INTRODUCTION TO POLICY

ANALYSIS
What to think about when you want to examine
the content and impact of a policy

THINKING ABOUT CREATING A NEW

POLICY
Definition of the Problem
Cause of the problem [identifying the causal
chain]
Target Population
Consequences of the Problem
Ideology and its relationship to policy solutions
Criteria for setting policy goals (generally derived
from ideology/values).
Gainers & Losers (Political, Social, & Monetary
Gains)

ROLE OF IDEOLOGY

Ideology is a set of assumptions about how the world works.

Most of the time ideologies are not tested empirically. If they are
tested and verified, we would call them theories.
Ideologies are often associated with political parties.
For example, policy decisions could be based on the following
principles:
1) Individual Responsibility
2) Social Responsibility, especially for people in need.
A politician that adopts the Individual Responsibility approach
might argue against new taxes and for reducing social programs.
A politician that adopts the Social Responsibility approach might
argue that new taxes are necessary to support programs for the
poor.
The Individual Responsibility approach is often used to argue
against government intervention. Social Responsibility approach
is often used to argue for more government programs.

CAUSAL CHAIN

People
with
mental
illness

Increases
in
homelessness

Limits on
Involuntary
Commitment;
Reductions in
mental health
funding

More mentally
ill people on
the streets

Fewer mental
health
institutions
and outpatient
facilities

MOST SOCIAL POLICY IS BASED ON

THE RATIONAL OR PROBLEM-SOLVING
MODEL
Problem identification
Assessment
Goal Setting
Implementation
Evaluation

SOCIAL POLICY ANALYSTS USE A VARIETY

OF METHODS TO CHOOSE AMONG
ALTERNATIVE GOALS OR INTERVENTION
PLANS

Review of the available theoretical and research literature

to identify appropriate interventions that have been
assessed as effective.
Best practices disseminated by other agencies and
planning groups.

Decision trees

Conceptual, visual, or mathematical models.

Principle of Transitivity: If A > B and B> C, then A > C.

Cost benefit or cost effectiveness analysis.

Analysis of the distributional impact of the plan (what

groups will benefit or lose).

GAINERS & LOSERS

Costs for Social Programs are seldom shared among

different groups in society.
Social Policies should have some benefits for the public at
large, but may favor some groups over others.
Policy analysts and social planners use the principle of
pareto optimality in the decision-making process.
The principle states that in all social programs, the gains
should outweigh the costs of programs. In addition, the
principle suggests that people who benefit disproportionally
from a program should compensate the losers.
However, some policy analysts believe that it is sufficient
that policies and programs simply meet the standard of
potential pareto optimality i.e. that rather than actually
give compensation to the losers, a program or policy should
be adopted if the people who benefit can potentially
compensate the losers because their benefits are so large.

THIS PRINCIPLE IS PUT INTO OPERATION BY

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND BUSINESSES BY
CONDUCTING COST-BENEFIT OR COSTEFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

In cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of social policies should

outweigh the costs. Policy analysts look at a number of
different program outcomes and evaluate them in terms of
costs and benefits.
In cost-effectiveness analysis, policy analysts examine the costs
of various policy options and their potential impacts. The
lowest cost program that has the highest impact is the one
chosen for implementation.
Problems issues with these approaches; costs are expressed in
dollars. Some social costs and benefits can not be converted
into dollars. For example, quality of life, mental health, or the
beauty of a national park cannot be assigned dollar values.
Also, the method may not take into account unexpected costs
or side-effects of the program (externalities) and it may be
difficult to estimate costs and benefits overtime.
In addition, the method does not really help to identify how
benefits should be distributed across different demographic or
income groups. Distributional decisions are usually made
(non-rationally) in the political process.

DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS IN COSTBENEFIT ANALYSIS

(ADOPTED FROM STOKEY & ZECKHAUSER, 1978)

Benefits

Costs

Net Benefits

Project 1
Landlords

$100,000

$50,000

$50,000

Tenants

$ 30,000

$40,000

-$10,000

Whole Society

$130,000

$90,000

$40,000

Landlords

$40,000

$80,000

-$40,000

Tenants

$40,000

$10,000

$ 30,000

Whole Society

$80,000

$90,000

-$10,000

Project 2

IN ANALYZING POLICIES OR PROPOSING

NEW ONES, WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

Three branches: executive, legislative, judicial.

Legislative branch passes laws; executive (president,
governor) may sign or veto laws and implements
policy. Judiciary interprets laws and regulations.
Standards used to interpret laws are inherent in the
Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Does the law uphold individual and state rights
identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Two layers of courts Federal and State.
Federal judges are appointed (District and Supreme
Court judges). U.S. Senate must confirm.
State courts have a mix of appointed (by the governor)
and elected judges.

CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE

JUDICIAL BRANCH

Judges are supposed to make impartial decisions.

Might be difficult in cases in which judges are elected (they
accept campaign donations)
Since judges are appointed by politicians, the President or
Governor may make appointments based on political ideology.
Since judges are called upon to assess government policy, the
person who appoints them might have a vested interest in
appointing judges that will make decisions that support
existing policies or government decisions. The legislative
branch may refused to confirm judges that they feel are
partisan or that have made previous decisions that run
counter to a particular political partys ideology or vested
interests.
Judges do make decisions based on ideology. One philosophical
approach is strict constructionism the belief that laws must
be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the intent of
the founding fathers. Other judges believe that changes in
social values and technology can be used to make new
interpretation of rights granted in the constitution.

IN DECIDING WHETHER A LAW IS

CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGES TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT:

Judicial precedent how have similar cases been decided by

the court?
Procedural rights; due process do people have equal access to
benefits, jobs, services, voting, and legal protections? For
example, do people have the right to appeal government
decisions?
Have people been previously granted substantive rights by a
piece of legislation that cant legally be withdrawn by
government?
Does the law violate any of the rights identified by the Bill of
Rights. Difficulty in interpretation by the courts relates to
implementation or procedures used to put the policy into
operation. Another difficulty in interpretation involves
understanding of what those rights actually mean. Courts
have held that certain rules can be used to regulate the
exercise of those rights. In some cases, the rights of some
individuals can conflict with the rights of others. In addition,
our understanding of rights can change over times due to
differences in social values or changes in technology.

FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING

JUDICIAL DECISIONS (FROM CANNON AS
CITED IN CHAMBERS & WEDEL,2005, P. 38)
Whether and in what way new judicial decisions
negate earlier legislation.
The degree to which earlier judicial precedents
are altered.
Determining what specific policy consequences
follow from a judicial decisions.
How new judicial decisions affect administrative
discretion (it might alter how the policy is
implemented; courts can facilitate consent
degrees when someone sues the government
both parties must agree to abide by the decision).

WHEN ANALYZING JUDICIAL

IMPACTS IT SHOULD BE NOTED:

That since there are courts in each state and federal

courts serve different regions of the country, different
courts can make different decisions on similar issues.
Most court decisions can be appealed except for
matters that go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even the Supreme Court may re-examine cases
considered settled.
Especially for laws affecting individual rights, new
court cases can affect how the laws are interpreted
and enforced. Consequently, some laws are constantly
changing. This is called case law. Therefore,
government agencies, private businesses, and
nonprofit agencies need to keep updating their
knowledge of these changes in order to be in legal
compliance. This is particularly true about laws
affecting the hiring, firing, and retention of staff.

MORE ON POLICY ANALYSIS

Analysts look at the current or potential impact of laws and

policy.
Analysts choose the criteria to be used for examining laws and
policies.
Often these criteria are based on value assumptions about
how laws should work. The value assumptions are closely
linked to ideology and political philosophy.
Policy analysts use values such as equity, equality, adequacy,
efficiency, and constitutional rights (freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, etc). Effectiveness or the ability of a
policy to produce the intended outcome is also a criteria.
Policy analysts must also consider whether a policy outcome is
feasible (economically, politically, or likely to receive public
support).
Policy analysts also try to determine externalities who or
what is likely to be affected by unintended side effects of the
policy.

USING THE PROBLEM-SOLVING

(RATIONAL) MODEL, POLICY
ANALYSTS CHOOSE AMONG A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS
WITH DIFFERENT EFFECTS

ASPECTS OF POLICIES TO BE CONSIDERED

WHEN CHOOSING THE MOST APPROPRIATE
POLICY (AS DESCRIBED IN JANSSON)

Mission or purpose
Level of Government or Specific Agency that is responsible for policy
implementation/oversight
What type of organization should actually deliver the program
(government, nonprofit, for-profit)?
How should funding be delivered (for example, direct federal, or
federal to state to agency)?
How much money should be provided?
What type of services should be delivered? Theoretical framework for
service delivery?
What type of staffing should be required?
Should beneficiaries pay some of the costs of services.
Should access to services to restricted or rationed?
Should organizations serving similar clientele or offering the same
programs be required to collaborate with one another.
Should some administration practices be a condition for funding?
Who should be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the
program/policy?

POLICY ANALYSTS MAY

Consider options for a number of types of programs or

Consider options for each of the policy/program
components involved in implementation.
Value criteria are used to choose among the options.
The policy analyst can use mathematical models such
as cost-benefit analysis, can establish a formula for
ranking each item, or use research data, information
on best practices, or previous program evaluations to
choose among the various options.
Questions to be addressed are whether the policies
uphold the value criteria. Does the policy meet some
of the criteria and not others. Which option meets
most of the criteria?