More Menu

What is Policy analysis in Social work? Explained

byPosted at

 Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Approaches
  3. Methodology
  4. Evidence-based models
  5. Evaluation 

Introduction

Policy analysis is a technique used in government to allow civil servants, activists, and others to examine and evaluate the various options for putting laws and elected officials' goals into action. The method is also employed in the management of large organisations with complicated policies. It is defined as the process of "determining which of various policies will achieve a given set of goals in light of the policies' and goals' relationships."

Policy analysis can be divided into two major fields
  • Existing policy analysis, which is both analytical and descriptive in nature, attempting to explain policies and their evolution.
  • Prescriptive analysis for new policy is involved with formulating policies and proposals (for example: to improve social welfare)
The types of analysis performed are determined by the areas of interest and the purpose of the analysis. Policy studies are defined as a combination of two types of policy analyses combined with programme evaluation. Policy analysis is commonly used in the public sector, but it is also useful in other settings, such as nonprofits and non-governmental organisations. Policy analysis has its origins in systems analysis, which was popularised in the 1960s by US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.

Approaches

There are several approaches to policy analysis. The central approach in social science and educational policy studies is analysis for policy (and analysis of policy). It is linked to two distinct policy analysis and research framework traditions. The policy analysis approach refers to research conducted for actual policy development, which is frequently commissioned by policymakers within the bureaucracy (e.g., civil servants). Policy analysis is more of an academic exercise carried out by academic researchers, professors, and think tank researchers who are often attempting to understand why a particular policy was developed at a specific time and assessing the policy's intended and unintended consequences when it is implemented.

There are three approaches that can be distinguished: the analysis-centric, the policy process, and the metapolicy approach.

  • Analysis-centric

Individual problems and their solutions are the focus of the analysis-centric (or "analycentric") approach. Its scope is micro-scale, and it usually involves a technical solution for problem interpretation or resolution. The primary goal is to determine the most technically and economically effective and efficient solution (e.g. the most efficient allocation of resources).

  • Policy process

The policy process approach focuses on political processes and stakeholders; it has a broader meso-scale scope and interprets problems through a political lens (i.e., the interests and goals of elected officials). Its goal is to figure out what processes, methods, and policy instruments (such as regulation, legislation, and subsidies) are employed. It also tries to explain the role and influence of stakeholders in the policy development process. Citizens, community groups, non-governmental organisations, businesses, and even opposing political parties are all considered stakeholders in the 2010s. Solutions to problems that have more "buy in" from a wider group can be identified by changing the relative power and influence of certain groups (e.g., enhancing public participation and consultation). The policy process approach focuses on political processes and stakeholders; it has a broader meso-scale scope and interprets problems through a political lens (i.e., the interests and goals of elected officials). Its goal is to figure out what processes, methods, and policy instruments (such as regulation, legislation, and subsidies) are employed. It also tries to explain the role and influence of stakeholders in the policy development process. Citizens, community groups, non-governmental organisations, businesses, and even opposing political parties are all considered stakeholders in the 2010s. Solutions to problems that have more "buy in" from a wider group can be identified by changing the relative power and influence of certain groups (e.g., enhancing public participation and consultation).

  • Meta-policy 

The meta-policy approach is a systems and context approach, which means that its scope is macro-scale and that its problem interpretation is typically structural. Its goal is to explain the policy process' contextual factors, such as the political, economic, and socio-cultural factors that influence it. Because problems can arise as a result of structural factors (such as a particular economic system or political institution), solutions may require altering the structure itself.

Methodology

Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used in policy analysis. Case studies and interviews with community members are examples of qualitative research. Survey research, statistical analysis (also known as data analysis), and model building are all examples of quantitative research. Defining the problem and evaluation criteria, identifying and evaluating alternatives, and recommending a specific policy are all common practises. A careful "back-room" analysis of policies by a priori assessment and a posteriori evaluation results in the promotion of the best agendas.

Dimensions for analyzing policies

Policy analysis has six dimensions, which are categorised as the policy's effects and implementation over time. Also known as the policy's "durability," which refers to the policy's ability to produce visible results in its content.

Effects

  • Effectiveness: What effects does the policy have on the targeted problem?
  • Unintended effects: What are the unintended effects of this policy?
  • Equity: What are the effects of this policy on different population groups?

Implementation 

  • Cost: What is the financial cost of this policy? 
  • Feasibility: Is the policy technically feasible?
  • Acceptability: Do the relevant policy stakeholders view the policy as acceptable?  
Due to data collection, the strategic effects dimensions may have some limitations. The analytical dimensions of effects, on the other hand, have a direct impact on acceptability. Acceptability is determined by plausible definitions of actors involved in feasibility. If the feasibility aspect is compromised, the implementation will be jeopardised, resulting in additional costs. Finally, the ability of a policy to produce results or impacts is influenced by its implementation dimensions as a whole.

Five-E approach 

One model of policy analysis is the "five-E approach", which consists of examining a policy in terms of
  • Effectiveness: How well does it work (or how well will it be predicted to work)?
  • Efficiency: How much work does or will it entail? Are there significant costs associated with this solution, and are they worth it? 
  • Ethical considerations: Is it ethically and morally sound? Are there unintended consequences? 
  • Evaluations of alternatives: How good is it compared to other approaches? Have all the relevant other approaches been considered? 
  • Establishment of recommendations: for positive change What can actually be implemented? Is it better to amend, replace, remove, or add a policy? 

Framework 

Policies are thought of as frameworks that can improve one's overall well-being. Legislative bodies and lobbyists frequently examine these. Every policy analysis aims to produce an evaluative result. A systemic policy analysis is used to investigate a social issue in depth. The steps in a policy analysis are as follows.
  1. Defining the problem assessed by the policy. 
  2. Assessing policy objectives and its target populations. 
  3. Studying effects of the policy. 
  4. Policy implications: distribution of resources, changes in services rights and statuses, tangible benefits. 
  5. Alternative policies: surveying existing and possible policy models that could have addressed the problem better or parts of it which could make it effective. 

Evidence-based models

There are a variety of models for analysing the development and implementation of public policy. These models are used by analysts to identify key aspects of policy, as well as to explain and forecast policy and its consequences. Each of these models is based on different policy types.

Types

  • Government (e.g. federal, provincial, municipal) 
  • Policies adopted within public institutions (e.g. hospitals, child care centers, schools) 
  • Workplace (e.g. policies that govern employees and employee-manager relations)
Some evidence supported models are:

Governments

Public policy is shaped by a number of political institutions that give policy measures legitimacy. The government, in general, applies policy to all citizens and has a monopoly on the use of force in applying or enforcing policy (through government control of law enforcement, court systems, imprisonment and armed forces). Institutions that provide policy legitimacy include the legislature, executive, and judicial branches of government. Many countries also have independent, quasi-independent, or arm's-length bodies that are funded by the government but are not accountable to elected officials or political leaders. Government commissions, tribunals, regulatory agencies, and electoral commissions are examples of these organisations.

Process model 

Policy creation is a process that typically follows a sequence of steps or stages:
  • Identification of a problem (also called "problem definition") and demand for government action. Different stakeholders may define the same issue as different problems. For example, if homeless people are using illegal drugs such as heroin in a city park, some stakeholders may define this as a law enforcement issue (which, in their view, could be best solved if police presence in the park is stepped up and if the individuals using illegal drugs are arrested and punished); on the other hand, other stakeholders may view this as a poverty and public health issue (which, in their view, could be best solved if public health nurses and government medical doctors and substance abuse counsellors were sent to the park to do outreach with the drug-using individuals, and encourage them to voluntarily enter "detoxification" or rehabilitation programs). 
  • Agenda setting 
  • Formulation of policy proposals by various parties (e.g., citizen groups, congressional committees, think tanks, interest groups, lobby groups, non-governmental organizations). 
  • Policy selection/adoption and legal enactment of a selected policy by elected officials and/or houses of representatives. At this stage, policy legitimation is conferred upon the selected policy solution(s). 
  • Policy implementation, which involves civil servants putting the selected policy option into practice. Depending on the choice made by the executive or legislative branch, this could involve creating new regulation (or removing existing regulations), creating new laws, creating a new government program or service, creating a new subsidy or grant, etc. 
  • Policy evaluation. After the policy has been in place for a year or several years, civil servants or an independent consulting firm assesses the policy, to see if the goals were achieved, if the policy was implemented effectively, etc.
This model, on the other hand, has been chastised for being too linear and simplistic. Stages of the policy process may overlap or never occur in reality. Furthermore, this model ignores the multiple factors attempting to influence the process as well as each other, as well as the complexity that this entails.

For public institutions

Herbert A. Simon, the father of rational models, created one of the most widely used models for public institutions. It's also used by private businesses. Many criticise the model because it is impractical and relies on unrealistic assumptions. For example, because social problems can be very complex, ill-defined, and interdependent, it is a difficult model to apply in the public sector. The issue is with the model's implied thinking procedure, which is linear and can cause problems in unusual problems or social problems with no sequential events.

Rational model 

The rational decision-making model is a method for making sound policy decisions in the public sector. "A style of behaviour that is appropriate to the achievement of given goals, within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints," according to the definition of rationality. The model makes a number of assumptions, including: 'The model must be applied in a stable system'; 'The government is a rational and unitary actor, and its actions are perceived as rational choices'; 'The policy problem is unambiguous'; and 'There are no time or cost constraints.'

Furthermore, policy models in the public sector are intended to achieve maximum social gain. Simon develops a framework for a step-by-step mode of analysis to arrive at rational decisions. according to Ian Thomas, Simon's steps are as follows:
  1.  Intelligence gathering — A comprehensive organization of data; potential problems and opportunities are identified, collected and analyzed. 
  2. Identifying problems — Accounting for relevant factors.
  3. Assessing the consequences of all options — Listing possible consequences and alternatives that could resolve the problem and ranking the probability that each potential factor could materialize in order to give a correct priority to said factor in the analysis. 
  4. Relating consequences to values — With all policies there will be a set of relevant dimensional values (for example, economic feasibility and environmental protection) and a set of criteria for appropriateness, against which performance (or consequences) of each option being responsive can be judged. 
  5. Choosing the preferred option — The policy is brought through from fully understanding the problems, opportunities, all the consequences & the criteria of the tentative options and by selecting an optimal alternative with consensus of involved actors
The rational decision-making model has also proven to be very useful in a variety of decision-making processes outside of the public sector. Nonetheless, some criticise the rational model because of the major issues that can arise in practise, primarily because social and environmental values are difficult to quantify and reach consensus on. Furthermore, Simon's assumptions are never fully valid in a real-world setting.

Further criticisms of the rational model include: ignoring the role of people, entrepreneurs, and leadership, insufficient technical competence (i.e. ignoring the human factor), reflecting a too mechanical approach (i.e. the organic nature of organisations), requiring multidimensional and complex models, generation of often incorrect predictions (i.e. simple solutions may be overlooked), and incurring costs (i.e. costs of rational-comprehensive planning may outweigh the cost savings of the policy).

The rational model, according to Thomas R. Dye, president of the Lincoln Center for Public Service, provides a good perspective because rationality plays a central role in modern society and everything that is rational is prized. As a result, it's not surprising that "we ought to be attempting rational decisionmaking."

Incremental policy

The satisfying, organisational drift, bounded rationality, and limited cognition features of incremental decision-making are all used in an incremental policy model. Such policies are commonly referred to as "muddling through," and they reflect a conservative trend in which new policies are only marginally different from old policies. Because policymakers lack the time, resources, and intelligence to create entirely new policies, previous policies are accepted as having some legitimacy. When existing policies have sunk costs that discourage innovation, incrementalism is a more straightforward approach than rationalism, and the policies are more politically expedient because no radical redistribution of values is required. Such models must inevitably struggle to improve public policy acceptability.

Challenges to bargaining (i.e. not successful with limited resources), downplaying useful quantitative information, obscuring real relationships between political entities, an anti-intellectual approach to problems (i.e. the exclusion of imagination), and a bias towards conservatism are some of the criticisms levelled at such a policy approach (i.e. bias against far-reaching solutions).

For workplaces

There are numerous current policies that address gender and workplace issues. Actors discuss current gender-related workplace issues such as parental leave and maternity programmes, sexual harassment, work/life balance, and gender mainstreaming. The richness of understanding is gained by juxtaposing a variety of research methodologies focused on a common theme. This brings together what are usually disparate bodies of research on the role of gender in welfare reform, employment transformations, workplace policies, and work experience.

Group model 

This policy is the result of forces and pressures exerted by powerful groups. Informally, pressure groups are incorporated into the policy-making process. Those who are supposed to regulate are capturing regulatory agencies. On any given issue, no single group is in charge. Between the individual and the administration, the group serves as a link. As a result, interest groups exert pressure on the executive.

The task of the system is to:
  • Establish the rules of the game 
  • Arrange compromises and balance interests 
  • Enact compromises in policy 
  • Enforce these compromises. 

Other

There are several other major types of policy analysis, broadly groupable into competing approaches:
  • Empirical versus normative policy analyses 
  • Retrospective versus prospective analyses 
  • Prescriptive versus descriptive analyses.

Techniques used in policy analysis

  • Cost–benefit analysis
  • Management by objectives (MBO)
  • Operations research
  • Decision-making based on analytics
  • Program evaluation and review technique (PERT) 
  • Critical path method (CPM).

Evaluation 

A policy's success can be measured by changes in the target population's behaviour and active support from the various actors and institutions involved. A public policy is a legally binding document that specifies a clear course of action for specific individuals or groups in specific situations. With a sound social theory underlying the programme and the target group, there must be an authority or leader charged with the implementation and monitoring of the policy. Evaluations can aid in determining what effects programme objectives/alternatives will have. Only randomised control trials, in which the policy change is applied to one group and not to a control group, and individuals are randomly assigned to these groups, can make claims of causality.

The government can use positive sanctions like favourable publicity, price supports, tax credits, grants-in-aid, direct services or benefits; declarations; rewards; voluntary standards; mediation; education; demonstration programmes; training, contracts; subsidies; loans; general expenditures; informal procedures, bargaining; franchises; sole-source provider awards...etc. to compel compliance from the actors involved.

Steps for conducting a policy evaluation

Policy evaluation is a method of examining a policy's content, implementation, or impact in order to determine its merit, worth, and utility. The 10 steps outlined by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy (NCCHPP) are as follows:

Planning

  • Clarify the policy 
  • Engage stakeholders 
  • Assess resources and evaluability 
  • Determine your evaluation questions 
  • Determine methods and procedures 
  • Develop an evaluation plan 

Implementation

  • Collect data 
  • Process data and analyze results

Utilization

  • Interpret and disseminate the results 
  • Apply evaluation findings 

Rapid evaluation and assessment methods

There is sometimes a need for policy assessment to be conducted at speed, using rapid evaluation and assessment methods (REAM)

Setting clear and targeted objectives at the start of a policy cycle, participation and interdisciplinary teamwork, simultaneous data collection and analysis, and staged reporting of findings are all characteristics of REAM. These will necessitate some upfront work, such as consulting with funders and gaining buy-in from informants who will be subjected to competing demands during the implementation phase. Interim findings are used to adapt and improve processes, blurring the line between evaluation and implementation.

When there is a short policy cycle, rapid methods can be used. They're frequently used in international development to assess the impact of aid policies in the aftermath of natural disasters, for example. It has been suggested that in the context of the climate emergency, rapid assessment methods may be required to evaluate energy and climate policies.

Read Also -































































Post a Comment
Tag,

Comments

Thank You