Policy%20Implementation

1
Policy Implementation

• Does the program work as intended?

2
What happens after a policy is adopted?

• Federal or State departments with administrative
  authority for the program design regulations.
• Draft regulations are submitted for public
  review.
• Regulations may be modified based on public
  comments.
• Final regulations are issued (Federal Register
  for federal policies)
• Money is allocated to the programs that will
  implement the policy.
• Responsibility for implication could lie with
  federal, state, local government or nonprofit and
  for-profit agencies.
• For nongovernmental agencies there will be some
  type of grant or contracting process.
• For all types of agencies, some type of
  monitoring process will be put in place to insure
  compliance with the policy.

3
Implementation defined

• Implementation analysis focuses on whether
  policies and procedures have actually been
  implemented in the organization in the manner
  intended by decision-makers.
• Program implementation is primarily concerned
  with how policies mandated by a source external
  to the organization are actually carried out or
  how the implementation of policies vary across
  different organizations or locations.

4
Other term used for examining implementation is
program monitoring

• Program Monitoring involves gathering information
  about how the program is working and who it
  serves.
• Program monitoring starts when the program has
  begun to be implemented.. Consequently, it
  differs from outcome evaluations that take place
  after a service outcome is produced. What takes
  place in the program start-up and in the process
  of producing outcomes.
• One easy method for determining whether a program
  is meeting the needs of clients is through a
  review of information gathered from clients to
  determine eligibility for services..
  Organizations generally gather basic demographic
  information about applicants such as gender, age,
  income, and family size. Information is also
  retained about whether the applicant was found to
  be eligible for service and the disposition of
  the application. If not eligible for service, was
  the applicant referred elsewhere, placed on a
  waiting list or turned away?
• Case record data allows organizations to look at
  factors such as demand for service and the
  incidence and prevalence of social problems.
  Demand is an indicator of all those people who
  actually try to obtain a service (Burch, 1996).
• Information is also kept on file about the
  outcomes associated with the actual service
  delivery process. Was the service provided
  successful? The failure of clients to complete
  the program or unsuccessful case outcomes can be
  indicators that the program has not been
  implemented in the manner intended (Chambers, et
  al., 1992
• Program planners also look at data on current and
  former clients to determine whether the
  organization provides services to all intended
  beneficiaries. The program can conceivably serve
  only a portion of the eligible population,
  exclude some eligible clients, or provide
  services to people who do not fit the eligibility
  criteria.
• Program coverage is the terms used to describe
  whether members of the programs target
  population actually receive the service (Rossi
  Freeman, 1982). Program bias refers to whether
  the people served by the program are
  demographically representative of the target
  population.

5
Responsibility for Monitoring/evaluation may
originate

• In the original legislation.
• In the department responsible for administration
  and oversight (Federal departments have an
  Inspector General for that department).
• Regular tracking, monitoring, or evaluation
  processes within each agency or department.

6
Other sources of monitoring

• Nonprofit advocacy or professional groups.
• General public or program recipients may make
  complaints
• Whistleblowers in the agency
• Congressional or state legislative committees may
  conduct research or hold hearings about program
  implementation or lack of implementation.

7
Why might policies not be implemented as intended

• Lack of funding and other resources (such as
  trained staff).
• Policy has conflicting goals or policy conflicts
  with goals of other laws or policies for
  example, enforcement of war-related contracting
  requirements.
• Regulations are confusing or limit access to
  services.
• Executive branch does not support, give priority
  to, or enforce. (example, motor voter laws).
  Administrative staff is resistant or lacks
  ability to comply with policy.
• Staff are resistant to innovation or lack
  resources/training.
• Policy may not be realistic or does not meet
  needs.
• Policy may have unintended side-effects.
• Policy innovation may be wrong intervention with
  which to address the problem or to serve specific
  groups of clientele.
• Enforcement mechanism is non-existent may be
  difficult to make changes in administrative
  support or staff.
• Regional or local variations in how programs are
  operated or maintained.

8
Literature on Program Implementation specifies 4
primary reasons for implementation problems

• Component Evaluation. This method of evaluation
  focuses on one particular aspect or parts of a
  program (for example intake services, referrals,
  intervention planning, staff-client interaction,
  or a specific type of intervention that can be
  differentiated from other services).
• Effort Evaluation. The primary focus of this type
  of evaluation is the amount of activity or work
  that is put into the program and the quality of
  that work. Effort evaluation can simply look at
  the number of qualified staff hired for the
  program, client-staff ratios, and the number of
  clients actually served. It can also examine the
  resources (money, facilities, worker time,
  training modules, etc.) that are devoted to the
  program.
• Treatment Specification. This type of evaluation
  is used to precisely identify the components of
  an intervention and the theory of action used to
  deliver the service and produce outcomes (see
  Chapter 6).
• Program implementation analysis also looks at the
  degree to which a program has drifted from its
  original intent and program specifications or the
  degree of compliance with the expectations of
  program sponsors or funders. Common
  implementation problems included failing to
  deliver the intended intervention, using the
  wrong intervention to produce the intended
  outcome, or providing the intervention
  inconsistently over time (Chambers et al., 1992).
  

9
Reform options for policy advocates (from Jansson)

• Changing the policy innovation itself (content,
  objectives, funding).
• Change the activities of oversight organizations,
  regulations, or monitoring processes.
• Naming different agencies or adding new agencies
  to implement or requiring collaboration among
  agencies.
• Changing the internal or external implementing
  processes of implementing organizations.
• Modifying the context
• Influence the assessments (evaluations) of policy
  outcomes
• Obtaining additional resources.
• Place pressure on implementing agencies through
  whistle-blowing, advocacy, political pressure, or
  protests. example, public and media pressure
  around regulation of pesticide use.

10
Sources of power for challenging policy
implementation

• Political pressure electoral politics/campaign
  donations using existing networks or
  relationships to influence decision-makers.
• Disseminating information and informing the
  public through the media.
• Protests and rallies.
• Commenting on proposed regulations.
• Policy formulation and lobbying for new
  legislation.
• Pressuring agencies for compliance with existing
  standards.
• Legal remedies such as public records requests
  and lawsuits limits on ability to sue federal
  and state agencies.

11
Example of Compliance-related Advocacy

• http//video.google.com/videosearch?qpolicyadvoc
  acyhlensitesearchstart50