The Implementation Process of the Policy - Term Paper Example

Policy Contribution part 3 Thamar Slippe-Sampson Marywood Policy Contribution part 2 The United s has seen implementation of many policies over the years, many of which allowed the passage of immigrants into the country and others that rescinded the provisions of previous policies. For instance, in 1885 congress passed a policy that denied contract laborers entry into the country, counteracting previous laws that had allowed them to immigrate (Magaña, 2003). Modifications have always been made to immigration policies in an attempt to ensure that the country receives only people that are beneficial to the survival of its citizens. However, these policies are all based on the premise that immigrants have a generalized negative effect on the systems in the country, whereby the common belief is that unless someone has a certain level of education, skills or other features, he or she should be denied entry into the country (Bush and McLarty, 2009). Without the specified criteria, the country believes that these people have an overall negative effect on the country and its people including security, economy, culture, politics, and other aspects of modern-day society (McWhirter, 2006). Implementing policy depends on many factors including their effect on the people and the aim of policy makers in implementing the policy. In this case, the immigration policy had the aims of reducing the influx of immigrants into the country, and ensuring that those who gain access into the country are the most productive of all the candidates (Givens, Freeman and Leal, 2009). Consequently, the needs of the country have to be considered, together with the welfare of citizens and immigrants. This ensures that the policy that is passed is the best for everyone, such that citizens will not be at a disadvantage due to the proliferation of the number of immigrants into the country. On the other hand, the policy should be humane enough not to deny immigrants entry into the country of their dreams if they deserve it. In order to achieve an all-encompassing policy, extensive consultations must be held among all stakeholders during the planning and implementation process (Balloch, 2005). In addition, consultations must be held to identify areas of weakness in the policy, or changes that have occurred in the country that would necessitate a change in policy. Therefore, the process of implementing policy is continuous, whereby there is a feedback mechanism, and policies are always in the process of being amended and the amendments are always being implemented (Koulish, 2009). This study uses the Jansson’s approach to policy implementation and policy assessment to make recommendations for implementation of immigration policy in the United States; it relates these factors to the feedback loop of policy implementation. Statement of the Problem There is always a new situation, event or needs that make people want to immigrate into the United States and as time passes by, many people want to move into the country. Policymakers are faced with the dilemma of identifying the criteria they should use to prevent the proliferation of immigrants that may have a negative impact on national security, availability of employment positions for citizens, and sustainable use of resources. On the other hand, immigrants have positive effects on the country’s economy, culture and other aspects. Therefore, the new policy has to put all these factors into consideration, and ensure to optimize the benefits for the people (Koven and Götzke, 2010). In order for the policy to reflect the will of the people, it has to be formulated in such a way that it satisfies their needs and takes care of their welfare. However, doing so can be a challenge if policymakers do not consult during and after implementation, or if the policy does not include clauses to allow for its modification and amendment. In addition, some of the members of the policymaking teams may have their own selfish needs to satisfy, and they may be tempted to sabotage the implementation, amendment, modification or assessment processes. These can affect the feedback loop negatively, and this may limit the effectiveness of the policy to fulfill its intended purpose (Rivera, 2010). The Feedback Loop Policy implementation is a process rather than an event, whereby one event in the process leads to another in a cyclic process. Policy is formulated and implemented; after implementation, it is assessed for weaknesses or loopholes and modifications are made to the policy and these are implemented too. The assessment starts again and the cycle goes continues without end. Moreover, the political, economic, social, legal, technological or ecological factors of the environment may change, necessitating modification of policy to keep up with the new environment. Therefore, the feedback loop involves analysis of the environment or the policy for factors that may necessitate change, and then changing the policy and implementing it (Tarling, 2005). Policy Implementation An acceptable policy that has potential for success can flounder and not achieve its objectives due to improper implementation. Policies are diverse, and the socioeconomic considerations in their implementation are many; therefore, care should be taken when implementing due to the many factors that affect the process, and people that are affected by the policy. In this case, the immigration policy that introduces a new criterion for immigration should consider immigrants who are already in the country but do not fit the new profile. The policy should be fair to everyone such that these illegal immigrants do not go through unnecessary suffering; on the other hand, their presence in the country should not pose a threat to United States residents (Honig, 2006). The Implementation Process The implementation process should involve consultation and feedback between stakeholder groups before implementation and during implementation of the policy. In the institution, whether public or private, decisions are made with the high, middle and low level managements consulting with subordinates for ideas on possible modifications that can be made to the policy or the process of implementation (Gerston, 2010). Some of the stakeholders involved in the implementation of immigration policy include politicians, legislators, courts and mass media among others. These stakeholders have a say in the implementation process since they represent the will of the citizens of the US (Hardina, 2007). Therefore, policymakers and implementers should consult these stakeholders to avoid any conflicts of interest that may hinder the effectiveness of the policy. Moreover, these stakeholders interact directly with the people and know the effect of the policy on the economic, social, and demographic development, and the effect that these may have on the efficiency and effectiveness of the policy (Tansey and Jackson, 2008). According to Slack (2012), there is a ten step model for policy implementation that should be considered for use; however, the decision makers should bear in mind that these steps are generic and should be modified to fit the situation in which the policy is implemented. These steps include: step 1. The policy on immigration should not be subject to too many restrictions; in this case, it should abide with the provisions of basic human rights policies. For instance, the policy should not limit the immigrants’ freedoms and rights; in addition, it should be compatible with existing United States laws. step 2. Policy implementation mechanisms, agencies, and processes should be provided with an adequate timeframe and enough resources should be committed at a federal or state level. step 3. Implementing agencies should have enough employees to handle the demands of implementing the policy, which is one of the hindrances to the effectiveness of policies as a heavy workload is demotivating for employees. step 4. In order for a policy to be implementable and effective in practice, it must have a theoretical framework to back it up; otherwise, it may be politically rejected. On the other hand, other factors should be considered to ensure that the policy is acceptable and effective. step 5. The results of the policy must be easily ascertainable, such that all stakeholders can easily predict the effect of the policy to day-to-day lives. In this case, the immigration policy should have direct effects of reducing illegal immigration, and maximizing the positive effects of immigration to the country. step 6. The agency implementing the policy must do it using its own means since an increased number of dependencies reduce effectiveness. step 7. All stakeholders in the implementation process must agree on the objectives of the policy, and these must have as few ambiguities as possible. step 8. Tasks in the implementation process must follow a predetermined sequence, primarily to reduce redundancies in the process and optimize on effectiveness. For instance, agencies should not do simultaneously tasks that should be done consecutively. step 9. During the process, communication and coordination are pertinent, whereby the effectiveness of the policy is hampered by lack of both among the implementing agencies. step 10. The final step in successful policy implementation is ensuring that everyone complies with the provisions of the policy without exceptions. For instance, if the policy limits entry of immigrants into the country, then no immigrants who do not meet the specified criteria should be allowed entry into the country regardless of other underlying factors. Process Amendment Depending on the policy, the prevailing conditions and other underlying factors the existing process may need to be changed especially if it hinders the effectiveness of the policy in the face of current developments (Shore, Wright and Però, 2011). In this case, stakeholders or their representatives should meet, and chart the way forward including scrapping of some steps or components of the process, changing the agency, or enhancing a stage to optimize the effect of the policy. Some of the reasons for changing the process include a change in a situation such that the policy is urgently needed to reverse a negative situation; ineffectiveness of the process due to outdated provisions; and if the process is too lengthy such that the situation will have exacerbated before the policy starts functioning. As with any standing procedures, the process for implementing policies on immigration should have provisions for amendment, such that it should enable stakeholders with real concerns to change it for the benefit of the people of the United States. However, the process should be reviewed in order to determine the validity of the intended change, mainly to avoid unnecessary amendments that may be costly and still have a negative effect on the process (Stewart, Hedge and Lester, 2007). Nevertheless, the amendment process should not take too much time that it interferes with the implementation process such that the policy becomes outdated (Riley and Brophy-Baermann, 2006). For instance, the policy on immigration is only necessary as long many people want to come into the country, and illegal immigrants have not yet affected the country adversely. Possibilities for Process Sabotage Some of the people or groups in implementing agencies may have interests that conflict with the objectives of the process, whereby if the process is implemented effectively they may end up losing directly or indirectly. Therefore, these people or groups may attempt to curtail the process of implementation in order to cushion themselves from losing the gains that they would have made without the policy. In addition, parties may curtail the process due to a lack of concern or understanding of the importance of the policy to the positive development of the country; this can be curbed by educating all stakeholders on the positive effect of implementing the policy and the negative effects of failing to do so (Honig, 2006). Various aspects of the modern life including political, economic, cultural, social, legal, and others may motivate sabotage of the implementation process. Politically, a person or group may be getting some form of political mileage by having a high influx of immigrants in the country (Schneider, 2012). For instance, a person campaigning against policy that limits immigration earns some positive publicity due to public perception of his or her sympathy. In addition, some people among the stakeholders may have an economic interest in the business of smuggling immigrants into the country, and the implementation of a limiting policy may result in financial losses. Culturally, some of the stakeholders may have originated from the same countries with illegal immigrants and may feel obliged to cater for the welfare of their people. On the other hand, some people may positively sabotage the implementation process, whereby they would promote the process with the background knowledge that the policy is likely to be destructive to the people of the United States (Givens, Freeman and Leal, 2009). Policy Assessment After implementation, the policy is assessed for suitability in handling the situation at hand, and fulfillment of its intended purpose. For instance, purpose for reduction of the numbers of illegal immigrants should be analyzed for success by use of indicators of effectiveness, cost efficiency, efficiency and social justice among others (Truong and Gasper, 2011). According to Jansson (2010), the evaluator must pass through six main steps in policy analysis including: step 1. The evaluator must identify accurate indicators of success of the policy; a variable that has few underlying factors should be selected in order to ensure that the change is due to the policy. step 2. The evaluator should consider people’s perceptions, interpretations and attitudes towards the policy; these factors affect the effectiveness of the policy and should be considered. step 3. He or she should consider the primary intentions for implementing the policy, which will then form a basis for policy assessment. step 4. The evaluator should define the extent of the effect of the policy that will be classified as success. step 5. The evaluator should seek funds for the study and seek mandate to access data on the indicators of choice. step 6. The policy evaluator should analyze the results of the study, and interpret them accordingly. Finally, recommendations should be made on how to strengthen the effective aspects of the policy and overcome shortcomings. Conclusion Once a policy has been formulated, it goes through a continuous process that alternates between implementation, assessment and amendment. Implementation could take the ten steps discussed above, or stakeholders could modify it to account for the unique circumstances in which the policy is being implemented. However, implementers should be wary of the threat of sabotage to the process, which could happen due to a myriad of reasons. Throughout the process, consultations are necessary to ensure that the concerns of all parties are considered; this is done primarily to prompt their participation in the completion of the process. Amendment of the policy or the process should be done to keep up with changing circumstances, and ensure that the welfare of all concerned parties is not compromised in the process of implementing the policy. For instance, the policy to limit illegal immigration should consider and abide by the provisions of the law of the land. Policy assessment is one of the primary aspects of the systems approach to policy making, and the evaluator should pass through the six steps discussed above to ensure that the assessment considers indicators that are relevant to that policy. Moreover, the steps enable the assessor to be objective in the analysis rather than subjective. References Bush, J., McLarty, T. F., & Alden, E. H. (2009). U.S. immigration policy. Council on Foreign Relations. Gerston, L. N. (2010). Public policy making: Process and principles. M.E. Sharpe. Givens, T. E., Freeman, G. P., & Leal, D. L. (2009). Immigration policy and security: US, European, and commonwealth perspectives. Taylor & Francis. Hardina, D. (2007). An empowering approach to managing social service organizations. Springer Publishing Company. Honig, M. I. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: confronting complexity. SUNY Press. Jansson, B. S. (2010). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice. Cengage: USA. Koulish, R. E. (2009). Immigration and American democracy: Subverting the rule of law. Taylor & Francis. Koven, S.G., & Götzke, F. (2010). American immigration policy: Confronting the nations challenges. Springer. Magaña, L. (2003). Straddling the border: Immigration policy and the Ins. University of Texas Press. McWhirter, R. J. (2006). The criminal lawyers guide to immigration law: Questions and answers. American Bar Association. Riley, D. D., & Brophy-Baermann, B. E. (2005). Bureaucracy and the policy process: Keeping the promises. Rowman & Littlefield. Rivera, J. E. (2010). Business and public policy: Responses to environmental and social protection processes. Cambridge University Press. Schneider, W. (2012). The politics of illegal immigration. Retrieved from, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-politics-of-illegal-immigration/5022/ Shore, C., Wright, S., & Però, D. (2011). Policy worlds: Anthropology and analysis of contemporary power. Berghahn Books. Slack, B. (2012). The policy process, retrieved from http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch9en/conc9en/ch9c2en.html Stewart, J., Hedge, D. M., & Lester, J. P. (2007). Public policy: An evolutionary approach. Cengage Learning. Tansey, S. D., & Jackson, N. A. (2008). Politics: The basics. Taylor & Francis. Tarling, N. (2005). Corruption and good governance in Asia. Taylor & Francis. Taylor, D., and Balloch, S. (2005). The politics of evaluation: participation and policy implementation. The Policy Press. Truong, T. D., and Gasper, D. R. (2011). Transnational migration and human security: The migration-development-security nexus. Springer. Read More