 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Policy Development
For More Information
Background
Social change model
Educational intervention model
Evaluation of the Policy Development Process
Evaluating Implementation and Outcomes
Annotated bibliography
Internet Links
References
Background
Historically, policy development for children, youth and families focused
on defining problems at the individual level (usually deficits) and developing
interventions directed at the individual's problem. Policy makers assumed
that by changing individuals, their own and their families’ well-being
would be improved. But changes made to and by individuals do not occur
in isolation. They are part of other societal events and changes that
interact with the economy, trends, and shifts in national policy priorities.
An individual may change his or her behavior but due to other events,
he or she may not be a "better" position. For example, someone may complete
preemployment training and acquire job skills but remain unemployed due
to the lack of jobs.
The relationship between children, youth, families, and communities can
also be viewed from an ecological perspective (NNFR, 1995, Bogenschneider,
Small, & Riley, 1994). Individual development and well-being are influenced
by one's interactions with family, community, and society in general.
Graphically, these relationships would be depicted by a series of concentric
circles showing children and youth at the center.
Policy development occurs at the community, state, national and international
levels. It has indirect effects on all the circles representing the human
ecology. Policies formulated at the state and national level impact policies
at the community level. For example, recent changes in federal welfare
policy have many implications for communities. Local decision-makers are
facing questions about the impact of “devolution.” More and more responsibility
for social welfare programs are being passed to the community from the
state and federal government. How do communities meet the welfare needs
of legal immigrants and create enough high-quality jobs for welfare recipients?
The kind of policy decisions made by communities on these issues will
impact the well-being of families, children, and youth now and in the
future.
Social Change Model
Policies are created at many levels in both the private and public sectors.
A community collaboration generally uses a planning process to determine
goals and an agreed-upon course of action that will positively impact
family and youth development (Zimmerman, 1995; Bogenschneider, Small and
Riley, 1994)
The Social Change Model (Figure 2) underlies policy development at the community, state and national levels (Zimmerman, 1995). In this framework, a novel situation often arises and becomes a catalyst for the development of policy. For example, recent increases in teenage smoking may be viewed as a novel situation that raises concern among health advocates, parents and others.
Figure 2. Social Change Model
Mobilization of
Competing perceptions
activity to
Novel ==> and definitions of
==> support competing ==> Social
Situation novel situation
definitions
Action
The process moves to the next stage when individuals or groups emerge
to begin defining and interpreting the situation to others as they see
it. For example, one group may define the problem of teenage smoking as
a lack of parental control while another group may blame it on easy access
to smoking products.
This struggle over competing definitions leads to the next stage and takes
on a political dimension. Individuals or groups seek out politically significant
groups and try to persuade them to accept their definition and perception
of the situation. Groups can also be recruited or created at this stage
to press for social action.
The resulting action may create a new law or policy, a new institution,
organizational reform, or other actions. For example, a new law on restricting
youth access to smoking products may be created. If politically significant
groups had decided the situation did not merit attention, little may be
done to address the novel situation.
The model is circular because new actions will typically generate new
novel situations and the process begins again. Moving to the final stage
of policy development hinges on individuals or groups persuading politically
significant organizations and individuals to take some action. An important
component of the social change model involves identifying politically
significant individuals or groups and persuading them to accept the definition
and perception of the problem.
The Social Change Model has been used by many authors, (see annotated
bibliography: Chapin,1994, Hahn, 1992, Meehan, 1985, and Ramirez, 1995)
as a basis for conceptualizing the policy development process. Although
each author differs in the number of steps involved in the process all
identified similar components.
Educational Intervention Model
The Educational Intervention Model developed by Hahn (1992) provides a
useful guide for TCPs when planning policy education strategies and developing
policies supportive of children, youth and families. Figure 3 outlines
the stages of this approach. Although the stages are numbered, the process
is not linear. For example, in Stage 3 when the issue is defined, the
group may agree that additional members are needed. The group would then
return to Stage 2 to seek additional individuals and return to Stage 3
to involve the new members in the issue definition. Also, if someone is
seriously dissatisfied with the choice at Stage 6, the process may return
to Stage 4. After the results are evaluated in Stage 8, the entire process
often begins again.
Figure 3. Hahn's Educational Intervention Model
Stage 1 - Concern Someone identifies a concern, problem or vision of
how things could be better.
Possible Activities: Conduct community assessment Review research literature
for more information and possible solutions
Stage 2 - Involvement People with a concern seek additional support and
perhaps establish contact with decision makers. Additional people may
become involved. Opposition may also arise in this stage.
Possible Activities: Identify agencies, organizations and individuals
who might be helpful Establish a task force or collaboration Assess training
needs of task force members Determine supporters and non-supporters Contact
policy makers
Stage 3 - Issue
An issue is defined on which people can agree. However, there may not
be agreement on what should be done about the issue.
Possible Activities: Develop vision and mission for group Document and
disseminate alternate views on the issue Help clarify the issues through
discussion
Stage 4 - Alternatives
People seek and propose different ideas about what should be done to resolve
the issue.
Possible Activities: Generate alternatives through brainstorming or nominal
group process Seek objective information on alternatives Facilitate communication
and exchange of viewpoints
Stage 5 - Consequences
Alternatives are evaluated and discussed in terms of anticipated consequences.
Possible Activities: Assemble and distribute objective information on
consequences of alternatives Help citizens make their own predictions
about consequences Hold public forums and discuss alternatives
Stage 6 - Choice
Different people try to influence policy makers. It may be decided to
forget the whole issue, respond to one group or another, or reach a compromise.
Possible Activities: Provide information about how the choice will be
made Inform citizens of opportunities for effective participation Sponsor
legislative education days
Stage 7 - Implementation
A decision is implemented.
Possible Activities: Conduct public information campaigns Provide information
about policy choice
Stage 8 - Evaluation
Results are evaluated.
Possible Activities: Assess outcomes of intervention.
Because policy develops over time, the process cannot be explained as
a simple unit or event (Hayes 1982). Instead policy development involves
a large number of decision points and usually a large group of participants.
The complexity of each of these two characteristics and their interaction
with each other shape policy formation but create difficulty in evaluating
policy development.
Evaluation of the Policy Development Process
Evaluating policy development is not an easy task, but necessary in order
to communicate to policy makers and citizens the purposes, reality, and
accomplishments of the policy development process. Dale and Hahn (1994)
identify several benefits of evaluation for the policy development process.
Evaluation provides information to program implementers that will help
them adjust the program to better meet goals and provide valuable lessons
for future work. It identifies project impacts and helps participants
experience satisfaction about their accomplishments.
Evaluating Implementation and Outcomes
A good evaluation begins at the beginning of the policy development process.
Long-term outcomes are not the only things to evaluate; implementation
strategies can also be evaluated. Reflecting on what has already occurred
and what is planned is useful throughout the process. Dale and Hahn (1994)
suggest asking questions to help determine:
 |
If the program goals are still relevant. |
|
What methods or activities are planned to reach goals. |
|
How the participants apply what they learn. |
|
What effect will the activities have on the goals. |
|
Whether adjustments in goals and/or activities need to be made. |
Evaluators need to determine what potential outcomes the evaluation
will measure. Will the evaluation measure:
|
Individual changes or changes in policy issues? |
|
Predetermined outcomes or emergent outcomes? |
|
Acceptance of existing policies versus a change-oriented approach that seeks a more equitable participation? |
|
Short term, intermediate, or long-term outcomes? |
Evaluating the impact of policy development focuses on either the benefits
for individuals participating in the process or on changes in policy issues.
Historically, evaluations have focused on changes in individual knowledge,
attitudes or opinions, skills, and behaviors related to policy development
(Dale and Hahn, 1994). Evaluation of the impacts of new or changed policies
is also important although they are seldom evaluated. Dale and Hahn (1994)
suggest that one way to detect changes in issue resolution is to interview
individuals who are involved in policy decision making or will make judgments
about the impact of specific interventions. These individuals can help
identify the results of an educational intervention, identify specific
aspects of the intervention that led to these results, and reflect on
what would have happened if the intervention had not taken place.
One difficulty of evaluating impacts on issue resolution is the relatively
long time frame needed for developing policy. However, process models
like Hahn's eight-stage model provide a framework to guide evaluation
of policy development at the community level. Outcome indicators for each
stage help educators determine their progress toward issue resolution
and point to a need to shift to the next stage or previous stage.
Evaluators encounter these challenges when evaluating policy development
interventions:
|
The complexity of policy issues and of the educational programs that address them. |
|
Programs that typically evolve and change during the course of their implementation. |
|
Absence of "tried and true" measurement techniques for most outcomes of interest. |
|
Difficulty in identifying and sampling all audiences that the educator hopes to impact. |
|
The need to support evaluation results with sound research methods. (Dale and Hahn, 1994) |
Evaluators can begin to address these challenges by employing rigorous
techniques for collecting and monitoring quality data such as: employing
multiple philosophical and value frameworks, triangulation techniques
of data collection and analysis, mixing qualitative and quantitative data,
and maintaining a data monitoring system to assure the quality of the
data.
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.
Indicators and Measures |
Other Tools |
Annotated Bibliography |
Internet links |
|
|
| Policy Development | |
||||
| Program Outcomes for Communities | |
||||
| NOWG Home | |
||||