After a policy is adopted, regulations are drafted and finalized, funding is allocated, and responsibility is designated to federal, state or local government agencies or nonprofit/for-profit organizations to implement the policy. Proper implementation involves designing regulations, monitoring compliance, and evaluating whether the policy achieves its intended outcomes. However, policies are not always implemented as intended due to issues like lack of funding, staff resistance, unrealistic goals, and variations across locations of implementation.

1. Policy Implementation
Does the program work as intended?

2. What happens after a policy is
adopted?
 Federal or State departments with administrative authority for
the program design regulations.
 Draft regulations are submitted for public review.
 Regulations may be modified based on public comments.
 Final regulations are issued (Federal Register for federal
policies)
 Money is allocated to the programs that will implement the
policy.
 Responsibility for implication could lie with federal, state, local
government or nonprofit and for-profit agencies.
 For nongovernmental agencies there will be some type of
grant or contracting process.
 For all types of agencies, some type of monitoring process
will be put in place to insure compliance with the policy.

3. Implementation defined:
 Implementation analysis focuses on
whether policies and procedures have
actually been implemented in the
organization in the manner intended by
decision-makers.
 Program implementation is primarily
concerned with how policies mandated
by a source external to the organization
are actually carried out or how the
implementation of policies vary across
different organizations or locations.

4. Other term used for examining
implementation is program monitoring:
 Program Monitoring involves gathering information about how the program is working and who it
serves.
 Program monitoring starts when the program has begun to be implemented.. Consequently, it differs
from outcome evaluations that take place after a service outcome is produced. What takes place in the
program start-up and in the process of producing outcomes.
 One easy method for determining whether a program is meeting the needs of clients is through a
review of information gathered from clients to determine eligibility for services.. Organizations generally
gather basic demographic information about applicants such as gender, age, income, and family size.
Information is also retained about whether the applicant was found to be eligible for service and the
disposition of the application. If not eligible for service, was the applicant referred elsewhere, placed on
a waiting list or turned away?
 Case record data allows organizations to look at factors such as demand for service and the incidence
and prevalence of social problems. Demand is an indicator of all those people who actually try to obtain
a service (Burch, 1996).
 Information is also kept on file about the outcomes associated with the actual service delivery process.
Was the service provided successful? The failure of clients to complete the program or unsuccessful
case outcomes can be indicators that the program has not been implemented in the manner intended
(Chambers, et al., 1992
 Program planners also look at data on current and former clients to determine whether the organization
provides services to all intended beneficiaries. The program can conceivably serve only a portion of the
eligible population, exclude some eligible clients, or provide services to people who do not fit the
eligibility criteria.
 Program coverage is the terms used to describe whether members of the program’s target population
actually receive the service (Rossi & Freeman, 1982). Program bias refers to whether the people
served by the program are demographically representative of the target population.

5. Responsibility for Monitoring/evaluation
may originate:
 In the original legislation.
 In the department responsible for
administration and oversight (Federal
departments have an Inspector
General for that department).
 Regular tracking, monitoring, or
evaluation processes within each
agency or department.

6. Other sources of monitoring
 Nonprofit advocacy or professional
groups.
 General public or program recipients
may make complaints
 Whistleblowers in the agency
 Congressional or state legislative
committees may conduct research or
hold hearings about program
implementation or lack of
implementation.

7. Why might policies not be
implemented as intended:
 Lack of funding and other resources (such as trained staff).
 Policy has conflicting goals or policy conflicts with goals of other
laws or policies [for example, enforcement of war-related contracting
requirements].
 Regulations are confusing or limit access to services.
 Executive branch does not support, give priority to, or enforce.
(example, motor voter laws). Administrative staff is resistant or lacks
ability to comply with policy.
 Staff are resistant to innovation or lack resources/training.
 Policy may not be realistic or does not meet needs.
 Policy may have unintended side-effects.
 Policy innovation may be wrong intervention with which to address
the problem or to serve specific groups of clientele.
 Enforcement mechanism is non-existent; may be difficult to make
changes in administrative support or staff.
 Regional or local variations in how programs are operated or
maintained.

8. Literature on Program Implementation specifies 4
primary reasons for implementation problems:
 Component Evaluation. This method of evaluation focuses on one particular
aspect or parts of a program (for example intake services, referrals, intervention
planning, staff-client interaction, or a specific type of intervention that can be
differentiated from other services).
 Effort Evaluation. The primary focus of this type of evaluation is the amount of
activity or work that is put into the program and the quality of that work. Effort
evaluation can simply look at the number of qualified staff hired for the program,
client-staff ratios, and the number of clients actually served. It can also examine
the resources (money, facilities, worker time, training modules, etc.) that are
devoted to the program.
 Treatment Specification. This type of evaluation is used to precisely identify the
components of an intervention and the theory of action used to deliver the service
and produce outcomes (see Chapter 6).
 Program implementation analysis also looks at the degree to which a program has
“drifted” from its original intent and program specifications or the degree of
compliance with the expectations of program sponsors or funders. Common
implementation problems included failing to deliver the intended intervention,
using the wrong intervention to produce the intended outcome, or providing the
intervention inconsistently over time (Chambers et al., 1992).

9. Reform options for policy
advocates (from Jansson)
 Changing the policy innovation itself (content, objectives,
funding).
 Change the activities of oversight organizations, regulations,
or monitoring processes.
 Naming different agencies or adding new agencies to
implement or requiring collaboration among agencies.
 Changing the internal or external implementing processes of
implementing organizations.
 Modifying the context
 Influence the assessments (evaluations) of policy outcomes
 Obtaining additional resources.
 Place pressure on implementing agencies through whistle-
blowing, advocacy, political pressure, or protests. [example,
public and media pressure around regulation of pesticide
use].

10. Sources of power for challenging
policy implementation:
 Political pressure – electoral politics/campaign
donations; using existing networks or relationships to
influence decision-makers.
 Disseminating information and informing the public
through the media.
 Protests and rallies.
 Commenting on proposed regulations.
 Policy formulation and lobbying for new legislation.
 Pressuring agencies for compliance with existing
standards.
 Legal remedies such as public records requests and
lawsuits [limits on ability to sue federal and state
agencies].

11. Example of Compliance-related
Advocacy:
 http://video.google.com/videosearch?q
=policy+advocacy&hl=en&sitesearch=
&start=50