chapter 5 policy analysis evaluation implementation n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CHAPTER 5: POLICY ANALYSIS, EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CHAPTER 5: POLICY ANALYSIS, EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION

Loading in 2 Seconds...

  share
play fullscreen
1 / 21
gitel

CHAPTER 5: POLICY ANALYSIS, EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

182 Views
Download Presentation
CHAPTER 5: POLICY ANALYSIS, EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. CHAPTER 5: POLICY ANALYSIS, EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION Text: Cubbage et al., 1992

  2. CHAPTER OUTLINE • Analysis and Advocacy • Policy analysis vs Policy advocacy, & value systems • Decision and Evaluation Criteria • Criteria: Ecological, Economic, Social, Political • Implementation Success • 7 factors influencing success/failure of public programs • Program Evaluation • Purposes • Illustration: • Illustration 1: Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) • Efficiency • Equity • Capital substitution & supply increases • Illustration 2: BLM grazing policy enforcement

  3. ANALYSIS & ADVOCACY • Policy analysis -- explain • Policy advocacy – prescribe

  4. ANALYSIS & ADVOCACY • Individual value systems • Biases (personal/native, professional) • Minimize/eliminate biases through: • Objectivity (neutrality) • Understand different views • Clear understanding of problem/issue • Potential solutions/alternatives, merits, SIGs • Explicit criteria – mutually agreed on

  5. DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA • Criteria – definition; “filters” for alternatives • Types • Ecological • Economic • Social • Political

  6. DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA • Ecological– is policy biologically feasible? 1. Preserving Options • Critical zone; critical point • Biological criterion for resource management • Prevent irreversible environmental damage • Option value 2. Biological Diversity • more diverse ecosystems, more stable, preferable • 3 levels of diversity: species, genetic, ecosystem or community

  7. DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA • Economic Criteria – costs, benefits, budgets 1. Efficiency • Allocation of resources • Criticism: not all benefits & costs can be identified nor valued in term of$ 2. Sustainability • Steady economic growth

  8. DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA • Social Criteria – is policy socially, culturally acceptable? palatable? 1. Freedom 2. Equity 3. Decision processes – political equality/democracy, appropriate inclusion 4. Acceptability & practicality socially, culturally acceptable operationally practical

  9. DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA • Political Criteria – not evaluation criteria but they influence public policy decisions • decision maker’s personal values affect decisions • party affiliation influences • constituency interests affect legislators’ vote • unfamiliarity with problem  legislators defer to judgment of others

  10. IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS Factors associated with success • Specific goals • Quantitative standards • Program monitoring • Agency commitment and enforcement • Executive and legislative commitment • Costs and benefits • Direct federal involvement

  11. PROGRAM EVALUATION Purposes: • To determine if agencies & regulations accomplish legislatively mandated missions • To reevaluate objectives, provide feedback for development of new policies

  12. Illustration 1: Forestry Incentives Program [FIP  SIP (stewardship)  in CRP/Farm Bill] • 1973: to increase wood fiber prod. in NIPF lands. • reason: fears of future timber shortages, rising prices, NIPF lands presumed unproductive • Gov’t pays 50-75% of planting/TSI, limits on acreage. Annual budget -- $12.5 million • USFS evaluated FIP in1974 and 1981 • general conclusion: it was efficient • social (and private) benefits > social costs

  13. Illustration 1: FIP • Criteria/Issues: Efficiency, Equity, Substitution of federal funds for private capital • Efficiency • 1974 study: satisfactory returns (10.2% average) • TSI had greater returns than planting • good sites produce more wood in shorter time, esp. South • 1979 eval. update  program efficiency improved; reasonable returns

  14. Illustration 1: FIP • Equity - FIP not intended to promote equity or income distribution, but to produce more wood fiber • Some equity implications: • Perception: FIP benefits richer owners –larger landholdings get more assistance. Reality: Excluded owners with 500 acres (1973) and 1000 acres (1980) • Perception: FIP was unpublicized, more $ went to more educated, more informed, wealthier landowners. Reality: Same exclusions as above. Higher cost shares (90%) offered to landowners with incomes below poverty line. • Perception: Horizontal inequity among states [less $ for West (more public lands), for North (low productivity), and more for South]. Reality: fair treatment, based on site class lands in all regions.

  15. Illustration 1: FIP • Capital substitution: Q is “would NIPFs plant trees without the FIP?” • Perception: FIP dollars substituted private capital that NIPFs would have used to plant or do TSI • Conflicting studies • DeStiguer (1984): FIP contributed incremental funds beyond that which NIPFs would have invested. • Cohen (1983): considerable substitution, about 40-50% of capital that would have been spent by NIPF • Lee, Kaiser, & Alig (1992): no evidence of capital subst.

  16. Illustration 1: FIP • So – was FIP really effective, or was it counterproductive? • Conflicting results/studies  used by people to support the policy they favor most!!!

  17. Illustration 2: BLM Grazing Policy Enforcement • 1990: General Accounting Office (GAO) evaluated BLM and its control of illegal grazing on public lands • GAO – “watchdog” for Congress, does oversight & evaluation functions • GAO provides testimonies before congressional committees; provides legal opinions to assist in drafting legislations

  18. Illustration 2: BLM Grazing Policy Enforcement Background: • pre-1934 – no control of livestock grazing on public lands • Taylor Grazing Act (1934) – authorized grazing regs. • Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 – established federal commitment to (1) retain ownership of public lands, (2) improve deteriorated lands, (3) manage land to ensure perpetual productive capacity. • Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 – reaffirmed national policy to manage public rangelands. • 162 mill ac rangelands (16 western states) • renewable 10-yr permits & leases; 19,600 operators • BLM rate of $1.81/AUM vs. commercial rate of $8.49/AUM • BLM has authority to prosecute grazing trespassers

  19. GAO Evaluation of BLM Trespass Detection Efforts GAO findings: 1. minimal tresspass detection efforts 2. penalties seldom as severe as required by law BLM response: 1. they were understaffed; 2. trespass detection not a measure of performance of work-load; 3. lesser penalties maintains good working relationship; 4. lax prosecution – BLM believed penalties were discretionary, not mandatory.

  20. Illustration 2: BLM Grazing Policy Enforcement GAO Recommendations: • Greater congressional oversight needed for trespass enforcement program • Trespass detection should be reportable, measurable work-load standard • Make random checks on selected allotments to promote compliance • Keep complete case records; impose penalties esp. on willful & repeat willful violators

  21. Examples of Policies Being Evaluated and Discussed (1993) – also under discussion now • Farm Bill • Roadless Area Rule (FS) • Endangered Species