THE JOB OF A POLICY ANALYST

Much of what a Policy Analyst does is essentially policy work. Duties  include the activities associated with policy development i.e. research, analysis, consultation and synthesis of information to produce recommendations. It also involves an evaluation of options against a set of criteria used to assess each option.

An effective policy process is one that is generally characterized by the following five attributes: 1. Issue Identification; 2. Issue Analysis; 3. Generating Solutions; 4. Consultation; and 5. Performance Monitoring.

1. Issue Identification (Defining the Problem/Issue)

• How one understands and defines a problem affects the policy solutions put forward to address the issue(s). It is therefore critical to properly diagnose the problem.
• To clearly define the problem, one has to distinguish the symptoms or effects of a problem from the actual problem.

2. Issue Analysis (Understanding The Problem)

• The steps in the policy development process do not happen as separate discreet steps. Rather the process is generally iterative and the steps in the process are inter-related and inter-dependent. Thus, issue analysis is inseparable from problem definition. In fact, the two steps inform each other and there is a back and forth flow between these two steps. The more one analyzes the issues the more clearly one can define and redefine the definition of the problem.
• The aim of analysis of the problem is to understand it.
• Often a problem involves a number of concerns and is multi-dimensional. It is the job of the Policy Analyst to identify the key dimensions of a problem.
• The problem needs to be analyzed from different perspectives (understanding  the environment in which the problem is occurring, understanding stakeholder/client perspectives, etc.). Doing so enables one to get a handle on its multi-dimensional nature.

 3. Generating Solutions (The Main Ingredients To Successfully Generating And Assessing Options)

• There are two critical ingredients that can assist the process not only of identifying potential solutions but as well, the process of evaluating those potential solutions:

1.  having a conceptual framework that will guide the process of generating and assessing various potential solutions to the problem; and
2.  having a clear sense of the desired outcomes or goals that the selected policy is expected to achieve.

 A Conceptual Framework

• A conceptual framework is the underpinning that should drive the selection of policy options to be assessed. Such a framework should consist of:

1. the main working parameters (i.e., the “givens” or the limitations within which one is are working);
2. key principles/values;
3. government/ministerial goals and priorities.

• As early as possible in the process of policy development, policy analysts need to obtain confirmation from the person directing or co-ordinating the policy development process on the above elements that will guide the generation and assessment of policy options.

It is not enough to describe a problem in qualitative and quantitative terms. However good the definition of the problem is, the question remains, “where does one want to end up”? If a policy is put in place or an existing policy is modified to address particular issues, what type of change is expected to occur through the policy and roughly when is change expected to be visible?

• Identifying the desired outcome at the outset is not only crucial for the performance measurement step in the process, but also for framing the assessment of the potential policy options. Thus each option is assessed in relation to its potential to meet expected outcomes.
• On a continuum, there are three levels of outcomes: immediate, intermediate and long term outcomes.

The more specific one can be about expected outcomes, the easier it is to determine the relative merits and limitations of each policy option.

Under certain circumstances, a Policy Analyst may have limited influence over the policy development process. The responsibility of the Policy Analyst is to have attempted to undertake the best possible process knowing that such attempts may not always yield an optimal response or reaction.

There is a difference between policy options and policy implementation options. One has to begin the policy development process by putting forward policy options and obtaining agreement from ministers/cabinet on the policy direction. The second step is to explore options for implementing a given policy. Sometimes these two very different exercises will be done as separate steps, while at other times they will be combined (e.g., the policy options and implementation options can be considered and presented together). Whether policy options and policy implementation strategies are dealt with together or separately, the key here is that policy needs to frame the exercise of coming up with implementation options. Jumping right to policy implementation options one runs the risk of not being sure if one is addressing the actual problem or only the symptoms. Developing implementation options without having received direction on the desired policy is to put in place programmes or initiatives in the absence of a clear understanding of why something is being done (i.e., the underlying objective).

• The pros and cons of each policy option should be determined in relation to a set of criteria. Each policy option should be systematically evaluated against each of the criteria.
• The criteria selected will vary depending on the problem/issue at hand.

 4. Consultation (The Who, What, When, Where, Why And How Of Consultation)

• An important step in the policy development process is deciding on the best approach to consultation. When it comes to consultation, there is not a one size fits all circumstances. Consultation has to be tailored to meet: the time frames, resource availability and nature of the policy issue(s) at hand.

 5. Performance Measurement

• The performance measurement constraints need to be contended with and a realistic approach to performance measurement needs to be found.
• In the absence of information on how previous policies have worked, policy development can become an exercise in shooting in the dark and perpetuation of policy approaches that may not be working.
• One may be lulled into a false sense of security by relying on complaints or feedback from clients/stakeholders as a form of performance measurement or as drivers of when to undertake performance reviews.
• It is equally worthwhile to know when a policy or group of inter-related policies is performing well. Knowing what works contributes as much if not more to future decision-making, especially when it comes to defending the value of programmess funded in support of certain policy objectives.

Performance measurement should not be handled as an after thought to the policy development process; it needs to be an integral part of the process because reflecting on performance measurement at the beginning also helps in refining one’s thinking with respect to the expected outcomes. So beyond determining whether the proposed policies will be evaluated, one needs to also give some thought (as part of the policy development process) to what the indicators might be and whether data sources exist and how data collection might be handled.

 Measuring The Performance Of A Policy

• Policy units sometimes express the view that developing indicators by which to measure progress in reaching policy objectives is rather impossible. How does one measure progress in areas such as inter-governmental cooperation, or stewardship in the management of the economy, environment, human health and social well-being? While it may be challenging to develop indictors to measure the performance of policies, it can nevertheless be done! The way to find meaningful indicators is to go back to the problem/issue for which a policy was put in place.
• Policies exist either to ameliorate certain situations or to prevent the occurrence of certain outcomes. The root cause(s) of a policy provides the seeds of potential indicators by which to measure progress in achieving the policy objective. For example, if on-going negative media coverage of the interaction between any two levels of government leads to a policy of wanting to foster positive intergovernmental relations, then one indicator could be the type of media coverage in future.
• Another avenue for finding meaningful indicators for policy objectives is to look to the programmes and initiatives through which policy is implemented. If certain programs or activities are being undertaken as a way to implement a policy, then measuring how well those are doing may reflect on the policy (i.e., if a programme s not doing well, it may or may not mean the policy is the problem).

Skills Development

• Group Facilitation Skills
• Project Management
• Decision Making
• Consulting Skills
• Focus Groups - Planning and Facilitation
• The Art of Writing Effective Reports
• Presentation Skills