At this level, there have been remarkable changes. For example, the Minneapolis office of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has moved to self-managed teams. The Customs staff at the Miami Airport has created partnerships with the airlines to reduce drug smuggling and improve passenger processing. The Veterans Administration finance office in Austin cut processing costs for small purchases in VA significantly, reducing the need to process over 1 million pieces of paper a year -- and by converting the agency to the use of VISA cards is getting the government a $4.4 million rebate on its purchases. Teams like these are creating the sense of hope, of the possibility of actually changing the government. They are increasingly willing to risk things to innovate. Finally, the customers of government -- citizens, businesses, states and localities -- notice that things are getting better. In 1963, more than 75 percent of the public thought the federal government did the right thing most of the time. By 1993, it was less than 20 percent. Vice President Gore said, "There is no way to re-establish confidence in government and confidence in ourselves as a free nation unless we can dramatically change the way the federal government works.”57 By 1996, Roper polls showed the first increase in public satisfaction with government in years. Was this due to NPR's efforts? We don't know, but we would like to believe it was. Blair House Papers With the success of the National Performance Review standards in their first term. President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore believed it only makes sense to spend the next term working off these results. In 1997, President Clinton and Vice President Gore met with the Cabinet before their second inauguration and laid out the 15 specific actions leaders can take,
National Public Radio, 1994. Video.
24 based on successes over the previous 4 years. They called these Blair House Papers after the location of the Cabinet retreat. Written as rules, the Vice President asked the Cabinet to build on the successes of the first four years and deliver great service, foster partnerships and community solutions, and reinvent to get the job done with less.58 It was a collection of what they had heard from managers, front-line employees, and others who made reinvention happen. Gore challenged the Cabinet to get the best from their people. He told agency heads to create a compelling vision and personally get power to the front lines by, for example, moving high-grade positions to the field and lower grades to headquarters, and pushing dollar controls to the front lines.59 The Blair House Papers were even condensed into a small, red book, just small enough so that government leaders could carry them around in their coat pockets, every single day. The papers focused on the highest impact rules for reinvention success.60 If all of government adopted the types of principles that were outlined in the Blair House papers -- ideas that were given to us by federal workers -- we would have a government that works better and costs less. Reinvention is not just a matter of shrinking the size of government, carried out properly, it can provide a government that is responsive, productive, and innovative. VIII. Conclusion In general, policy is a plan of action to guide decisions and behavior. The term can apply to government, private organizations and individuals. Developing policy requires identification of alternatives, impact assessments, implementation plans and evaluation strategies. Public policy analysis looks at each of these areas and is used to evaluate both the effectiveness and the implementation of policy in order to formulate new policy in response. This analysis utilizes a variety of methodologies including both qualitative and quantitative methods such as case studies, survey research and statistical analysis among others. We discussed four perspectives that analysts may use to evaluate formulation and implementation. Any of these will can be used for any one policy, but some are better for certain issues and types of policy. For instance, regulatory policy is better analyzed through legal framework because other perspectives fail to ask key questions regarding the distribution of regulations and privileges. There
Clinton, Bill and Al Gore. The Blair House Papers Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1997. Pg. 5. Kamensky, 1997. Clinton and Gore. Pg. viii.
25 is no one right answer to the question of how to best evaluate the process of transforming the words of Congress into action in everyday life. However, with the knowledge and tools necessary for the job, policy analysis and evaluation is a really good time.
26 Bibliography Clinton, Bill and Al Gore. 1997. The Blair House Papers . Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. Denhardt, Robert and Denhardt, Janet. 2000. “The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering.” Public Administration Review 60.6, 549. Everything. “Government in the Sunshine Act.” http://www.everything2.com/index.pl? node=Government%20in%20the%20Sunshine%20Act accessed November 1, 2006. Furniss, Norman. 1974. “The Practical Significance of Decentralization”. The Journal of Politics 36.4, pp. 957-982. Harris, Lloyd and Ogbonna, Emmanuel. 2000. “Exploring Service Sabotage: The Antecedents, Types and Consequences of Frontline, Deviant, Antiservice Behaviors.” Journal of Service Research 4.3, 174. Kamensky, John. 1997. The U.S. Reform Experience: The National Performance Review. Washington D.C.: U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Kingdon, John. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984. Chapter 9. Kingdon, John. “Participants on the Inside of Government,” Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1984. Kurian, George Thomas, ed. 1998. A Historical Guide to the U.S. Government. New York: Oxford University Press. Larson, Karen. “Indianapolis Model Cities Program, 1970-1982.” William Henry Smith Memorial Library. August 1, 1995. http://www.indianahistory.org/library/manuscripts/collection_guides/ m0664.html#CAT. Lavery, Kevin. 1999. Smart Contracting for Local government Services: Processes and Experience. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. LEXREC. 2006. “A Principle of the Traditional American Philosophy.” http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr6.html accessed November 1, 2006. Lindbloom, Charles E. “The Science of Muddling Through.” Classics in Public Administration. Washington, DC: Wadsworth. MADD online. “Primary Enforcement of Seat belt Laws – Issue Brief.” 10 December 2006. http://www.madd.org/madd_programs/7609. Merriam, Charles Edward. 1923. The American Party System: An Introduction to the Study of Political Parties in the United States. New York: Macmillan.
27 Merritt, George. “Denver Election Fix on Agenda.” Denver Post December 8, 2006. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4805326. National Performance Review. 1995. “Putting Customers First ’95.” President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore. National Performance Review. 1997. “Putting Customers First ’97.” President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore. National Performance Review. 1997. “Serving the American Public: Best Practices in CustomerDriven Strategic Planning.” Federal Benchmarking Consortium Study Report. “Policy Principals”. Association of Washington Business. November 1, 2006. http://www.awb.org/otherissues/policyprinciples/index.asp Rosenbloom, David and Kravchuk, Robert. 2005. Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector. 6th ed. Boston Burr Ridge: McGraw Hill. Starling, Grover. 2005. Managing the Public Sector. 7th ed. Australia: Thomson Wadsworth. U.S. General Services Administration. 2006. “Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Management”. http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=8203&channelPage=/ ep/channel/gsaOverview.jsp&channelId=-13170 accessed October 20, 2006. Wood, B., Dan and Waterman, Richard. 1994. Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.