RESEARCH GUIDE 

Part 1 - Starting    |    Part 2-Researching      |     Part 3-Goal Statement     |     Part 4-Scope of the Problem     |     Part 5-Past Policy 

Part 6-Current Policy    |     Part 7-Policy Options     |     Part 8-Orgs & People     |     Part 9-Glossary      |     Part 10- Presenting

  

---

Part 7 - Policy Options

• Profile of Policy Options or Program Models
• Methodology & analytical frameworks
• Outlining distinctly different policy options (or program models)
• Identifying Sources for policy options (or program models)
• Indexing glossary terms and sources
• Developing the summary of policy options (or program models)
• Analyzing the policy options (or program models)  

 

---

 

Profile of Policy Options or Program Models

 

These pages that profile each policy option or model program listed on the issue overview page contain the following information:

 

• Summary — one paragraph description 

• Goal — short description of the policy or program goal  

• Cost — total policy or program cost; also include per person cost if available 

• Implementation — describe how the policy or program is implemented (esp. who, how) 

• Evaluation — summarize any evaluation findings that policy or program effectiveness

• Status — indicate whether this policy or program has been adopted in more locations or remains a proposal 

• Point of View — quotations from those in support or opposition to this policy or program 

• Contact — contact information for sponsor of this policy or program 

• Bibliography    link to any additional readings or websites related to this policy or program 

 

 

Methodology & analytical frameworks

 

This research process is based on the idea that change or action can occur within the public realm (through policy, programs, public education, citizen action, and so on) when there are distinctly different solutions. Distinctly different policy options (or program models), often presented in a planning tree or matrix, represent the different choices for achieving a particular goal or solving a particular problem.  For example, in the transition from education to employment planning tree, “Career Education” is one solution.

 

The chart below, while drawn from a United States federal perspective, provides an illustration of what this might look like for a few particular issues:

 

TRANSITION FROM EDUCATION TO EMPLOYMENT (three solutions)

 

• Collaborative Career Education System

• National Technical Preparation (Tech Prep) Network

• Combination

 

LITERACY (three solutions)

 

• Emphasis on decoding

• Emphasis on comprehension

• Combination of the two emphases

 

These approaches could be further explained, for example if defined on a district or school level.  For example, an elementary school may struggle with enacting policies around teacher training, curriculum, and performance that bear out the options of decoding (phonemic awareness, memorization of the alphabet, etc.), comprehension (whole language, contextual clues, etc.) and a combination.

 

Once a manageable research question has been posed, the researcher's first step is to uncover the relevant (generally the community's) current policies for reaching the specified goal. Current policy includes all publicly- and privately-funded programs that are currently working toward the community's defined goal. For instance, if the goal is to provide more subsidized child care slots, current policy would be an analysis of the program(s) currently providing subsidized daycare.

 

Once analyzed, current solutions can be verified by the government agencies or organizations which are implementing them to make certain the analyst has not missed or misrepresented the goal of the program.

 

 

Outlining distinctly different policy options (or program models)

 

A key step in the research process consists of developing a planning tree.  (Some may choose to develop a matrix, which is similar). A planning tree is a simple representation of the distinctly different solutions available for reaching a goal. In the context of community research, the solutions are public policy options; however, planning trees are equally applicable to private sector (business) and personal goals. 

 

The purpose of this outlined tree is simple: to group solutions according to a distinguishing characteristic. This characteristic is usually determined by the way in which the program (or government agency) allocates resources. Though, as in the above example, when creating a management tree the characteristic will be "who is allocating resources" rather than "how they are allocating resources".

 

Each box on a planning tree does not represent one solution but rather a group of similar solutions. Within each grouping of similar solutions (which are all distinctly different from the solutions in the box next door) there will be a further breakdown of solutions. The idea here is to consider what criterion or characteristics may separate or make distinctive various approaches to the issue.  It is generally through reading, research, and analysis that one can best determine how to group the policy solutions.

 

The goal for each new level of the planning tree is altered by the distinguishing characteristic of the solutions in the box from which it grew. Thus, in planning which solution to implement they are also becoming more informed on the topic, which in turn allows them to further refine their goal. From the researcher's standpoint, it is obvious why a very specific definition of the goal is desirable at the outset, since a direct relationship exists between the breadth of the goal and the number of tiers required on the planning tree. Nonetheless, the above example serves to demonstrate why a planning tree can be comprehensive, containing many baskets of solutions and several tiers, and yet still remain ordered and easily understood.

 

A better illustration, though, is a planning tree researched for The Ohio State University (see here). Unlike the tree above, this is a hybrid tree, meaning that "how resources are allocated" as well as "who is allocating" both work as the distinguishing characteristics. The first tier of the tree offers management options: the justice system, local schools and communities, or a partnership between both. From these sprout the programmatic options, or in other words, "Once we decide who should oversee the allocation of resources, how should that entity then allocate the resources." The goal for the tree is "Successful treatment of delinquent school-age youth." As with the welfare management tree above, this goal itself springs from a solution. Before deciding to look at the treatment solutions, Ohio State first chose between the solutions for "Reducing delinquency among school-age youth" of which treatment is just one.

 

The final example of a planning tree is the type which communities will most often request—a straight programmatic tree. Shown here is a portion of a tree provided to a community in Washington, D.C. by undergraduate students at Georgetown University. 

 

 

Identifying sources for policy options (or program models)

 

Until the proliferation of the Internet and web-based sources, researchers uncovered proposed solutions through topical searchs of written primary source material. Whether in academic journals, textbooks or newspaper articles, the initial search for solutions relied on materials physically present or available through the interlibrary loan system. While this strategy does provide a wealth of information, it is limited by the quality, size, focus, and hours of the library, as well as the physical handling of the documents. Technology has now greatly lessened the time required to conduct a search, and while the best place for student researchers is still in the library, this often means sitting in front of a computer. Thus, while relying on physical documents does not affect the quality of the product, it does vastly expand the commitment of the researcher.

 

Since the initial search for solutions accounts for the bulk of total planning tree development time, the Internet has become a, if not the, key research tool. Researchers can search a huge and ever expanding volume of topically arranged government databases and best practices warehouses. These sources are available at any time from any Internet connection. Furthermore, even with no knowledge of where to look, conducting a key word or concept inquiry on any of the multitude of Internet search engines will instantaneously put not only sources but also the relevant information at the researcher's fingertips.

 

Regardless of the means used for locating sources, there are several basic steps to gathering sufficient information. They are as follows.

 

• Identify an expert on the topic which is being researched. This needs to be someone who is proposing a solution or has a strong viewpoint on a particular solution. The expert can either be a practitioner, academic, or government researcher, but be certain her career revolves around that solution or area of public policy. A good place to start is YPI's CORPS database of public policy experts which contains thousands of the most respected names in all program areas. Simply request from YPI a list of people and materials on a specific topic.
• Once an expert has been identified, outline her solution or suggestion. Using either the name which that expert has given her solution or key words defining her concept, draw one "arm" of a planning tree. See example below, which was the first step in drawing a tree for the goal of "Infusing career awareness and a respect for lifelong learning into the educational process." The first expert chanced upon was Dr. Kenneth Hoyt at Kansas State University. He had been an Assistant Secretary of Education during the 1970's. Shown is his solution.
• Gather publications and papers either about or written by the expert. Anyone sufficiently involved in a field to take a stand and make recommendations will likely comment on, or attract the attention of, the major competing viewpoints in that field.
• Locate your expert or one of her competitors, contact them by phone or e-mail. Mention your research project and ask what the state of the field is, if they are not sure, ask them to recommend someone for you to talk to. In all likelihood, your expert will be able to provide the framework for the first tier of the planning tree. Sketch it. Continuing with the education example, Dr. Hoyt was able to point out exactly what the competing viewpoints looked like.
• Search the best practices databases of government agencies and private institutions working in your topic area. Look for substantive differences in the various proposals contained in one solution box. Below, after sketching the first tier of the education planning tree and collecting variations on each of the solutions, it was readily apparent that there were two distinctly different types of career education.
• Continue collecting competing viewpoints until there are no substantive differences between solutions in the same boxes of the trees lowest tier. Remember to disregard solutions which are not geared toward reaching the goal the community has provided.

 

 

Indexing glossary terms and sources

 

The logical next step is to flesh out the specifics of each solution displayed on the planning tree; however, prior to doing this a glossary of terms used both in the goal and the solution descriptions needs to be compiled. The glossary works to both solidify the researcher's basic understanding of the topic at hand, as well as aid in making the tree approachable to those who will be making decisions from it. The glossary should contain commonly used words as well as technical or trade term. It should be drawn from the sources used to compile the tree as well as the dictionary. Below is an excerpt from a glossary.

 

 

Developing the Policy Options (or Program Models)

 

(needs to be edited; possibly seek other guidelines for developing the solutions)

Once a planning tree outline has been completed, the next step is to flesh out each solution on the tree. The purpose here is to make the solutions useful as blueprints, especially for individuals or agencies that may be considering these solutions. Though helpful for framing the solutions, the outlined planning tree need not be detailed enough to use for funding decisions. In this stage, it is helpful for the researcher to include specific information on the management structure, proposed costs or resources needed, and programmatic elements of each approach.

 

To develop the solutions, it is recommended that you consult and integrate the perspectives of at least four 'experts' on the topics. These experts may be policy makers, government employees, faculty members, non-profit professionals who work on the topic, or others.  Interview the experts and ask them directly about how they would describe or group the solutions to the given topic or goal statement.  The distinctions may be drawn over a wide range of factors, especially given that the issue brief may be tailored on a local, city or town, state, regional, or national level.  Some common things to consider:

 

• The source of the funding for the issue (public, private, government, non-profit)
• Who is the actor or agent of change (individual, group, community, other)
• What is believed to be the root of the problem
• The viewpoints of political parties or trends on the issue

 

In order to develop and present solutions, you may want to consult various policy analysis literature, especially if one is used by the faculty member or course in which the issue brief is assigned.  One recommendation is the book, The Eight-Fold Path Method by Eugene Bardach, a professor at the University of California Berkeley.  Bardach has been teaching students methods of policy analysis since the 1970s.  His concise book A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis describes an eight-part process.  The steps, in brief, are to:

 

• Define the problem
• Assemble some evidence
• Construct the alternatives
• Select the criteria
• Project the outcomes
• Confront the trade-offs
• Decide
• Tell the story 

 

The first few steps correspond well to the recommendations in this guide.  In terms of constructing the alternatives and selecting the criteria, Bardach notes that most policy stories have two interconnected but separable plot lines, the analytical and the evaluative.  As he writes, "The first is about facts and disinterested projections of consequences, while the second is about value judgements" (Bardach, p. 25).  In addition to projecting whether the projected outcome will solve the policy problem to an acceptable degree, the researcher has to think about and evaluate the proposed outcome along other, more subjective dimensions.  Commonly used evaluative criteria include:

 

• Efficiency
• Equality, equity, fairness, justice
• Freedom, community and other ideas:  
• Process values

 

Commonly used practical criteria include:

 

• Legality
• Political acceptability
• Robustness and improvability

 

 

Analyzing and presenting the policy options (or program models)

 

(needs to be edited; this old format may not work)

For each solution, it's helpful to present the same information, so as to enable comparisons.  It's also recommended that the unit of analysis be consistent across the solutions, if possible.  Below are the elements suggested for each solution:

 

• Date:     
• Title of solution:  Brief name describing the approach or proposed solution.
  • Sub-title: Expand slightly upon the title and summary.  This can be extremely important, because the community or user of the issue brief will often rely upon this section for its initial impressions and decisions. A proper name will have two parts: 1) Headline—a simple two or three word description capturing the essence of the solution, e.g. Career Education; and 2) Sub-headline—an expansion of the Headline using key elements of the solution described in the Summary, these need to be the elements which make it different from the other solutions on the planning tree. Occasionally, after analyzing the elements of the solution it becomes evident that the solution does not actually share the same goal as the community which requested research. This does not occur too often, but if it does, discard the solution.
• Summary: A brief 40-45 word portrait of the elements of the program demonstrating how it differs from the other solutions on its tier of the planning tree.
• Cost: Cost per annum or defined period of the program. Also, include the cost per participant in the program, if applicable.
• Allocation: This section describes the elements of the solution and how money will be spent within each. Sometimes it is not possible to arrive at dollar amounts, which is fine as long as the allocation is detailed enough to allow the community to weigh the relative cost of each element.
• Implementation: Who will be responsible for implementing the solution. What partnerships will be involved, etc. Implementation contains two sub categories:
  • 1) Responsible—a short description of the responsible entity(s); and
  • 2) Explanation—an expansion upon that description.

 

 

Categorizing Policy Options or Program Models

 

In this section, sometimes presented in a tree or matrix, the distinctly different solutions are presented.  Each solution does not need its own branch. Rather, the solutions are grouped according to similarities in some particular criterion, drawn from the analysis.  Again, it's helpful to think about the types of policies or solutions or the allocation of available resources.  

 

This example below is general, because of the national level of the issue brief.  As the issue brief is narrowed and tailored to a specific local setting and circumstances, the solutions can be brought to that level. However, this example does help illustrate a key aspect of the differences in approach:

 

Individual	Organizations	Community
Assets for the Poor	Minority Business Enterprise	Economic Partnerships
Microenterprise	Community-Based Capital Infrastructure	Community Development Corporations Enterprise Zones
Goal:  To economically revive depressed neighborhoods in the U.S. through self-determination and self-help. Cost:  Proponents believe that asset-based social policy would eventually reeducate the amount of money spent on welfare programs. Allocation: To encourage the development of microenterprises (businesses with 5 or fewer employees) by low-income people by raising asset limits for families receiving AFDC from $1,000 to $10,000; and to allow low-income people to save money for such endeavors as college through Individual Development Accounts (IDAs).  Implementation: HR 2258, the Freedom From Want Act, S 1860 and S 1426.	Goal:  To economically revive depressed neighborhoods in the U.S. through self-determination and self-help.  Cost: Forthcoming.   Allocation: The community benefits from the economic development and the circulation of capital within the community. Implementation: Insurance companies, banks, and credit unions, and venture capital companies will invest in communities through cooperative community control with the primary purpose of capital formation for the poor community.	Goal:  To economically revive depressed neighborhoods through self-determination and self-help. Cost:  CDCs- variety of public and private resources.  Enterprise zones – Deductible taxes up to $250,000 and 5% refundable tax credit up to $525 per worker.   Allocation:  CDCs – rural and urban economically depressed areas; Enterprise zones – 50 federal enterprise zones. Implementation:  CDCs – Public/Private partnerships with area residents of economically depressed areas to develop long-term plans to improve housing, jobs, and services. Enterprise zones – Tax incentives allow for capital gains benefits, tax deductions and refundable tax credits.