 |
 |
 |
 |
    |
 |
 |
|
Policy
Development
Introduction
Many collaborations develop policies that enhance the well-being of
children, youth and families in their community (Hogue,
Perkins, Clark, Bergstrum, Slinski, and Associates, 1995). Evaluating
policy development involves assessing changes in people’s ability to influence
policy. It also involves gathering evidence about the kinds of policies
and procedures developed and their impact on children, youth, and families.
Everyone has policies, from individuals (I have a policy of getting regular
dental checkups) to businesses (sick leave policies) to governments (family
leave legislation) (Hahn, 1992). Agencies, organizations and individuals
use policies to distribute and redistribute resources, regulate behavior,
create or modify procedures, create or reorganize structures, and define
terms related to all of these functions (Zimmerman, 1995).
Policies that affect children, youth, and families may be direct such
as funding for specific programs or services, or indirect such as local
zoning laws determining where families can live. Policies generate both
intended and unintended consequences. For example, the intended consequence
of nuclear testing in Nevada was to provide a sense of national security
but an unintended consequence was the deaths of many individuals from
cancer (Zimmerman, 1995).
The literature provides many definitions of policies (Guba, 1984, Meehan,
1985, and Zimmerman 1995). To evaluate policy development at the community
level, policy is defined as a set of guidelines designed to govern decision
making and actions. A collaboration develops a course of action based
on shared visioning of what is best for children, youth and families in
that community.
Indicator Areas:
Collaborations evaluate policy development in two different areas. In
the first area, collaborations assess outcomes related to enhancing citizens’
ability to develop and influence policies. In the second area, collaborations
evaluate changes in policies supporting children, youth and families in
the community.
1. Promote the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of citizens to develop
policies for children, youth and families.
a. Change in knowledge, attitudes
and skills
b. Increased citizen
involvement in policy development
2. Changes in policies supporting children, youth and families in the
community.
Application to State Strengthening Projects
State Strengthening Projects work to secure public and private policies
that positively impact the well-being of children, youth, and families.
Targeted Community Projects (TCP) plan and implement actions to make policy
changes at the community level designed to enhance the well-being of children,
youth, and families. These plans also include educational efforts that
prepare individuals to influence to develop and influence policy at the
national, state and local levels.
Based on a review of literature, several implications for developing and
evaluating policy at the community level are evident.
1. An effective policy development process involves a broad based, diverse
group of individuals representing a large cross-section of the community.
Collaborations with multiple and diverse interests are greater catalysts
for change than narrowly focused advocacy groups concentrating on only
one issue (Hahn, 1994). Members of the collaborations need to view themselves
as agents of change and be willing to take risks.
2. Members of the collaboration need to carefully analyze the intended
as well as unintended consequences of the policy change to ensure the
policy will positively impact the well-being of children and youth, families,
and the community.
3. The evaluation process needs to begin in the initial stages of planning.
Too often evaluators are asked to measure the impact of a program and
lack key baseline data that help determine the merits of the program.
It is recommended that a TCP assesses community needs and capacities early
in its project development.
4. There is not one "right" way to develop policies or evaluate policy
development. The evaluation method needs to match the stage of the policy
development process (Dale and Hahn, 1994). For example, an evaluation
will be of little use if it focuses on outcomes of policy development
while in the planning and implementation stages.
References
Bogenschneider, K., Small, S. and Riley, D. (1994). An ecological, risk-focused
approach for addressing youth-at-risk issues. Madison, WI: University
of Wisconsin-Madison Cooperative Extension.
Chapin, R. (1995). Social policy development: The strengths perspective.
Social Work, 40 (4), 506-514.
Dale, D. and Hahn. A. (1994). Public issues education: Increasing competence
in resolving public issues. Task Force of the National Public Policy Education
Committee. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison Cooperative Extension.
Hahn, Alan J. (1992) Resolving Public issues and Concern through Policy
Education. Itchica, NY: Cornell University, Cornell Cooperative Extension.
Hayes, C. (1982). Making policies for children: A study of the federal
process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Meehan, E. (1985). Policy: Constructing a definition. Policy Sciences
(18), 291-311.
National Network for Family Resilience, Family resiliency: Building strengths
to meet life's challenges. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension.
Ramirez, A. (1995). Powerful Policies. The American School Board Journal,
182 (12), 27-29.
Zimmerman, S. (1995). Understanding Family Policy, 2nd edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Other Tools |
||||
| |
Policy Development | | Program Outcomes for Communities | |
||||
| NOWG Home | |
||||