California State University Long Beach

Graduate Center for Public Policy and Administration

Summer 2002, Third Session

PPA 590 WOMEN & PUBLIC POLICY

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

            The full policy process is often described by the following steps:

                        1) problem definition

                        2) alternative generation

                        3) analysis of alternatives

                        4) policy adoption

                        5) policy implementation

                        6) policy evaluation

            While many courses focus on the first four steps, the last two steps are equally important. A thorough policy analysis will include some consideration of policy implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. The policy analyst can sketch out an implementation plan for the most highly ranked alternative(s) that considers:

1) relevant actors and their interests
2) required resources and who might provide them
3) facilitators and barriers likely to be encountered
4) reasonable time frame

            Implementation means to carry out, to fulfill, produce, and compete. This is different from creating a policy. A policy is often a broad statement of goals, without specific objectives. There is often no specific implementation plan that names actors, actions, and desired results. A policy is often more of a hypothesis; implementation converts a policy into an action program. Policies grow out of ideas, often with multiple and possibly conflicting vague goals. Policies point to a desired causal chain of events, between initial conditions and desired future consequences. Implementation is the action plan to bridge the gap between the two.

            Implementation may be carried out by formal as well as by informal actors, including legislators, courts, bureaucracies, pressure groups, community organizations, and even individuals.

            Power is widely shared among and diffused throughout government institutions. However, power over the creation of policy is not the same as control. We are relatively successful at making changes within government, but less successful at bringing about changes in the behavior of the target populations. This may be due to the fact that there is no overall constituency for much of policy implementation. With weak political parties and lack of political legitimacy of other actors, it is often left up to single-issue interest groups to influence the implementation of public policies. In addition, many public policies promise much more than they can possibly deliver or are too radical for opponents to accept. Many policies, therefore, remain only as unrealized potential.

            The rising inequality among social groups means that government undertakes more quality of life programs to improve the life of the less fortunate. In order to undertake these programs, agencies must adopt vague policies in order to get them passes and accepted by the more fortunate. But the more vague the policy, the more difficult the program will be to implement, and the result is often to the satisfaction of no single individual or group. This may have important implications for the legitimacy of government. The failure or success of policy implementation influences what policy-makers feel they can or want to do in the future. Both the anticipated and unanticipated outcomes of policy implementation influence future policy-making, even though these outcomes cannot be known in advance of implementation.

            There are two main, competing theories about implementation. One is that implementation is the continuation of the rational planning and decision-making process that is used to determine which policies to adopt. This view sees policy implementation as a continuation of rational organizational design, with a knowable and certain outcome. The other theory is the interactive model, that policy implementation is a continuation of the politics that results in the adoption of public policies, and that outcomes are uncertain.

            Policy implementation can be seen as a process of bargaining. Often, one unit of government cannot force another unit to do (or refrain from doing) something. When participants in a policy process share a common interest in coming to a decision but have divergent values and objectives, the bargaining model is often used to make decisions about implementation. Implementation becomes a process of complex proposals and counter-proposals among different government actors, in which the initial aims of each party are slowly modified to permit an agreement to be reached. The parties may include interest groups, citizens, other units of government, and other actors.

            Policies are generally neither “right” or “wrong,” but either do or do not gain increased acceptance as time goes by. Implementation affects how well policies are accepted, not just by faithfully adhering to the policy mandate but also by adapting to changing circumstances over time. Successful implementation does depend a great deal on administrative discretion and the know-how to get results. Narrowing the range of administrative latitude in implementation may limit the value of the process, while too wide a scope make it impossible to obtain success. Implementation may be seen as an evolving process, a response to changing forces and circumstances; it is a struggle over the realization of ideals.

            There are a large number of possible actors in policy implementation. For example:

-on specific legislation, there may be legislative monitoring, oversight, and intervention to ensure that there is periodic reporting to the sponsoring committee.

-For grants-in-aid, loans, or direct service provisions, sanctions, or other coercive strategies there may be a regulatory agency that is involved in implementation and oversight

-Federal, state, and local agencies may need to cooperate in program implementation; there must be sufficient incentives and/or possible sanctions to ensure implementation by other levels

-If several agencies are required to collaborate to implement a policy, there may be bureaucratic and administrative delays, resource hoarding, withholding of information, and other games

-Within a single agency, there may be politics over where to place a new policy or program that will implement it, and arguments over whether to assign responsibility to an existing unit or create a new unit, or even contract out

-If policy is implemented through contracts with private agencies, the organization must still be involved in implementation oversight, monitoring, and control

-Professional organizations are often concerned how a new program will affect their members and want to have a say in its implementation

-Citizens, interest groups, and other bodies also want input into the implementation process at various points.

The Conditions for Effective Implementation

1) There must be sound theory underlying the program and the target group; the theory must link target group behavior to the objectives of the program. The problem is often the lack of a valid social science theory.

2) There must be unambiguous objectives that structure the implementation so as to maximize the compliance of the target group. There are often multiple goals which conflict, multiple veto points, and imperfect information. Demands for large changes in behavior may be met with equal amounts of, hostility, resistence or non-compliance.

3) There must be leaders who have the requisite skills, are supportive of the objectives, and have the necessary resources. Agencies may not be supportive of the policy objectives or may not place them high on their list of priorities.

4) There must be active support from potentially affected parties, including legislators, courts, interest groups, other units of government, etc. There may be a lack of interest or active opposition to the program from organized groups with the resources to combat the policy.

5) There must be no conflict with other public policies and the program must not be undermined by changing socio-economic conditions or competition from other issues and demands; but priorities will change over time.

            Implementation analysis might involve writing a "best-case" scenario and a "worst-case" scenario for each policy alternative, as well as the "most likely" outcome. The idea is to think systematically through the implementation process, identify potential problems, and develop actions that can be taken to either avert catastrophes or reduce losses.

            The success of a policy can be measured by changes in the behavior of the target population. This can be measured by assessing the degree of compliance (or non-compliance) with the policy. A public policy is an authoritative communication prescribing a course of action for specified individuals or groups in certain situations. There must be an authority charged with the implementation and monitoring of the policy. Non-compliance may result when:

1) there is a breakdown in communication of the policy to the intended target; or it is not perceived as pertaining to them; or it is unclear what they are expected to do.

2) the target population does not have the time, skill, resources, or mental ability to comply with the policy;

3) the target population may disagree with the policy, either in theory or as implemented; or proper procedures were not followed in developing the policy; or it conflicts with values or self-interest;

4) the actions required to achieve compliance are too onerous, even if the target population wanted to comply;

5) the government is perceived as acting illegally, or its agents are not perceived as legitimate enforces of the policy; there is a lack of respect for authority; or the probability of punishment is seen as small.

            To obtain compliance, the government can resort to negative sanctions, such as the threat of prosecution, fines, and imprisonment; unfavorable publicity; revocation, annulment, modification, or suspension of licences or other privileges; seizure and destruction of goods and property; assessment of damages; denial of services or benefits; cease and desist orders; inspection and licensing; directives; sanctions;

            There are also positive sanctions, such as favorable publicity, price supports, tax credits, grants-in-aid, direct services or benefits; declarations; rewards; voluntary standards; mediation; education; demonstration programs; training, contracts; subsidies; loans; general expenditures; informal procedures, bargaining; franchises; sole-source provider awards;

Types of Implementation Actions

            1) administrative decision-making;

            2) administrative rule-making;

            3) adjudication;

            4) law enforcement;

            5) program operation.

POLICY MONITORING

            Policy maintenance refers to keeping the policy or program going after it is adopted. Policy monitoring refers to the process of detecting how the policy is doing. To monitor a policy, some data about the policy must be obtained. A good implementation plan will suggest some ways in which ongoing data about the policy can be generated in the regular course of policy maintenance, for example, from records, documents, feedback from program clients, diary entries of staff, ratings by peers, tests, observation, and physical evidence.