CHAPTER 5: POLICY CHAPTER 5: POLICY ANALYSIS, EVALUATION & ANALYSIS, EVALUATION &

IMPLEMENTATIONIMPLEMENTATION

Text: Cubbage et al., 1992Text: Cubbage et al., 1992

Analysis and AdvocacyAnalysis and Advocacy• Policy analysis vs Policy advocacy, & value systemsPolicy analysis vs Policy advocacy, & value systems

Decision and Evaluation Criteria Decision and Evaluation Criteria • Criteria: Ecological, Economic, Social, PoliticalCriteria: Ecological, Economic, Social, Political

Implementation Success Implementation Success • 7 factors influencing success/failure of public programs7 factors influencing success/failure of public programs

Program EvaluationProgram Evaluation• PurposesPurposes• Illustration:Illustration:

Illustration 1: Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)Illustration 1: Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)• EfficiencyEfficiency• EquityEquity• Capital substitution & supply increasesCapital substitution & supply increases

Illustration 2: BLM grazing policy enforcementIllustration 2: BLM grazing policy enforcement

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Policy analysis -- explainPolicy analysis -- explain

Policy advocacy – prescribePolicy advocacy – prescribe

ANALYSIS & ADVOCACY

Individual value systemsIndividual value systems– Biases (personal/native, professional)Biases (personal/native, professional)

Minimize/eliminate biases through:Minimize/eliminate biases through:– Objectivity (neutrality)Objectivity (neutrality)

– Understand different viewsUnderstand different views

– Clear understanding of problem/issueClear understanding of problem/issue

– Potential solutions/alternatives, merits, SIGsPotential solutions/alternatives, merits, SIGs

– Explicit criteria – mutually agreed onExplicit criteria – mutually agreed on

ANALYSIS & ADVOCACY

Criteria – definition; “filters” for alternativesCriteria – definition; “filters” for alternatives

TypesTypes

• EcologicalEcological

• EconomicEconomic

• SocialSocial

• PoliticalPolitical

DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA

EcologicalEcological– is policy biologically feasible?– is policy biologically feasible?

1. 1. Preserving OptionsPreserving Options• Critical zone; critical point Critical zone; critical point

• Biological criterion for resource management Biological criterion for resource management

• Prevent irreversible environmental damagePrevent irreversible environmental damage

• Option valueOption value

2. 2. Biological DiversityBiological Diversity• more diverse ecosystems, more stable, preferablemore diverse ecosystems, more stable, preferable

• 3 levels of diversity: species, genetic, ecosystem or 3 levels of diversity: species, genetic, ecosystem or communitycommunity

DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA

Economic CriteriaEconomic Criteria – costs, benefits, budgets – costs, benefits, budgets

1. 1. EfficiencyEfficiency

• Allocation of resources Allocation of resources

• Criticism: not all benefits & costs can be identified Criticism: not all benefits & costs can be identified nor valued in term of$nor valued in term of$

2. 2. SustainabilitySustainability

• Steady economic growthSteady economic growth

DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA

Social CriteriaSocial Criteria – is policy socially, – is policy socially, culturally acceptable? palatable?culturally acceptable? palatable?1. 1. FreedomFreedom

2. 2. EquityEquity

3. 3. Decision processesDecision processes – political equality/democracy, – political equality/democracy,

appropriate inclusionappropriate inclusion

4. 4. Acceptability & practicalityAcceptability & practicality

socially, culturally acceptablesocially, culturally acceptable

operationally practicaloperationally practical

DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA

Political CriteriaPolitical Criteria – not evaluation criteria but they – not evaluation criteria but they influenceinfluence public policy decisions public policy decisions

• decision maker’s personal values affect decisionsdecision maker’s personal values affect decisions

• party affiliation influencesparty affiliation influences

• constituency interests affect legislators’ voteconstituency interests affect legislators’ vote

• unfamiliarity with problem unfamiliarity with problem legislators defer to legislators defer to

judgment of othersjudgment of others

DECISION & EVALUATION CRITERIA

Factors associated with successFactors associated with success1.1. Specific goalsSpecific goals

2.2. Quantitative standardsQuantitative standards

3.3. Program monitoringProgram monitoring

4.4. Agency commitment and enforcementAgency commitment and enforcement

5.5. Executive and legislative commitmentExecutive and legislative commitment

6.6. Costs and benefitsCosts and benefits

7.7. Direct federal involvementDirect federal involvement

IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS

Purposes:Purposes:1.1. To determine if agencies & regulations accomplish To determine if agencies & regulations accomplish

legislatively mandated missionslegislatively mandated missions

2.2. To reevaluate objectives, provide feedback for To reevaluate objectives, provide feedback for development of new policiesdevelopment of new policies

PROGRAM EVALUATION

[FIP [FIP SIP (stewardship) SIP (stewardship) in CRP/Farm Bill] in CRP/Farm Bill] 1973: to increase wood fiber prod. in NIPF lands. 1973: to increase wood fiber prod. in NIPF lands.

reason: fears of future timber shortages, rising prices, reason: fears of future timber shortages, rising prices, NIPF lands presumed unproductiveNIPF lands presumed unproductive

Gov’t pays 50-75% of planting/TSI, limits on acreage. Gov’t pays 50-75% of planting/TSI, limits on acreage. Annual budget -- Annual budget -- $12.5 million$12.5 million

USFS evaluated FIP in1974 and 1981 USFS evaluated FIP in1974 and 1981

general conclusion: general conclusion: it was efficientit was efficient

– social (and private) benefits > social costssocial (and private) benefits > social costs

Illustration 1: Forestry Incentives Program

Criteria/Issues: Criteria/Issues: Efficiency, Equity, SubstitutionEfficiency, Equity, Substitution of of federal funds for private capitalfederal funds for private capital

EfficiencyEfficiency– 1974 study: satisfactory returns (10.2% average)1974 study: satisfactory returns (10.2% average)

– TSI had greater returns than planting TSI had greater returns than planting

– good sites produce more wood in shorter time, esp. Southgood sites produce more wood in shorter time, esp. South

– 1979 eval. update 1979 eval. update program efficiency improved; program efficiency improved; reasonable returnsreasonable returns

Illustration 1: FIP

Equity Equity - FIP not intended to promote equity or - FIP not intended to promote equity or income distribution, but to produce more wood fiberincome distribution, but to produce more wood fiber

–Some equity implications:Some equity implications: PerceptionPerception: FIP benefits richer owners –larger landholdings : FIP benefits richer owners –larger landholdings

get more assistance. get more assistance. RealityReality: Excluded owners with 500 : Excluded owners with 500 acres (1973) and 1000 acres (1980)acres (1973) and 1000 acres (1980)

PerceptionPerception: FIP was unpublicized, more $ went to more : FIP was unpublicized, more $ went to more educated, more informed, wealthier landowners. educated, more informed, wealthier landowners. RealityReality: : Same exclusions as above. Higher cost shares (90%) Same exclusions as above. Higher cost shares (90%) offered to landowners with incomes below poverty line.offered to landowners with incomes below poverty line.

PerceptionPerception: Horizontal inequity among states [less $ for : Horizontal inequity among states [less $ for West (more public lands), for North (low productivity), and West (more public lands), for North (low productivity), and more for South]. more for South]. RealityReality: fair treatment, based on site : fair treatment, based on site class lands in all regions.class lands in all regions.

Illustration 1: FIP

Capital substitution: Capital substitution: Q is “would NIPFs plant trees Q is “would NIPFs plant trees without the FIP?”without the FIP?”PerceptionPerception: FIP dollars substituted private capital that : FIP dollars substituted private capital that NIPFs would have used to plant or do TSINIPFs would have used to plant or do TSI

Conflicting studiesConflicting studies•DeStiguer (1984): FIP contributed incremental funds DeStiguer (1984): FIP contributed incremental funds beyond that which NIPFs would have invested.beyond that which NIPFs would have invested.

•Cohen (1983): considerable substitution, about 40-50% of Cohen (1983): considerable substitution, about 40-50% of capital that would have been spent by NIPFcapital that would have been spent by NIPF

•Lee, Kaiser, & Alig (1992): no evidence of capital subst.Lee, Kaiser, & Alig (1992): no evidence of capital subst.

Illustration 1: FIP

So – was FIP really effective, or was it So – was FIP really effective, or was it counterproductive?counterproductive?

Conflicting results/studies Conflicting results/studies used by used by people to support the policy they people to support the policy they favor most!!!favor most!!!

Illustration 1: FIP

1990: General Accounting Office (GAO) evaluated BLM 1990: General Accounting Office (GAO) evaluated BLM and its control of illegal grazing on public landsand its control of illegal grazing on public lands

– GAO – “watchdog” for Congress, does oversight & GAO – “watchdog” for Congress, does oversight & evaluation functionsevaluation functions

– GAO provides testimonies before congressional GAO provides testimonies before congressional committees; provides legal opinions to assist in committees; provides legal opinions to assist in drafting legislations drafting legislations

Illustration 2: BLM Grazing Policy Enforcement

Background:Background:

• pre-1934 – no control of livestock grazing on public landspre-1934 – no control of livestock grazing on public lands

• Taylor Grazing Act (1934)Taylor Grazing Act (1934) – authorized grazing regs. – authorized grazing regs.

• Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 – – established federal commitment to (1) retain ownership of established federal commitment to (1) retain ownership of public lands, (2) improve deteriorated lands, (3) manage public lands, (2) improve deteriorated lands, (3) manage land to ensure perpetual productive capacity.land to ensure perpetual productive capacity.

• Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 – – reaffirmed national policy to manage public rangelands.reaffirmed national policy to manage public rangelands.

• 162 mill ac rangelands (16 western states)162 mill ac rangelands (16 western states)

• renewable 10-yr permits & leases; 19,600 operatorsrenewable 10-yr permits & leases; 19,600 operators

• BLM rate of $1.81/AUM vs. commercial rate of $8.49/AUMBLM rate of $1.81/AUM vs. commercial rate of $8.49/AUM

• BLM has authority to prosecute grazing trespassersBLM has authority to prosecute grazing trespassers

Illustration 2: BLM Grazing Policy Enforcement

GAO findingsGAO findings:: 1. minimal tresspass detection efforts1. minimal tresspass detection efforts

2. penalties seldom as severe as required by law2. penalties seldom as severe as required by law

BLM responseBLM response:: 1. they were understaffed; 1. they were understaffed;

2. trespass detection not a measure of performance of 2. trespass detection not a measure of performance of

work-load; work-load;

3. lesser penalties maintains good working relationship; 3. lesser penalties maintains good working relationship;

4. lax prosecution – BLM believed penalties were4. lax prosecution – BLM believed penalties were

discretionary, not mandatory.discretionary, not mandatory.

GAO Evaluation of BLM Trespass Detection GAO Evaluation of BLM Trespass Detection EffortsEfforts

GAO Recommendations:GAO Recommendations:1.1. Greater Greater congressional oversightcongressional oversight needed for trespass needed for trespass

enforcement programenforcement program

2.2. Trespass detection should be reportable, measurable Trespass detection should be reportable, measurable work-load work-load standardstandard

3.3. Make Make random checksrandom checks on selected allotments to promote on selected allotments to promote compliancecompliance

4.4. Keep complete Keep complete case recordscase records; impose penalties esp. on ; impose penalties esp. on willful & repeat willful violatorswillful & repeat willful violators

Illustration 2: BLM Grazing Policy Enforcement

Examples of Policies Being Evaluated and Examples of Policies Being Evaluated and Discussed (1993) – also under discussion nowDiscussed (1993) – also under discussion now

Farm BillFarm Bill

Roadless Area Rule (FS)Roadless Area Rule (FS)

Endangered SpeciesEndangered Species