The Five Stages of the Public Policy Process - Essay Example

?4. Analyze the five stages of the public policy process and include what occurs during each stage. The public policy process is a multi stage cycle.It has six stages which overlap each other and within each there are the additional mini stages. The process is therefore continuous and never ends (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Step 1- Problem Identification This stage is initiated when the either the public or elite opinion expresses dissatisfaction with the policies of the status quo. The problem is defined and articulated by individuals and organizations. Among the organizations included in the problem identification stage will include the mass media, interest groups and parties. The problem will then be identified and categorized into appropriate groups after which the stage will be set for agenda setting. Step II – Agenda Setting The clear definition and categorization of alternatives is crucial for any give policy process. Before a policy can be formulated and adopted for action by the interest groups, the issue must compete for space on the agenda i.e. the list of items being actively considered in the policy formulation. Therefore, an idea must make it through several levels, including the broad political system agenda, the congressional and presidential agendas, and also the bureaucratic agenda. Key actors in agenda setting include the integration of parties like interest groups, media, and government officials. Stakeholders outside of government can suggest issues to be addressed by policymakers, but government policymakers must become engaged in the process for a problem to be formally addressed through policy. Government policymaking bodies “can only do so much in its available time period, such as the calendar day, the term of office, or the legislative session. This leads to the formation of working policies concerning the problems to be solved (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Step III – Policy making In this step, all the problems that have been identified and made onto the agenda are used to formulate the policies to address the identified problems. Through the congressional process the formulated agenda is adopted or authorized through a rigorous congressional process. The formulated policy then undergoes being refined through a bureaucratic process making a non-decision (inaction, or defeating a proposal) to become a policy making. This process or stage in the process often faces a challenge given the inefficiencies of any bureaucratic process. Step IV – Budgeting This stage will require the congress to determine the amount of money that will be needed for expenditure on each policy formulated. The moderations are done by the congress after the chief budget officer of the state conducts the budget. This happens only and if the budget has been authorized and hence money is appropriated for the same in the annual budget. Therefore, the parties responsible for the formation of a policy must always ensure that they do their work within the set timelines so that any policy to be adopted within a given financial year does not go beyond the same (Marion & Oliver, 2012). This is because a budget is important and no policy can be implemented without being allocated a budget. Step V – Implementation This stage will witness the implementation of the new policy. The parties responsible for the implementation of the policy are the executive agencies otherwise called the bureaucracy who carry out all that pertains to the implementation of the policy. The process of implementation could include adopting the rules and regulations as they are. Another way of implementation will entail provision of the products and the services as prescribed by the policy frame work. The agencies responsible for the implementation will also conduct public education campaigns for the enlightenment of the general public and the adjudication of all the remaining disputes. The implementation face is likely to face a lot of challenges as they would face a lot of obstacles ranging from the change attitude by the parties concerned to the regeneration of the policy tools by the parties required. Both advocacy and policy dialogue are important for policy implementation. Through advocacy, stakeholders promote issues and their positions on the issues. Policy dialogue involves discussions among stakeholders to raise issues for implementation, share perspectives, find common ground, and to reach agreement or consensus, if possible, on policy solutions for implementation (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Step VI – Policy Evaluation Numerous actors evaluate the impact of policies, to see if they are solving the problems identified and accomplishing their goals they are directed to solve. The evaluation process looks at costs and benefits of policies as well as their indirect and unintended effects on the impacted parties. The Congress uses its oversight function and the General Accounting Office for evaluation, agencies evaluate their own performance, and outside evaluators include interest groups, think tanks, the academia, and media consultants. Evaluation process will frequently trigger the identification of problems and a new round of agenda setting and policy making. This will set the process rolling repeatedly (Marion & Oliver, 2012). 2. Analyze the “federalization of crime.” What are some reasons for it? What are some arguments for and against it? Over the past decade, outbursts of federal legislative proposals and enactions have transformed traditional state and local criminal offenses into federal crimes as well long time. A few examples: Within a week of the 1999 massacre of high-school students in Littleton, Colorado, President Bill Clinton proposed making it a federal felony for adults to either recklessly or knowingly allow children to possess weapons later used to injure or kill a person. When a Maryland woman was murdered in a publicized car-jacking in 1992, within weeks, the United States Congress made car jacking a federal crime. Although the perpetrator were convicted of the state crimes of robbery and murder similar action was taken in the year 1994 in response to other publicized crimes, a drive-by shooting and murder by an escaped prisoner (Marion & Oliver, 2012). The 105th term of the congress witnessed hundreds of bills introduced having to do with federal criminal statutes. Many of these pertained to the juvenile justice, including one unsuccessful measure that would require that 14- and 15-year olds be tried as adults if accused of offenses that constitute what Congress defines as serious violent crimes or drug offenses like the use of marijuana (Marion & Oliver, 2012). In an analogous context, using its Commerce Clause power, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Amendment of 1984, conditioning a state’s receipt of certain federal highway funds on whether the state legislature had raised the age of drinking alcoholic beverages to 21 years of age. It since has rewarded states with additional appropriations for those including in its definition of an impaired judgments when it comes to the federalization of crimes. The proponents for federalization of crimes argue that the criminals deserve to be prosecuted so that sanity is brought by in the society. The politicians are also smiling as the legislations come into force as they would bring votes to the politicians given they will be relevant. The other positive attribute of the federalized laws is that they are likely to bring the larger populations of the states together as they share into how to make the laws effective and functional. Federalizations of crime will local and state governments to respond to the needs of their constituents and to develop policies and programs. The consequent lessening of regard individuals have for their local and state governmental bodies, including the judicial branch, the increasing concentration of power in the federal government and the resulting adverse effect on its law-enforcement and judicial systems, with the concomitant loss of faith by individuals in government at all levels of their operations. On the contrary, unwise federalization disrupts this constitutional balance, thereby undermining the strength as well as many of the values achieved by the federal system: the closeness of government bodies to their constituents, the preservation of the ability of local and state governments to experiment in social policy, and the states as the checks and balances of the national power (Marion & Oliver, 2012). The surprise aspect is that, without any evidence to conclude that the local and state governments are unwilling to or incapable of exercising their responsibilities. The incursion of the national government subverts the authority of and the regard for the local and state governments, making it increasingly difficult for those governments to effectively and imaginatively respond to the needs of their constituents in terms of the laws that need streamlining (Marion & Oliver, 2012). A political culture that comes to regard the federal government as its guardian relegates the local and state governments to secondary status disenabling their formulation. The premise articulated in this case or not is that these lesser governments are not capable of handling important matters concerning criminalization. Public confidence and commitment are diminishing day by day due to the nature in which crimes are being handled by the security forces. Ultimately, federalization obscures the boundaries of political responsibility and accountability, undermines the confidence constituents have in their officials, in addition, it erodes the authority of the local and state institutions (Marion & Oliver, 2012). 4. Analyze the federal, state, and local role in intergovernmental relations References Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). Criminal Justice Policy. BCJ 563, 10(5), 1-193. Read More