Free Essays - Politics Essays
Policy Benchmarks and Local Government
“You cannot make good policy sitting at a desk, whether at headquarters or in a regional office. Not all policy is made in policy shops”.
Although the role of local government in the development of policy has been a topic of
debate amongst scholars, David Siegal and C. Richard Tindal’s statement that “Discussions about local government in Canada tend to centre on matters of structure, function or finances” does seem to bear some truth.
In addition to the establishment of local tax rates, local governments are responsible for the delivery of a broad range of services within the following categories:
- Protection of persons and property, which includes the management of local policing and firefighting services
- Local transportation, such as management of public bus and rail services, as well as municipal roadway construction and maintenance
- Planning and development, including municipal zoning and industrial/economic development
- Public utilities, including the management of local sewage systems, water treatment, and electric utilities
- Local social-welfare services, such as management of local health, library and educational facilities, and social assistance services.
- Parks, recreation, and culture, including the development and management of local parks and green spaces, public recreation facilities, as well as local art and cultural programs and events.
Because municipalities operate within rigorous regulatory or policy guidelines for the majority of their areas of jurisdiction, and remain dependent on higher levels of government for service operation and delivery funding (i.e. social services), their real ability to independently develop well-founded and meaningful policies is subject to question. Given these limitations, it seems valid to ask whether it is either realistic or reasonable to expect that all local governments, particularly smaller ones, can or will have the capacity and skill sets necessary to create strong and effective policies that deal with increasingly complex community issues and problems.
Are we at the local government level simply “out of practice”? Has our role in policy development been so narrowed and so limited that our forays into the policy realm are limited to questions related to ‘operational’ or ‘administrative’ functions? Some may argue that at the local government level we have truly honed our skills as policy implementers - a management function that Leslie Pal suggests involves “administrative skill in combining resources and personnel in the right amounts at the right time to achieve the desired policy or programmatic outcome”.
Pal describes a broader policy development function as “the process of determining and elaborating policy issues and problems, articulation solutions, and making recommendations”. Although Pal suggests that competent policy makers will be effective at all stages of the policy making process, he focuses on the very preliminary stages of the policy development process (the analysis of the problem and the development of options and recommendations) as the ‘first crucial phase of policy development” for purposes of creating six policy “benchmarks”, which are designed to contribute to the development of good policy design. Pal observes that good policy development is a “mix of craft and science” that involves a combination of “speaking truth to power” (touching on some highly politically sensitive issues), and includes a host of actors including government officials, their political masters, citizens, interest groups and others.”
The purpose of this paper will be to consider Leslie Pal’s six “benchmarks” for good policy design. This will include a review of the literature in an effort to find support for or against Pal’s benchmarks, with consideration to the factors that would either support or detract from a smaller municipalities ability to meet the benchmarks.
- Training of policy development staff
Although Pal does not suggest that his benchmarks are listed in any particular order, the continuous training of policy development staff is first on the list. This would seem to be for good reason. Real, meaningful policy development is complex work.
It has proven challenging (if not impossible) to find meaningful references and resources related to training of policy development staff at the local level. As a result, The Chief Statistician of Canada’s 1996 statement that “There has been for some time a sense that all might not be right with the policy capacity of the federal government” seems applicable to the local government level.
The following brief summaries of findings within 1993 & 1996 Federal reports on policy capacity are certainly applicable to the experiences at local government levels: “A federal government task form co-chaired by two senior career officials table a report on Strengthening the Policy Capacity of the Federal Government in April 1993. This task force identified what it labeled a serious weakness - a lack of capacity to deal with strategic and horizontal issues - the long term issues that are often drive from the policy agenda by the demands of short terms problems”.
Similarly, findings of a 1996 Federal Task Force can also be applied to local government. “A strong policy capability requires teams of high quality with a mix of skills. While the precise instruments will vary by policy areas, a large organization will typically require individuals with skills in all or most of the policy functions; quantitative techniques and modeling knowledge of the relevant theoretical and empirical literature; communications; managing relations; strategic thinking and environmental scanning; and policy analysis and advice. Senior policy officers consider the quality of officers working in policy is still good, though there are concerns. There are shortages of some key skills, notable those of first class ‘policy generalists’ and, to a certain extent, those of certain technical specialists. The community is not renewing itself as it should be through recruitment and career development”.
In addition to identifying these challenges, the report speaks specifically to the training of policy staff, suggesting that “Policy work is usually best learned on the job rather than in a classroom. However, there are advantages to general policy training for officers new to the field and young trainees. In addition, training programs in policy can be useful for non-policy officers who have a policy dimension to their work.”
Ironically, the report goes on to note that “Often the greatest need for training in the policy community is not in policy analysis but in management. Many a desk officer has found the first transition to management difficult; as well, most senior policy managers could improve their management skills. Measures to strengthen the interdepartmental policy community in areas of management should lead to the development of materials which would be useful in policy management training courses”. The focus appears to be on the ‘managing’ of policy developers, rather than the actual policy development process!
A review of training calendars and opportunities within this municipality, and within traditional training resource providers (i.e. AMCTO, FCM) yields plenty of opportunities for ‘management training’ but no educational options or opportunities specifically related to policy development. The primary source of policy development education and training seems to be academically focused, available at post-secondary institutions offering diplomas or degrees in Public Administration. These limitations in terms of access and availability of policy development training and education is likely exacerbated for staff and elected officials within smaller municipalities, where they are more likely to be ‘jacks of all trades and masters of none’.
While it is easy to concur with Pal’s inclusion of training of staff as a critical benchmark, meeting the benchmark certainly has its challenges. Even if a local government has the political will or ability to devote staff and financial resources to learning and education around policy development, the apparent lack of training options would seem to pose limits on the policy making capacity of local (and perhaps higher level) governments.
- Well-organized information and research resources
Knowledge accumulation is one of the most critical components of the policy making process. Pal’s simple but effective statement that “Having information, being able to access it quickly, and organizing it well, is a basic requirement of good policy work” reminds us of the importance of this benchmark.
The ability to ‘have’ and ‘access’ information at the local government level has improved. Donald Savoie suggests that “Modern technology (has) served to make information on virtually any public policy issue more accessible. Think tanks, lobbyists, consultants and interest groups are now able to access information quickly, and many are able to analyze it as well as anyone in government.” The ability to acquire policy ‘information’ through federal, provincial, academic or special interest websites and publications has never been easier. So while it is reasonable to conclude that Pal’s benchmark of ‘research resources’ can probably be met by most if not all municipalities, the real challenge comes in the ‘well-organized information’ component of the equation.
Limited staff, time and subject specific ‘expertise’ can certainly detract from the capacity of a local government to meet this benchmark in its entirety. The following statement speaks fairly well to the situation for local government policy makers: “Policy analysts are often required to give advice to policy makers in incredibly short periods of time, in contrast to university researchers and think-tank consultants who are hired specifically to conduct intensive research on public policy issues. Some have called this latter type of work policy studies or policy research. Analysts doing this kind of work are typically given comparatively large budgets and long periods of time to produce results, and they work with large sets of data. Consequently, the methods they use are different that those used by staff who work for decision makers on a day to day basis”. Because the methods of information gathering and organization are probably quite different at the local level, we may not be achieving some of the most basic requirements of good policy work that elected officials rely on. The Mayor of a small municipality (30,000) reports that “Because we (elected officials) are frequently on information overload, we rely heavily on staff to find, organize and summarize the background information and research we need to make sound policy decisions. We expect staff to draw on expertise from their own technical fields, other levels of government or municipal associations, and to make preliminary recommendations based on their findings. I cannot underestimate the importance of well organized research, including local implications of policy decisions. Although it would be ideal to be in position to have staff devoted entirely to policy research and consultation, and to be looking ahead to longer term issues and problems, it is simply not a realistic expectation in a municipality of this size.”
- A balance of scanning and service orientations
Leslie Pal suggests that policy work needs to be strategic, with regular scans conducted of the political and social environments to see what is forthcoming in the short and medium terms. This poses an interesting quandary at the local level.
In addition to lack of easily accessible training resources as noted above, staff and elected officials at the local government level find themselves challenged by the very same limitations faced by senior levels of government. These include:
- Regulatory limits (little discretion over policy interpretation)
- Limited time and resources (time and money, competing priorities)
- Political turnover
- Limited expertise
A 2003 report for the Government of Ontario makes a couple of interesting observations, including the following opening statement: “There is now a strong sense in Anglo American democracies that government is no longer capable as it once was of thinking strategically, anticipating policy changes, or even formulating policy. Observers have identified a number of reasons for this development: the shift to a more ideological or politicized style of policy and decision making, the government overload problem, bureaucracy bashing, public skepticism about the role of government, the need for public consultation at every turn, and what has been labeled a lost generation of young policy analysts.” . The report summarizes that “Strengthening the ability of government to plan, think strategically and to anticipate policy challenges can never just be a technocratic matter. Relying simply on creating new boxes, moving boxes around or enhancing the authority of one box over another will not be sufficient”.
One might conclude that if this is the reality of the ability of higher levels of government to be intentional, future oriented and strategic in its policy decisions, the ability of local governments (who more often than not find themselves in the role of policy ‘taker’) will find it difficult, if not impossible, to meet this benchmark in any effective manner.
- Rigour and honesty
Leslie Pal reminds us that policy development is at the intersection of political necessity and analytical research. While this ‘intersection’ has the potential to become problematic at all levels of government, perhaps the officially non-partisan nature of local governments to generally reduce the likelihood of political ‘necessity’, and more easily achieve Pal’s s rigour and honest benchmarks. The likelihood of maintaining professional standards of rigour and honesty may also be enhanced by the accessibility of local policy makers (see next session).
- Transparency and Consultation
The very nature and structure of local government may make this one of the benchmarks that we can not only achieve, but exceed. John Sewell states that “Municipal legislation throughout Canada dictates that, with few exceptions, all debate and decision making must occur in public. This means that people get to say what individual politicians actually have to say about a matter. For councilliors, there is nowhere to hide. They cannot retreat behind the closed door of a cabinet room or rely on public relations officials to smooth their words for the media. The hallmark of local democracy is that there is significant transparency in decision making. One reason City Hall is so accessible is that it is located where the voters live…accessibility resides in city government’s locale and structure: it invites people to participate in decision making. Municipal legislation requires that well-publicized public meetings be held before decisions are taken on land-use planning matters. Most municipal councils have established committee systems, encouraging members of the public to attend and make their views known. Some municipalities allow members of the public to address council directly, while others require that they speak only at the committee stage. Accessibility makes for a very lively political scene, where debate is engaged and where many people feel they can make a difference by their participation. Views expressed by citizens often influence the way debate at council occurs. Councillors are unable to avoid the political agenda of the public”.
- Develop a good challenge function
Pal’s concludes his benchmark listing with a suggestion that the policy process should be designed in such a way as to incorporate challenge and debate. The notion that “Citizens have an untapped capacity to be involved and to contribute to public policy, and they want to be involved”, is probably most applicable at the local government level. This is also a benchmark that local governments can easily meet or exceed when developing policy. This is enhanced by requirements/prescriptions for public consultation
on many policy issues, and even more so by the fact that the municipality is often the actual stage at which the policy is implemented. Even if a formal opportunity for public input has not occurred, it the policy proposal or implementation process isn’t working, the phone will soon start ringing, and citizens will create their own opportunity to challenge the policy proposal or decision in a very clear, specific and direct manner.
Conclusions:
Leslie Pal’s benchmarking process for the policy development process is a good concept. It provides an excellent starting place to begin to measure our role and effectiveness as policy analysts and policy developers. The applicability of the benchmarks to local government was far more difficult than expected. Opportunities for real and meaningful policy development training for local government staff appears to be extremely limited (and makes me very happy to be enrolled in this particular program). Given this, it is understandable while local government bureaucrats and elected officials may struggle to obtain and organize current, reliable data upon which to base policy decisions.
I have serious doubts about the current capacity and ability of local governments, particularly smaller ones, to meet the first three benchmarks (training, research and information, scanning). We probably are ‘out of practice’, our role in policy development has become narrowed, and our delivery mandates so large that real, meaningful and strategic policy development and discourse has been relegated to a low level on the priority list. I am considerably more optimistic about our capacity to achieve high marks on Pal’s last 3 benchmarks (rigour, consultation, challenge). Interestingly enough, our capacities in these areas have been actually been enhanced by policies and processes directed or mandated by higher levels of government through various acts and regulations. We seem to remain a creature of the province.
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
