CBR 308: Developing Real Solutions to Real Problems Policy Analysis from a Community Perspective.

CBR 308: CBR 308: Developing Real Solutions to Real ProblemsDeveloping Real Solutions to Real Problems

Policy Analysis from a Community PerspectivePolicy Analysis from a Community Perspective

Welcome!

Introductions

Icebreaker

Workshop objectives

Key workshop messages

Workshop Objectives

Upon Completion of this Workshop you will be able to:

• Understand what drives political and public policy decisions

• Understand the importance of defining or framing the issue

• Understand how to develop and analyze policy options, describe and rationalize recommendations, and identify/assess impacts

• Think through, draft and critique policy options and recommendations

• Integrate these skills and knowledge into your ability to develop practical and workable policy alternatives within a community of practice

Key workshop messages

• Understand the psychology and practice of politics and policymaking – “fit”

• See your issue through different lenses - how you and others frame an issue shapes its solutions

• Use the power of ideas – create language and stories (words, images, symbols) to influence the discourse

• Leverage the power of partnership - create a continuum of engagement in your advocacy and activism work, distinguish between disagreement and attack

• Sustain the power of community – mobilize capacity, design strategy, ensure succession

• Translate policy options into communication strategies• Appreciate that every idea has its time – be patient, be creative

Agenda

MORNING

• Welcome, Introductions

• Icebreaker – What Does Good Policy Look Like?

• Lecture – Around the Cabinet Table

• Health Break

• Case Study #1 – “What’s the Issue?”, small group exercise and facilitated plenary discussion

• Lecture – Developing Options

• Case Study #2, “Constructing a Policy Options Menu,” small group exercise and facilitated plenary discussion

• Lunch

AFTERNOON

• Guest Speaker – to be confirmed• Q & A Session

• Revisit – “Constructing a Policy Options Menu,” small group exercise and facilitated

plenary discussion

• Health Break

• Lecture – Analyzing Options, Developing Recommendations

• Case Study #3 – “The End”

• Plenary Discussion - Key Learnings/Reflections

• Adjourn

Icebreaker:What does good policy look like?

What do you think of the following 3 policy options? Are they options?

Option 1

• That the federal government develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national housing strategy to address the shortage of affordable housing.

Option 2

That the federal government:

• Allow a full rebate of GST on new rental housing projects;• Increase CCA to five per cent for new rental housing; and• Expand the “soft costs” which can be deducted in the first year of operation of new rental properties


Option 3

• That the provincial government develop a streamlined approvals procedure for the redevelopment of brownfield sites for affordable housing based on risk-based remediation approaches.

Source, slides 6-8: Toronto Board of Trade, “Practical Solutions to Affordable Housing Challenges,” 2003


What do you think of these policy options? Are they options?

Option 1 Children from better-off families do better in school. To make

university and college access more equitable, we need to address inequalities as they build up from early childhood by intervening early to offer lower-income children educational, health and social programs to encourage development that will ultimately allow them to move on to post-secondary education.

Option 2 Have tuition increases affected the enrolment of students from

different income levels?


Option 3

While designing specific policies regarding tuition is beyond the scope of this study, we note two ideas that may warrant further consideration in this area:

Putting a limit on the share of revenues that post-secondary institutions can raise by tuition, which would mean that governments sustain their share of funding at the necessary level.

Increasing the predictability of tuition fees with a program-stability guarantee, whereby an institution would fix tuition fees for the duration of a given program, so students would know total cost from the beginning. While overall cost might remain a barrier, guarantees would mitigate the discouraging effect of their unpredictability.

The University of Toronto has already put a program like this in place (University of Toronto, 2004).

Source: Canadian Policy Research Networks, “Getting There and Staying There:Low-income Students and Post-secondary Education: A Synthesis of Research Findings,” 2005



Option 1

Advice to the Toronto Central LHIN

A. Take a Social Determinants of Health approach. The Toronto Central LHIN Steering Committee believes that the Toronto Central LHIN must take a social determinants approach to planning, funding, delivering and evaluating health services in Toronto Central (as opposed to an approach that is based primarily on a medical model)


Option 2

The consultation should be undertaken to:

• Inform community stakeholders about the LHIN and its functions;• Listen to stakeholder concerns and ideas about the health care system

in Toronto;• Engage community stakeholders in Toronto Central in the

development of the Toronto Central LHIN, and in its ongoing activities; and,

• Review and comment on the priority areas set out by the Toronto Central LHIN Steering Committee.

Source, slides 11-12: Toronto Central LHIN , “Integration Priority Report,” 2005



The Cabinet Committee on Health and Social Policy Committee recommends to the Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet that:

Option 1 Sole support parents with children 6 years of age and under be exempt from mandatory participation in Ontario Works unless those children are in full-time attendance at school

Option 2 Do nothing

Option 3 Exempt sole support parents with children 3 years of age and under from mandatory participation in Ontario Works but continue their option to participate voluntarily



Option 1

The policy framework should:

Complement international objectives and relationships, alleviate suffering, promote diversity, and serve the economy

Option 2

Social Cohesion

The ultimate indicator of successful immigration policy is the achievement of social cohesion in our cities and country, which will depend on how we approach diversity… But diversity as a value in society does not happen on its own – it requires support and commitment. . . inclusion in the governance and leadership of society.

Invest in local initiatives to accelerate the participation of immigrants in the leadership of agencies, boards and commissions which govern many aspects of community life: library, university, college and hospital boards, public health agencies, various government agency boards, all of which play vital community roles


Option 3

Drawing on the success of the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council (TRIEC) provide funding to urban regions to convene the relevant stakeholders and local leadership to find local solutions that link new immigrants to employment appropriate to their education and experience.

Source, slides 14-16: Alan Broadbent on behalf of the Maytree Foundation, “An Open Letter to the New Prime Minister of Canada,” 2006

So…How to Make Good Policy Options

Write for a policy audience – plain language, option headers & short descriptors, action verbs

Make sure you tell a story – translate policy options into communications messages

Mix short-, mid-, and long-term options – choice of phased-in changes

Mix incremental and big change options – choice of impacts Mix low- and high-risk options – choice of pros, cons Include the status quo – doing nothing is always an option Pay attention to the “Cabinet Table” – what drives

political/public policy decisionmaking (slides 19, 20)

1. Timeframe of government’s business/election cycle –make the tough decisions early

2. Difference between election/post-election periods – move from firm to more fluid ideology

3. Short attention span of politics, short shelf life of policy – “In two years, it’s not my problem”

4. Government’s policy agenda/priorities – “we want to do this”

5. Government’s communications agenda/priorities – “we want to say that”

Around the Cabinet TableBefore the First Step: What drives political/public policy decisions?

Around the Cabinet TableBefore the First Step: What drives political/public policy decisions?

6. Current/prospective health of government finances – “can we afford it?” Current/prospective economic cycle –view from Bay Street, global markets

7. Values, beliefs, ethics – find the social consensus

8. Media attention/perspective, opinion polls – understand the public mood

9. Difference between government and the people who work there – government is heterogeneous

10. Different points of access – deal direct or “back channel”

Crafting the FoundationThe First Step: Finding research to ground your options

Most persuasive

• Real intervention outcomes, especially local/regional – “it’s worked before, ” “it’s worked here”

• Research outcomes – “it should work”• Quantitative data – “the numbers prove it works”• Consensus – “everyone believes it works”• Well-known sources – “it’s credible”• Research on other issues where there is a clear connection

in practice or established/emerging expert opinion, e.g., connection between social determinants of health and health status of individuals

Crafting the FoundationThe First Step: Finding research to ground your options

Less persuasive (* denotes value of this research is increasing )

• Real intervention outcomes but outside– “it’s worked but in a different place”

• Research in progress – “it might work but we’re not sure”• Qualitative data – “people say it works”*• Community-based data – “it isn’t expert”*• Conflict – “not everyone believes it will work”• Less-known sources – “is it credible?”*• Research on other issues where there is little/no affirmation from

practice or research communities

It’s all about risk management via comparative policy/research scanning, consensus-building

Crafting the FoundationThe Second Step: Positioning research to frame your options

To “make the case,” apply and distinguish - what’s same/similar, what’s different, and why?

• How is the issue framed?• Who is affected?• What is the political and policymaking environment?• How is the solution communicated?• Who benefits, who doesn’t?• What alternatives were considered?• What is the outcome, is it relevant?• What are the next steps?• What would we have to change for it to work here?

Crafting the FoundationThe Third Step: Leveraging community

• Create communities of interest - build and sustain networks, alliances, coalitions inside/outside your community

• Look for opportunities to build consensus and credibility, even on relatively small issues – build capacity to disagree, negotiate, compromise, and move forward

• Work from the grassroots – generate issues and solutions that are “of the community,” with voices from the community

• Practise collaborative consultation - “travel in groups”• Develop parallel advocacy strategies – “demos. and docs.”

Other?

Case Study #1 “What’s the Issue?”

The factsYou are the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care in Ontario.

The Chief Medical Officer of Health for the province, who is a public servant, has suggested that all fish sold to the public in Ontario must be frozen before it is sold in a grocery store, market, or restaurant. It is known that some fish contains parasites, usually roundworms that can make people sick if they eat contaminated fish. With the recent emphasis on public health following the Walkerton water crisis and deaths, SARS, and mad cow disease, Ministry public health staff want to ensure that the Ontario public is protected.

Your group taskWhat are the issues here? How do you, as Minister, see them? How could others see them? What’s the story?

Developing OptionsWhat is a policy options menu?

• Range of possible to probable solutions• Moves along a continuum of complexity, impact (equity,

efficiency, security , liberty), cost, and risk• Rational relationship between the issue and the policy

option to solve it

“do nothing” “do something” “do everything”

status quo incremental change major change

Developing OptionsWhat makes a policy option relevant?

It has a human dimension – it’s about people

It’s a simple concept – it’s easy to understand

It’s a great story – it’s easy to explain, has great key messages

It works – it solves the problem

It reflects current or emerging values – it’s grounded in social consensus, it seems like the “right thing to do”

Developing OptionsWhat makes a policy option relevant?

It reflects “good government” – it shows political or community leadership to move towards social consensus

Its benefits outweigh its costs – more people will like it or benefit than be left out

Its investment can be justified – it’s cost-neutral or cost-effective

It’s a new way of doing things – it’s innovative, hasn’t been presented and rejected before

It “fits” – it delivers on the government’s policy, communications, and/or fiscal agenda

Developing OptionsHow do you choose a policy instrument?

• Instrument – is what you use to implement the policy• Range of least to most intrusive interventions• Moves along a continuum of complexity, impact (equity, efficiency,

security, liberty), cost, risk• Rational relationship between policy objective and means to achieve it

Least Intrusive

MostIntrusive

• Informal best practices (communities of practice, networks)• Self- regulation

• Formal information dissemination• Research and stakeholder funding• Administrative policy• Arm’s length relationships

• Tax, user fees, subsidy, other financial incentives• Standing and advisory committees• Program policy• Contracts (accountability, governance)• Non-arm’s length relationships

• Legislation,• Regulation• Restructuring (organizations, government)

Developing OptionsMaximize your strengths: What do you bring to the table?

Expertise – you know more about your issue – what it is and how to solve it - than most government advisers

Passion – your commitment and energy

Network – your capacity to access, mobilize and activate communities of citizens, voters and taxpayers

Leadership – your record of creating vision and building trust

Credibility – your profile lends credibility to you (and the government)

Developing OptionsFinally, write for a policy audience

1. Use plain language – avoid jargon, acronyms

2. Keep it short – summaries, bullet points

3. Distinguish between and balance facts vs. values, analysis vs. advocacy

4. Be practical, realistic – understand “fit”

Case Study #2 “Constructing a Policy Options Menu”

Again, the facts of the Case Study

You are the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care in Ontario.

The Chief Medical Officer of Health for the province, who is a public servant, has suggested that all fish sold to the public in Ontario must be frozen before it is sold in a grocery store, market, or restaurant. It is known that some fish contains parasites, usually roundworms that can make people sick if they eat contaminated fish. With the recent emphasis on public health following the Walkerton water crisis and deaths, SARS, and mad cow disease, Ministry public health staff want to ensure that the Ontario public is protected.

Case Study #2 “Constructing a Policy Options Menu”

Your group task

Construct a policy options menu to deal with the issues these facts present.

Keep in mind our earlier plenary discussion about framing “problems” and developing options.

Take a strategic approach: consider each from a policy perspective, as well as from communications, fiscal, community/partnership development.

Finally, think about the impact – the “pros and cons” – of each option.

Analyzing OptionsThe concept of “pros/cons,” “benefits/costs”

For government, basic knowledge exchange and risk management tool

For you, basic information, strategy and credibility tool

Pros – the benefits or what lessens risk, e.g., delivers a government commitment, equity, accountability/governance, social consensus, good messages

Cons – the costs or what increases risk, e.g., lack of “fit,” inequity/disparate impact, inadequate resourcing (operating/capital costs, human), liabilities (financial, legal), complexity, lack of constitutional authority

Never neutral or non-political

Identifying/Assessing ImpactsWhat are expected impacts?

Expected impacts are consequences that

• should be obvious and planned for• may have a direct or indirect effect on policy outcomes

Such as…• legal/regulatory requirements via legal advice• technical issues in program design/implementation• institutional capacity to deliver, evaluate and modify (human

and fiscal resources)• effect on intergovernmental relations

(federal/provincial/territorial)

Identifying/Assessing ImpactsWhat are expected impacts?

Expected impacts are consequences, such as…

• Legislative reaction via political party statements, Question Period

• Stakeholder reaction via third party statements, consultation

• User/client reaction via patterns of use, consultation

• Media/public reaction via polling, consultation

Identifying/Assessing ImpactsWhat are unexpected impacts?

Unexpected impacts are consequences that

• Should be expected but may not be factored in as variables in policy analysis (traditional vs. alternative analytical approaches)

• May be random, therefore unpredictable, less controllable• May be direct or indirect effect on policy outcomes

Such as…• Socio-economic outcomes

• Gender impacts

• Ethno-cultural and racial impacts

Identifying/Assessing ImpactsWhat are unexpected impacts?

Unexpected impacts are consequences, such as…

• Other equity-based impacts, e.g., disability, language, age, immigrant/refugee status

• Cross-cutting impacts that involve other policy areas

• Longitudinal outcomes, i.e., change in outcomes over time

• Changes in larger structures or systems, e.g., political instability, economic decline, loss of social cohesion, demographic shifts, public health trends, environmental or natural disaster

Developing RecommendationsWhat turns a policy option into a decision?

• It reflects consensus or compromise – it’s the best deal• It works – it solves the problem or at least makes it go away• It manages risk well – it’s relatively “safe”• It can lead to more change – it’s incremental• It gives your community and the government an opportunity

to engage - it carries the power of partnership• It “fits” – it delivers on the government’s policy,

communications, and/or fiscal agenda

Other?

Developing RecommendationsHow do you describe the key elements of a decision?

1. Reference the issue and how you’ve framed it – this solves the problem as we understand it

• Translate the policy solution into a communication strategy – this is what it means

• Explain the “why” - summarize and highlight the rationale, including the political benefit – this is why we’re recommending this

• Highlight the risks – there is a possible/probable risk of… (legal challenge, cost pressures, inequity/disparate impact, adverse public/media/community reaction, being off-message, stakeholder pressures (“floodgates”), timing, etc.)

Case Study #3: The End

Your group task will be distributed during the workshop…

Sources

TextsBrooks, Stephen. Canadian Democracy: An Introduction, 4th ed. (Toronto: Oxford

University Press, 2005)Inwood, Gregory J. Understanding Canadian Public Administration: An Introduction to

Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004)McCaskell, Tim. Race to Equity: Disrupting Educational Inequality (Toronto: Between

the Lines, 2005).Rice, James J. and Michael J. Prince. Changing Politics of Canadian Social Policy

(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000)Savoie, Donald J. Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney: In Search of a New Bureaucracy

(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005); Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers, and Parliament (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003); Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999)

Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decisionmaking (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998)

Swanson, Jean. Poor-Bashing: The Politics of Exclusion (Toronto: Between the Lines, 2001)

Sources

Journals

Canadian Journal of Policy Research, www.isuma.netCanadian Public Administration, www.ipac.caCanadian Public PolicyThe Canadian Journal of Political ScienceJournals for specific policy areas, e.g., Journal of Community Practice,

Canadian Journal of Public Health, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Journal of Urban Health, Ethnicity and Health, Social Problems, Canadian Journal of Sociology, Journal of Health and Social Policy,, Research on Social Work Practice (access via e-indices by topic or search engines, e.g., Silverplatter, Scholars Portal, Medline)

Advocacy journals, e.g., AIDS and Public Policy Journal

Sources

Websites

Institute of Public Administration Canada, www.ipac.comCanadian Policy Research Networks, www.cprn.comCanadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, www.policyalternatives.ca

(includes federal and provincial alternative budgets)Caledon Institute, www.caledoninst.orgLocal/regional social planning councils, community service

organizations, communities of research and practiceGovernment (federal departments; provincial/territorial

ministries, ;agencies, boards, commissions)

APPENDIX 1: What Policymakers Say: An Intuitive

Approach to the Policy Cycle

Highlights from Key Informant Interviews with Ontario Policymakers, Dr. Ito Peng and Margot Lettner, 2004

Framework Framework Descriptors Policy Translation and Mobilization Levers

the power of ideas Identify and frame issues to influence the public and elite discourses and mobilize for policy change

Timing – associational links with larger public concernsLanguage – words, images, and metaphors that “fit” either public/elite perspectives (risk: co-option) or community perspectives (benefit: choice, ideational integrity), or bothTestimonials – humanize instead of marginalize to build credibilityIntegrated strategy – craft language that flows from testimonials

the power of partnerships

Build relationships – horizontal and vertical Add numbers, status and technical skills – broaden community activismAdd levels of government – broaden policy champions (interscaler, international links)

the power of community

Mobilize capacity – research/evidence, policy process, mobilization, relationship-building, sustainability/renewal (leadership, organization), self-reflectionDesign strategy – idea generation from within the community

Active community developmentInclusion/empowerment of community members

Source: Peng and Lettner, “Emerging Frameworks for Community Engagement and Policy Response,” December 2005

REFLECTIONS: WHAT POLICYMAKERS SAY: AN INTUITIVE APPROACH TO THE POLICY CYCLE

Variables Determining Comparative Outcomes of Advocacy Strategies

Variable Descriptors – “Emerging Themes”

framing the issue connecting with the government policy agenda vs. “one-off” issues, medical vs. social issues (“hard” vs. “soft”), personal pathology vs. structural determinants, deserving vs. undeserving, technical vs. moral/moralistic, micro/mezzo vs. macro solutions

situating in a broader conceptual framework advocacy based on a human rights agenda, enduring values (equity, efficiency, security, liberty), social movements

understanding the political/public policy process “what are the government’s values, what’s the problem/will this solve it, what is the announceable, who will/won’t like it?”, “the process is getting in the way of the process,” “social policy founded on fiscal policy,” “help me do my job,” evidence-based research vs. results-based management

understanding impact of globalization


redefining the “public interest,” recognizing the fiscal health of public services, mobilizing for attention and dollars




understanding images/realities of public space constructs of social worlds and neighbourhoods, commodification and contested use of public space

understanding the power differential based on community “fit”

affinity and levers of connection, degree of marginalization/exclusion vs. empowerment/participatory action (socio-economic, political, cultural)

defining “activism”

validity of parallel advocacy strategies, partnership vs. co-option (credibility vs. displacement of political goals), service vs. education/community development (visibility, legitimacy)

mobilizing capacity


of communities and representative organizations to ensure leadership succession (“business vs. cottage industry”); to scan, strategize, plan, commit to and deliver change through collaboration/partnership (“the homeless community has few graduates”); to recognize homogeneity vs. heterogeneity




mobilizing community “fit” degree of marginalization/exclusion vs. empowerment/participatory action (socio-economic, political, cultural)

building a network affinity and levers of connections, disagreement vs. attack, social membership (“being grounded”)

influencing the public discourse

managing the elite discourse


creating and controlling labels, themes, symbols, images in media representations and through community development/public awareness perspectives and empathy of decisionmakers (political, bureaucratic) – translating passion into workable solutions, understanding fear of change, ideology/motivation, receptivity for change, establishing a continuum of engagement (credibility breeds trust), ideology and champions, disagreement vs. attack, understanding relationship between political will and economic resources, political business cycle vs. policy cycle, pragmatic politics/public policy


Analyzing OptionsQuantitative analysis: the basics

Always ask – is it credible, transferable, dependable, confirmable? Who can tell you?

Justification for option What to look at . . .

Real benefits/costs

Projected benefits/costs

• financial statements, contracts, source of data, evaluations• sample size and profile, data type and age, anomalies, source of data, approvals• range vs. specific costs• reaction – formal comment (research and stakeholder community, media, public), consultation

Real outcomes

Projected outcomes

• sample size and profile, data type and age, anomalies, source of data, approvals• current status of same/similar interventions• reaction – formal comment (research and stakeholder community, media, public), consultation

Does it make sense? What else could you look at.?Finally, revisit your process for defining/framing the issue. . .

Analyzing OptionsQualitative analysis: the basics

Always ask – is it credible, transferable, dependable, confirmable? Who can tell you?

Justification for option What to look at. . .

Consultations • with whom, when, how initiated ad structured• differentials (power, resources, access)• scope (terms of reference)• briefs submitted

Real outcomes

Projected outcomes

• sample size and profile, data type and age, anomalies, source of data, approvals• current status of same/similar interventions• reaction – formal comment (academic, community, media, public), consultation

Does it make sense? What else could you look at.?Finally, revisit your process for defining/framing the issue. . .

Workshop Objectives

Upon Completion of this Workshop you will be able to:

• Understand what drives political and public policy decisions

• Understand the importance of defining or framing the issue

• Understand how to develop and analyze policy options, describe and rationalize recommendations, and identify/assess impacts

• Think through, draft and critique policy options and recommendations

• Integrate these skills and knowledge into your ability to develop practical and workable policy alternatives within a community of practice

CBR 308: CBR 308: Developing Real Solutions to Real ProblemsDeveloping Real Solutions to Real Problems

Policy Analysis from a Community PerspectivePolicy Analysis from a Community Perspective

CBR 308: Developing Real Solutions to Real Problems Policy Analysis from a Community Perspective.

Documents

Transcript of CBR 308: Developing Real Solutions to Real Problems Policy Analysis from a Community Perspective.