The Policy Process, Part II - Essay Example

?The Policy Process, Part II Evaluation stage Mention the policy process and talking of implementation may seem that the process has come to an end. But the policy process does not end with the implementation. As the proverbial saying that there is more sleep after death, indeed, there is more to do after the implementation of a policy in a typical healthcare setup. Trochim (2006) explains that “evaluation is the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of some object.” This means that in the evaluation of a policy after its implementation, there is a conscious effort to identify if the policy has been of any help to the people for whom the policy was made. This reflects the need to have an aim or a goal in the setting up of a policy. This is because the assessment of the impact of the policy; thus the evaluation of the policy is based on the goals that was set for the policy. In some circles of review, the purpose of evaluation is set beyond the identification of the merits or benefits of the policy. For example Theodoulou and Kofinis (2004, p 192) in Pennsylvania State University (2011) explains that “policy evaluation can be better defined as a process by which general judgments about quality, goal attainment, program effectiveness, impact, and costs can be determined.” This means that policy evaluation should be undertaken to cover how effectively the policy is being implemented according to the goals set for the policy and also an assessment of cost. Policy evaluation can be limited to the long term care policy to give a vivid explanation and meaning of policy evaluation. First is the assessment or judgment of quality, program effectiveness and impact of the policy. As a health care policy, the best judges on the quality of the program would be healthcare recipients. For this reason, an effective quality evaluation can be undertaken by implementing a quality assurance system. Preferably, the quality assurance system should e external; meaning that the assessment should be done by stakeholders outside the policy implementation process. A suitable example will be patients. In a pilot survey research, patients who receive treatment under the long term care policy can be made to give their impression on the quality of the policy. Data collected in this manner can be analyzed to give policy makers a fair idea of the quality of the policy. On goal attainment evaluation, this can be left with the policy makers themselves as they are the goal setters. By definition of the strategic plan that was used in drafting the policy, policy makers should be in a policy to tell whether or not the policy has reached its goal. This assessment should however be done based on the timelines set for the policy. For example if it was stated that one million people must join the policy by the end of the first year, it will be easier determining if this goal has been achieved because of the timeline and quantitative measure. Finally, assessment of the cost can be done by specially employed finance experts and consultants. The consultants will judge the cost effectiveness of the policy based on the strategic plan on cost used in drawing the policy. Analysis stage The policy analysis stage is synonymous to the evaluation stage but different in one specific way. Whereas the evaluation has the strategic plan as its focus and therefore judges only on the success of the policy, the analysis takes a step further to look into the failure of the policy as well. In the policy analysis therefore, the strategic plan is not the basis for judgment but the environmental outcome – that is how best it has influenced the world around the policy or how worse it has devastated the world around the policy. In this regard, the IEA Training Manual Module 5 (2011) explains that the policy analysis “provides baseline information, points out major linkages between decisions and environmental outcomes, and provides a starting point for consideration of more sustainable policy options.” An outstanding concept at the analysis stage therefore has to do with the search for options, alternatives and starting points in the event of failures of the policy. With specific reference to the long term care policy as an example, it will be very important that at the drafting stages of the policy, alternatives be included on alternative policies to fall on if the analysis points out after a defined time that the policy has not been very effective, successful or useful to the populace. But if this does not happen at the drafting stage, there still can be room for identifying alternatives as the policy continues to run. Policy analysis is very important to the policy process. To achieve the whole benefits however, Buhrs and Bartlett (1993) suggests that there should be two major stages of the policy analysis program. In the first place, they call for a descriptive analysis whereby there will be a qualitative explanation to the policy, its implementation and its influence on society. With the long term care policy, such a descriptive analysis can be achieved through stakeholder brainstorming seminars and conferences that will seek to draw nothing but a qualitative report on the strengths and failures of the policy. The second stage of analysis should be a prescriptive analysis; at which point the analysis will move a step further in giving out the said alternatives and options mentioned earlier. At this stage, there should be the reformulation of policy and proposals. This analysis may therefore be said to be quantitative as it offers tabletop models for moving ahead after the policy is found not to be very beneficial to society. If the policy is found to be beneficial and worth continuing, the need for reformulation of policy and proposals would no longer be necessary to undertake. This means that the prevailing system would be made to continue. Revision stage It is important to note that at the analysis stage, no mention was made of re-implementation of alternative policies even though the need to identify alternative policies was mentioned. This is because the actual re-implementation: if the need be for it happens at the revision stage. Policy revision may come in two major forms. The first is the replacement of an existing policy with an alternative option, identified at the analysis stage. When this happens, even though the replacing policy may have to go through the entire processes of policy formation as discussed earlier, it is still worth referring to it as a revision because of the fact that it does not come to address an all new problem but come to replace an existing policy that sought to solve a problem. Policy revision may also take place by changing certain criteria components of the existing policy. The line of policy revision: whether replacement revision or modification revision would depend on the outcome of the policy analysis stage. If the policy analysis finds that the policy has woefully failed the purpose of its implementation, the most worthwhile step to take is to try a new policy. So with the long term care plan policy, if after years of analysis it turns out that the policy has worsened rather than improve healthcare delivery, the best thing to do is to opt for a replace revision. If on the other hand the policy is found to be lacking in some compositions but its essence to society still remains vital, the policy can be maintained but had the lacking compositions added to it. Revisions are very necessary because it makes room for improvement of policies and change. The importance applies with both replacement revisions and modification revisions. For instance the World Intellectual Property Organization (2011) notes that revisions in policies are “needed in order to accommodate new technologies or to increase the quality of the policy.” This means that revisions will make room for a lot of innovations and initiations. Policy makers are therefore advised to be bold in taking revisions programs in policy implementations as such revisions hold the key to improving the entire policy process. Purpose and Methodologies Process for Evaluating and Revising a Public Policy On the whole, the purpose of evaluating and revising public policies is to improve the quality and usefulness of the policy for the general public, who are the benefactors of the policy. To undertake the evaluation and revision of the policy however, there are specific methodologies that need to be followed. For the fact that the policy under consideration is a public policy, a combination of ex ante and ex post evaluation and revision methods would be suggested for evaluating and revising the policy. Ex ante has been selected because Wolpin and Todd (2007) notes that “is useful for designing programs that achieve some optimality criteria, such as maximizing impact for a given cost.” This means that policy makers will be in a position to identify the cost maximization of the policy even before the implementation so that the public policy of that huge financial caliber does not end up becoming a financial nuisance or failure. With the ex post, Harvey (2004) mentions that “Ex-post assessment involves undertaking a review of an operational program or institution.” To achieve ex post methodology, a public peer review committee that will be tasked with primary data collection from beneficiaries of the policy on the impact of the program is suggested. The data collection for the evaluation stage should be both qualitative and quantitative in order that its analysis can bring about an empirical conclusion, based on final decision on the type of revision to undertake can be taken. REFERENCE LIST Buhrs, Ton; Bartlett, Robert V. (1993). Environmental Policy in New Zealand. The Politics of Clean and Green. Oxford University Press: Oxford. ISBN 0195582845. Harvey, L., (2004–11), Analytic Quality Glossary, Quality Research International, http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/ IEA Training Manual Module 5 (2011). What is policy analysis? Retrieved October 25, 2011 from http://www.unep.org/ieacp/iea/training/manual/module5/1231.aspx Pennsylvania State University (2011). Definition of Public Policy Evaluation. Retrieved October 26, 2011 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/welcome/plsc490/lesson05_07.html Trochim M. W. K (2006). Introduction to Evaluation. Retrieved October 25, 2011 from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intreval.htm Wolpin K. I and Todd P.E (2007). Ex Ante Evaluation of Social Programs. Retrieved October 26, 2011 from http://athena.sas.upenn.edu/~petra/papers/exante.pdf World Intellectual Property Organization (2011). Revision Policy and Revision Procedure for the Reformed IPC. Retrieved October 26, 2011 from http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/reform/policy.html Read More