1

Policy Paper
What is a policy paper?

Policy papers are different from the standard research papers in several respects:

 They are usually addressed at a non-academic audience, such as a particular official, agency, or
organization

 They often focus on prescriptive  questions. They may begin by diagnosing a particular issue or
situation, and typically argue for a solution that will address that issue or situation

 Often, policy papers are focused on being persuasive. The intention is to convince the target
audience that your position is the correct one.

 Evidence in support of a position is crucial. This is also important for research papers, but it
tends to be absolutely critical in policy papers.

 Policy papers are written efficiently. The audience often does not have much time and does not
want to read a book on the subject. Indeed, often policy papers are accompanied by policy
briefs which summarize the papers in a page or less.

Policy Paper Components

As with research papers, there is not just one way to write a policy paper.The University of Texas has a
nice website with a detailed model, “Suggestions for Writing Policy Analysis”.

The basic elements of a policy paper include:

 Description of the context and importance of the problem.

 It is helpful to careful define the problem and frame it as a specific question to be

answered.

 Discussion of a range of policy options.

 These are the choices for addressing the policy problem.

 Criteria for judging policy choices.

 This is the step that often is missed in policy analysis. Writers often fail to be explicit and
may even assume that everyone shares the same ideas of what the criteria for making a
choice should be. This is a mistake. Indeed, it is an important service to the reader (and
to the decision-maker) to know the reasons for recommending one policy (or set of
policies) over others. There often is major debate about criteria that should be used.

   In his book, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis, Eurgene Bardach helpfully notes that
such criteria are best thought of as applied to “the projected outcomes” of a policy
choice. He makes the useful distinction between evaluative  criteria, such as efficiency
and fairness, and practical  criteria, such as legality and political acceptability.

 The policy recommendation.
 2

 Ideally, the policy recommendation should flow from the logical application of your
criteria to your policy choices. This is illustrated in the hypothetical example (see table)
below.

 In this example, the researcher was able to make clear outcomes about how the policy
choices met some criteria (Policy Choice A fails to meet the first criteria of legality).
However, it there is some uncertainty about others. For instance, it is unclear how Policy
Choice B would affect the criteria of inclusiveness, or how to judge the cost
effectiveness of Policy Choice C. In the real world, we may need to incorporate such
uncertainty into our policy judgments. But it is important for the policy analyst to be
clear to readers and decision-makers where that uncertainty exists.

 Another thing to note is that not all criteria are equal. It may be useful to rank the
importance of criteria. Many of us would likely consider legality a necessary criterion.
This would allow us to immediately remove Policy Choice A from our list of choices
without any further consideration.

Policy Choice C: Increase

Policy Question: What Policy Choice Policy Choice B: Schedule spending on public
should our town do to A: Pay people local elections on days messages encouraging
improve voter participation? to vote when few people work voting

Criteria 1: Legality No Yes Yes

Criteria 2: Cost effectiveness No Cost neutral Probably

Criteria 3: Inclusiveness
(policy affects the broadest
range of voters possible) Yes Probably Yes

Recommend? No Yes Yes

 Policy Paper Examples

 Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Policy Briefs”

 UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy. “Working Paper Series.”

 Many articles in the journal Foreign Affairs  are policy papers.

 Oxfam International. “Policy & Research.”

 3

Resources

 Bardach, Eugene and Eric M. Patashnik. 2015. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The
Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving.  CQ Press.

 Eóin Young and Lisa Quinn. “Writing Effective Policy Papers: A guide for policy advisers
in Central and Eastern Europe.” Open Society Institute.

 “The Policy Analysis Process”, Professor Michelle A. Saint-Germain (CSULB)

 Overseas Development Institute. “Writing Policy Papers.”

 UN Food and Agriculture Organization. “Writing Effective Reports, Section 4: Preparing

Policy Briefs”

 “Public Policy Writing”, Catherine Smith (East Carolina University)

 This website is part of a course on communicating public policy. Students may

find the following sections useful, as they begin to write their own policy papers:

 “How to inform policy makers in a briefing memo or opinion”

 “Tasks for writing briefing memos or opinions”

 Checklists for communicating the policy process

STEPS IN WRITING A POLICY PAPER

 4

ONE WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIMENSIONS OF A POLICY PAPER IS TO JUXTAPOSE IT AGAINST OTHER
COMMON RESEARCH VEHICLES:

DISCUSSION PAPERS DISSEMINATE RESEARCH QUICKLY IN ORDER TO GENERATE COMMENT AND

SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISION OR IMPROVEMENT. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AT CONFERENCES
OR WORKSHOPS ALREADY, BUT WILL NOT YET HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN JOURNALS.

BACKGROUND PAPERS OUTLINE CURRENT POLICIES AND ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO A PARTICULAR

SOCIAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM.

[SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?] == POLICY PAPERS OFTEN BEGIN WITH DISCUSSION PAPERS AND
BACKGROUND PAPERS AS RESOURCES, BUT ARE MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE IN GOAL AND SCOPE.

***POLICY PAPERS ARE CRITICAL ANALYSES OF AN IMPORTANT SOCIAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM THAT

INVOLVES THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOP OF A DEFENSIBLE PLAN (POLICY PROPOSAL) FOR SOLVING THE
PROBLEM AND FORMULATE WORKABLE STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN.

THREE KEY FOCI:

[1]     AIMS TO IDENTIFY KEY POLICY ISSUES;

[2]     APPLY THE BEST AND MOST UP-TO-DATE RESEARCH TO HELP UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES; AND

[3]     EXPLORES THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH FOR THE DESIGN AND CONDUCT OF POLICY.

THE PROSPECTIVE OUTCOME:

POLICY PAPERS ARE GENERALLY EXPECTED TO INCREASE THE INVOLVEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS IN AND IMPORTANT EFFORT AT SOME LEVEL,

[1]     WHETHER IT BE SUPPORTING AND/OR ENDORSING THE POLICY PAPER,

[2]     ADOPTING THE USE OF THE SET OF CRITERIA,

[3]     JOINING A WORKING GROUP, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP, ETC., AND/OR

[4]     EDUCATING OTHERS ON THIS TOPIC.

 
 5

THE ORIENTATION:

[1]     PRESENTATION {TAILORED FOR RELEVANT AUDIENCES/STAKEHOLDERS};

[2]     MANAGEABILITY AND DIGESTIBILITY {STRUCTURED TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO MAJOR POINTS AND

ARGUMENTS};

[3]     MAXIMUM IMPACT {SOLUTIONS GUIDED BY PRACTICABILITY AND IMPLEMENTABLILITY}

POLICY PAPERS NEED TO BE FORMAL, CONCISE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, ORGANIZED, LOGICAL,

THOUGHTFUL, WELL RESEARCHED, WELL SUPPORTED, WELL WRITTEN, AND WELL ARGUED.

____________________________________________________________________________________

STRUCTURE OF POLICY PAPER

INTRODUCTION: ABSTRACT/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  THE ABSTRACT IS NUMBERED PAGE TWO (2).  IT IS

NOT PART OF THE PAPER.  THE ABSTRACT DESCRIBES THE PAPER IN THE THIRD PERSON. THE ABSTRACT
SHOULD NOT BE WRITTEN, UNTIL AFTER YOUR PAPER IS COMPLETED.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXAMPLE FORMAT TEMPLATES

PROBLEM

PURPOSE

SCOPE

METHODS AND PROCESS

FINDINGS

ACTION PLAN

FRONT PAGE
 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

ISSUES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

METHOD CONSIDERATIONS

THEORY AND ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK (PERHAPS HYPOTHESES)

ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPENDICES, IF ANY

COVER

BODY: THE BODY OF THE PAPER BEGINS ON PAGE NUMBER THREE (3). THE BODY OF THE PAPER MUST
BE DIVIDED INTO THREE SECTIONS.

THE FIRST SECTION MUST STATE, DESCRIBE, AND EXPLAIN THE AUTHORITY  THAT YOUR CHOSEN
GROUP HAS TO DO WHAT YOU SUGGEST.

THE SECOND SECTION MUST CONTAIN A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF REASONS (COUNT THEM OUT)

SUPPORTING YOUR PROPOSAL. THE PAPER ARGUES THAT THEIR PROPOSED POLICY SHOULD BE
ADOPTED FOR A COUNTED NUMBER OF REASONS. [EACH OF THE REASON IS OFTEN STATED (AND
NUMBERED) IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS SECTION OF THE PAPER.]

THE THIRD SECTION SHALL DISCUSS THE LOGICAL ALTERNATIVES TO YOUR PROPOSAL AND SHALL
DISCUSS WHY YOUR PROPOSED ACTION IS PREFERABLE TO EACH ALTERNATIVE. THE ULTIMATE GOAL
IS A DEFENSIBLE PLAN (POLICY PROPOSAL) FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM AND FORMULATE WORKABLE
STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN.

=================================================================================
 7

OUR STRUCTURE/FORMAT TEMPLATE

****TITLE

YOUR GROUP SHOULD CREATE A TITLE THAT ENGAGES THE READER’S INTEREST AND FOCUSES ON YOUR
TOPIC AREA.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO PROVIDE THE READER WITH BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT
THE SOCIAL ISSUE. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER ARE AS FOLLOWS:

·        HOW DID THE ISSUE ORIGINATE? WHAT IS THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE? ARE
THERE CRITICAL INCIDENTS WHICH EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE?

·        WHY IS THIS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR SOCIETY AT LARGE AND POLICY MAKERS TO ADDRESS?
WHY SHOULD CITIZENS BE CONCERNED WITH THIS ISSUE?

·        WHAT PHILOSOPHICAL OR ETHICAL ISSUES UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE?

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO ANALYZE THE SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATED TO THE PROBLEM YOUR
GROUP HAS CHOSEN AND THE SOCIETAL CONSEQUENCES IF THIS PROBLEM CONTINUES UNADDRESSED.
QUESTIONS TO FOCUS ON IN THIS SECTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

·         WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE SUGGESTING A CHANGE IS POLICY IS NEEDED?

·        HOW DOES THE PROBLEM AFFECT CRITICAL POPULATIONS, GROUPS, AND SOCIETY AT LARGE?

·        WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM? (DEFINE THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM.)

·        WHAT ARE THE MAJOR CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM?

WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS, ETHICAL DEBATES, OR CONTROVERSIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PROBLEM?

III. CURRENT POLICIES

THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO ANALYZE CURRENT POLICIES (OR PROGRAMS) THAT DEAL WITH
THE PROBLEM. THE QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

·        WHAT ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM ARE CURRENT POLICIES (OR PROGRAMS) TRYING TO SOLVE?

·        HAVE THESE POLICIES SOLVED, ALLEVIATED, EXACERBATED, OR HAD NO EFFECT ON THE PROBLEM?
WHY OR WHY NOT?
 8

·        WHO SUPPORTS THE CURRENT POLICIES? WHY DO THEY SUPPORT THEM?

·        WHAT ARE THE MAJOR FLAWS OR LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT POLICIES?

·        WHO IS IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THE CURRENT POLICIES? WHY DO THEY WANT TO CHANGE
THEM? (THESE QUESTIONS CAN SERVE AS A TRANSITION TO THE NEXT SECTION OF THE PAPER.)

IV. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO ANALYZE TWO OR THREE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE
PROBLEM. IN SELECTING THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS, CHOOSE ALTERNATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN
SERIOUSLY PROPOSED BY ADVOCATES OR POLICY MAKERS. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANALYZE EVERY
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE, BUT YOU SHOULD ANALYZE ALTERNATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING
SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED. EXPANDING (OR MODIFYING) CURRENT POLICIES (OR PROGRAMS) CAN BE
TREATED AS ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS. FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION, ANALYZE ITS
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND DISCUSS WHICH GROUPS, OPINION LEADERS, OR POLICY MAKERS
SUPPORT OR REJECT IT. ULTIMATELY, KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU MIGHT BE REJECTING THESE
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS OR USING PARTS OF THEM FOR YOUR OWN POLICY PROPOSAL IN THE NEXT
SECTION OF THE PAPER. THE QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

·        WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT POLICIES?

·        WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE ALTERNATIVES? WHY?

·        WHO SUPPORTS AND OPPOSES THE ALTERNATIVES? WHY?

·        WHY HAVEN'T THESE ALTERNATIVES BEEN MADE INTO POLICY? IS THERE SOME FATAL FLAW
INHERENT IN THEM OR IN THE WAY THAT SOCIETY VIEWS THEM? IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY
THESE ALTERNATIVES HAVEN’T BEEN IMPLEMENTED?

V. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, FEASIBILITY & IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES {OR THIS SECTION IS

SOMETIMES CALLED – “ACTION PLAN” (PROACTIVE CONNOTATION)}

THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO FORMULATE AN EFFECTIVE POLICY PROPOSAL FOR THE PROBLEM
YOU ARE ADDRESSING, DEMONSTRATE THAT YOUR PROPOSAL IS PRACTICAL AND FEASIBLE, AND PROVE
THAT YOUR PROPOSAL WILL WORK. THE QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

·        WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOUR GROUP IS PROPOSING TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM? WHAT SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL GUIDELINES WILL YOUR POLICY
PROVIDE?

·        HOW DOES YOUR POLICY PROPOSAL SOLVE THE PROBLEM BETTER THAN CURRENT POLICY OR ANY
OF THE ALTERNATIVES? WHAT EVIDENCE CAN YOU OFFER THAT DEMONSTRATES YOUR PROPOSAL WILL
BE EFFECTIVE? WHAT REASONING AND/OR EVIDENCE CAN YOU PROVIDE THAT DEMONSTRATES YOUR
PROPOSAL IS FEASIBLE AND WORKABLE?
 9

·        WHAT LEGISLATIVE BODY, AGENCY, OR OTHER POLICY-MAKING GROUP WILL NEED TO APPROVE
YOUR PROPOSAL IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE IMPLEMENTED? WHAT AGENCY OR GROUP WILL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING YOUR PROPOSAL?

·        HOW MIGHT YOU GO ABOUT INFLUENCING THESE SPECIFIC GROUPS SO THAT YOUR PROPOSAL
WILL BE ADOPTED? WHAT SPOKESPERSONS OR POLICY MAKERS MIGHT REALISTICALLY BE INTERESTED
IN SUPPORTING YOUR PROPOSAL? WHAT EVIDENCE CAN YOU PROVIDE WHICH INDICATES THESE
PEOPLE WILL BE LIKELY TO SERVE AS ADVOCATES FOR YOUR PROPOSAL? WHAT OTHER GROUPS MIGHT
YOU ENTICE TO FORM A COALITION IN SUPPORT OF YOUR PROPOSAL? WHAT OTHER IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES MIGHT YOU USE TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR YOUR PROPOSAL?

·        WHAT ARE THE MOST CRITICAL OBSTACLES (FINANCIAL, LEGAL, ETHICAL, OR POLITICAL) YOU
ANTICIPATE IN IMPLEMENTING YOUR POLICY PROPOSAL? HOW DO YOU PLAN TO OVERCOME THESE
OBSTACLES? WHAT POLICY-MAKERS OR GROUPS MIGHT BE OPPOSED TO YOUR PROPOSAL? WHY
WOULD THEY BE OPPOSED TO YOUR PROPOSAL? HOW WILL YOU COUNTERACT THE INFLUENCE OF
THESE POLICY-MAKERS AND GROUPS?

·        ARE THERE ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OR ADVANTAGES OF YOUR PROPOSAL? IF YOUR POLICY

PROPOSAL IS ADOPTED, HOW SOON MIGHT WE SEE RESULTS? WHAT CHANGES CAN WE EXPECT TO SEE
RIGHT AWAY? FIVE YEARS FROM NOW?

VI. SUMMATION AND CONCLUSION

THIS SECTION IS THE CAPSTONE OF YOUR POLICY PAPER, AND, AS SUCH, SHOULD BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE
THE ARGUMENT YOU HAVE MADE. THIS SECTION SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A FINAL PERSUASIVE APPEAL
TO YOU READER(S).

VII. WORKS CITED OR REFERENCE PAGE

THIS SECTION CONTAINS THE WORKS CITED PAGE (FOR MLA) OR REFERENCE PAGE (FOR APA). ONLY LIST
REFERENCES CITED IN THE TEXT OF THE PAPER. FOLLOW APA/MLA PROCEDURES WHEN FORMATTING
EACH REFERENCE.

·                                EX:    CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF HEALTH INFORMATION ON THE

INTERNET - POLICY PAPER               

·                    {{[1]  AIMS TO IDENTIFY KEY POLICY ISSUES; [2] APPLY THE BEST AND MOST UP-TO-DATE
RESEARCH TO HELP UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES; AND TO [3] EXPLORE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS
RESEARCH FOR THE DESIGN AND CONDUCT OF POLICY}}

·                                 

·                                {{THIS POLICY PAPER PRESENTS A SET OF SEVEN CRITERIA DEVELOPED FOR USE IN

EVALUATING THE QUALITY OF HEALTH INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE INTERNET. IT IS HOPED THAT
ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WILL BECOME INVOLVED IN THIS IMPORTANT EFFORT AT SOME
LEVEL, (1) WHETHER IT BE SUPPORTING AND/OR ENDORSING THE POLICY PAPER, (2) ADOPTING THE
 10

USE OF THE SET OF CRITERIA, (3) JOINING THE HEALTH SUMMIT WORKING GROUP, OR (4) EDUCATING

OTHERS ON THIS TOPIC.}}

                

·                                CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING INTERNET HEALTH INFORMATION                            

1.                 CREDIBILITY: INCLUDES THE SOURCE, CURRENCY, RELEVANCE/UTILITY, AND EDITORIAL

REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE INFORMATION.

2.                 CONTENT: MUST BE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE, AND AN APPROPRIATE DISCLAIMER

PROVIDED.

3.                 DISCLOSURE: INCLUDES INFORMING THE USER OF THE PURPOSE OF THE SITE, AS WELL AS
ANY PROFILING OR COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH USING THE SITE.

4.                 LINKS: EVALUATED ACCORDING TO SELECTION, ARCHITECTURE, CONTENT, AND BACK

LINKAGES.

5.                 DESIGN: ENCOMPASSES ACCESSIBILITY, LOGICAL ORGANIZATION (NAVIGABILITY), AND

INTERNAL SEARCH CAPABILITY.

6.                 INTERACTIVITY: INCLUDES FEEDBACK MECHANISMS AND MEANS FOR EXCHANGE OF

INFORMATION AMONG USERS.

7.                 CAVEATS: CLARIFICATION OF WHETHER SITE FUNCTION IS TO MARKET PRODUCTS AND

SERVICES OR IS A PRIMARY INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER. {SEE MISCELLANEOUS FOR EXTENDED
VERSION}

_____________________________________________________________________________________

{MY ISSUE}: YOUTH CRIME AND NEW “THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT” –

[[ ONE MAIN FOCUS OF NEW ACT IS TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION; AND MEASURES
OUTSIDE THE FORMAL COURT PROCESS; PARTICULARLY FOR MINOR OFFENCES; THEREFORE THE FEDS
HAVE DEVELOPED A YOUTH JUSTICE STRATEGY:

A NEW APPROACH THAT SEEKS –

 11

•                     FLEXIBILITY FOR THE PROVINCES

•                     TREATING VIOLENT AND NON-VIOLENT CRIMES DIFFERENTLY

•                     A COOPERATIVE, INTEGRATED APPROACH TO YOUTH CRIME

•                     CHILDREN AS A NATIONAL PRIORITY

[[[THE POLICY PAPER – CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING “YOUTH OFFENDER TEAMS” (YOUNG PEOPLE, POLICE,
COMMUNITIES, PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND SCHOOLS) AS A CRIME
REDUCTION/COMMUNITY SAFETY STRATEGY.

THIS IS AN INITIATIVE TAKEN TO DEVELOP CRIME PREVENTION SCHEMES IN

ENGLAND  – FORMED  PARTNERSHIPS THAT CAN STRENGTHEN INITIATIVES FOR PREVENTING YOUTH
CRIME – INVOLVING YOUNG PEOPLE, COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOLS THROUGH LOCAL PROGRAMMES,
BASED ON SCHOOLS, TO REDUCE THE DRIFT TO STREET AND OTHER FORMS OF CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR – A NETWORK FOR THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST
PRACTICE, IDENTIFYING WHAT WORKS AND SOURCES OF FINANCE, WILL BE CREATED INCLUDING A
NEW WEB-SITE, NEWSLETTER, SEMINARS AND OTHER LINKS BETWEEN COMMUNITIES –  BUILDING ON
THE CRIME REDUCTION PARTNERSHIPS (TO GO ALONG WITH DRUG ACTION TEAMS; EDUCATION
AWARENESS INITIATIVES; OTHER CRIME REDUCTION/COMMUNITY SAFETY INITIATIVES.)

IN CANADA – YOUTH REFERRAL PILOT PROGRAM [THE NEW ACT PROVIDES A MODEL FOR

EXTRAJUDICIAL MEASURES TO DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH LESS SERIOUS OFFENDERS FOR LESS SERIOUS
YOUTH CRIMES, MOST OF WHICH ARE COMMITTED BY FIRST-TIME OFFENDERS] – SPRINGBOARD'S
EMPLOYMENT “RESOURCE ROOM” FOR AT-RISK SCARBOROUGH YOUTH, SERVES AS HOME BASE FOR
THE  ATTENDANCE PROGRAM –  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING EDUCATIONAL AND LITERACY,
SUBSTANCE ABUSE,  ANGER MANAGEMENT,  COGNITIVE TRAINING,  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, LIFE SKILLS,
GANG INTERVENTION, ANTI-RACISM, HOMEWORK SUPPORTS,   ACCESS TO FAMILY AND PERSONAL
COUNSELING, HOUSING OR OTHER NEEDED SERVICES.

 
 12

_____________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDICES

GROUP POLICY PAPER

YOUR GROUP WILL WRITE A POLICY PAPER ON THE TOPIC YOUR GROUP HAS SELECTED. TO COMPLETE
THIS ASSIGNMENT, YOUR GROUP WILL NEED TO REFINE AND EXPAND ON THE IDEAS DISCUSSED IN
YOUR BACKGROUND PAPERS, CURRENT POLICIES/ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS PAPERS, AND EXERCISES
RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING YOUR PROPOSAL. YOUR GROUP ALSO WILL NEED TO RESEARCH AND
DEVELOP A DEFENSIBLE PLAN (POLICY PROPOSAL) FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM AND FORMULATE
WORKABLE STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN. YOUR PAPER SHOULD BE 25 TO 30 PAGES
LONG, INCLUDING A WORKS CITED OR REFERENCE LIST. THE SEVEN SECTIONS OF THE PAPER ARE
DESCRIBED BELOW. USE SECTION HEADINGS FOR THE MAJOR SECTIONS OF THE PAPER. (FOR
INFORMATION ON SECTION HEADINGS, SEE KEYS FOR WRITERS, PP. 181, 223).

REMEMBER, EACH GROUP NEEDS TO SUBMIT TWO COPIES OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE POLICY PAPER.
THE SECOND COPY WILL BE USED FOR PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• ANALYZING A CURRENT SOCIAL ISSUE.

• CONDUCTING EFFECTIVE RESEARCH ON A POLICY PROPOSAL.

• WORKING EFFECTIVELY AS A GROUP IN DEVELOPING AND WRITING A POLICY PROPOSAL.

• WRITING A COHERENT AND DEFENSIBLE POLICY PROPOSAL.

SECTIONS OF THE POLICY PAPER.

THE INITIAL SECTIONS OF THE PAPER ESTABLISH THE BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR YOUR POLICY
PROPOSAL WHEREAS THE LAST SECTION DISCUSSES YOUR PLAN FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM AND THE
PRACTICALITY OF THE PLAN. USE THE QUESTIONS LISTED UNDER EACH SECTION BELOW TO DIRECT
YOUR THINKING. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED AS A LOCK-STEP OUTLINE. YOU MAY RE-ORDER THE SUB-
TOPICS ADDRESSED IN THE QUESTIONS TO PROVIDE THE MOST SENSIBLE ORGANIZATION FOR YOUR
PAPER.

 
 13

TYPICALLY, ONE PERSON IN YOUR GROUP WILL BE IN CHARGE OF ONE SECTION. HOWEVER, KEEP IN
MIND THAT THE ENTIRE PAPER MUST READ AS A COHERENT PAPER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GROUP
MUST SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE AND DEVELOP IDEAS AND ARGUMENTS WHICH LOGICALLY AND
DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE POLICY PROPOSAL. THE PAPER WILL BE EVALUATED ON HOW COGENTLY AND
THOUGHTFULLY YOUR GROUP ANALYZES THE TOPIC, HOW ACCURATELY YOUR GROUP INTERPRETS AND
INCORPORATES EVIDENCE, HOW JUDICIOUSLY YOUR GROUP USES NON-FALLACIOUS REASONING, AND
HOW EFFECTIVELY THE PAPER INCORPORATES A VARIETY OF CREDIBLE SOURCES. IN ADDITION, THE
PAPER WILL BE EVALUATED ON RICHNESS OF VOCABULARY, MECHANICS OF WRITING, AND ADHERENCE
TO PROPER DOCUMENTATION PROCEDURES.

____________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

YOUR INTRODUCTION SHOULD CONTAIN A THESIS STATEMENT THAT IS PERHAPS IN THE FORM OF A
PREDICTED OUTCOME OF SOME REFORM PROPOSAL.  THIS SECTION SHOULD ALSO IDENTIFY THE
ISSUE.  DON’T CONFUSE ISSUE WITH THESIS.  YOUR THESIS MIGHT BE THAT A PARTICULAR DEFENSE
REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL WOULD FAIL DUE TO SERVICE RESISTANCE; BUT THE ISSUE IS DEFENSE
REORGANIZATION.

      YOU PROBABLY CANNOT WRITE THE THESIS STATEMENT BEFORE YOU CONDUCT YOUR STUDY.  TAKE
A STAB AT IT IN THE BEGINNING, AND THEN RETURN WHEN YOU’VE FINISHED YOUR
CONCLUSION.  YOU’RE NOT WRITING A MYSTERY NOVEL.  THE READER SHOULDN’T HAVE TO GUESS
WHERE YOU’RE GOING.

      WHEN YOU’RE FINALLY READY TO WRITE THE INTRODUCTION, CHECK TO MAKE SURE YOU’VE MET
THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.  THE ISSUE MUST BE CLEAR.  YOUR THESIS MUST BE CLEAR.  THE
READER MUST UNDERSTAND THAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM AND THAT YOU
HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTION TO MAKE.

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

      THIS SECTION SHOULD MAP OUT THE LOGIC OF CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATING TO THE CHOSEN
ISSUE.  BY CONDUCTING SCHOLARLY RESEARCH, YOU WILL FIND THAT RESPECTED SCHOLARS AND
AUTHORITIES DIFFER ON HOW TO APPROACH YOUR CHOSEN ISSUE.  IF THERE IS NO SCHOLARLY
CONTROVERSY, THERE IS NO REASON FOR DOING SCHOLARLY RESEARCH.  THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST
TWO DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.  “FOR” AND “AGAINST” A PROPOSAL ARE NOT SCHOOLS OF
 14

THOUGHT.  THE READER ISN’T INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINION HERE.  THIS ISN’T INTENDED FOR THE
EDITORIAL PAGE.  HONESTLY AND EVEN-HANDEDLY DESCRIBE THE MAJOR SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.

      ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT SECTION IS TO PROVE TO YOUR

AUDIENCE (YOUR THESIS COMMITTEE) THAT YOU’VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK.  ANOTHER
REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU MUST SET THE STAGE FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION; YOU MIGHT REFUTE OR
CONFIRM SOME ELEMENTS OF ONE OF THE SCHOOLS.  REMEMBER, YOUR THESIS MUST ADD TO THE
EXISTING BASE OF KNOWLEDGE.

      WHILE YOU ARE RESEARCHING YOUR ISSUE, YOU WILL UNDOUBTEDLY FIND THESE SCHOOLS OF
THOUGHT.  MAKE A POINT TO BE LOOKING FOR THEM WHENEVER YOU ARE READING.  WHEN YOU
ENCOUNTER ONE, RUSH TO YOUR WORD PROCESSOR AND MAKE A SUBSECTION WITH A FOOTNOTE TO
THE SOURCE YOU ARE READING. 1 GIVE THE HEADING A NAME THAT YOU CAN REMEMBER.  THEN
CAPTURE THE ELEMENTS OF THIS SCHOOL’S THINKING.  YOU’LL HATE YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE TO GO
BACK AND READ A COUPLE OF HUNDRED PAGES TRYING TO FIND A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT YOU ONCE
STUMBLED OVER.  BY CAPTURING THIS MATERIAL IN THIS FASHION, YOU AUTOMATICALLY WILL BE
BUILDING YOUR THESIS.

ISSUE HISTORY

      CONTINUING WITH THE DEFENSE REORGANIZATION EXAMPLE, THE ISSUE HISTORY WOULD
PROBABLY BE A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  CONGRESS HAS PLAYED A STRONG ROLE IN THIS AREA.  TELL
THAT STORY.  MAJOR LEGISLATION WAS PASSED IN 1947, 1949, AND EVERY FEW YEARS AFTER UNTIL
THE MOST RECENT ROUND OF LEGISLATION IN 1986.  EVENTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, EVEN
WARS, MAY HAVE PRECIPITATED LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE.  CAPTURE THAT STORY AS WELL.

      IF YOU ISSUE IS A SINGLE LEGISLATIVE ACT, YOU MAY WANT TO CAPTURE PREVIOUS LEGISLATIVE
ATTEMPTS, THE EVENTS THAT MAKE THE LEGISLATION RIPE NOW, THE DATES STEPS ALONG THE
LEGISLATIVE PATH WERE TAKEN, AND ANY SERENDIPITOUS EVENTS ALONG THE WAY.

      IF YOU CAN’T FIND A HISTORY FOR YOUR ISSUE, YOU PROBABLY HAVEN’T IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE RICH
ENOUGH FOR A MASTER’S THESIS.  THIS SECTION, TOO, SERVES TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOUR READER
THAT YOU’VE DONE YOUR HOMEWORK.

      AS IN YOUR SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT SECTION, YOU WILL UNDOUBTEDLY ENCOUNTER ELEMENTS OF
ISSUE HISTORY AS YOU READ BOOKS AND JOURNAL ARTICLES.  DON’T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF NODDING
YOUR HEAD UP AND DOWN SAYING THAT’S INTERESTING, I MUST REMEMBER THIS WHEN I START TO
 15

WRITE MY THESIS.?  WRITE IT DOWN IMMEDIATELY.  MAKE FOOTNOTES TO THE REFERENCE.  CAPTURE

PAGE NUMBERS.  YOUR THESIS IS WRITING ITSELF AS YOU READ.  THE KEY IS TO BE ON THE LOOKOUT
FOR ISSUE HISTORY.

STAKEHOLDERS, PLAYERS, PROCESS

      STAKEHOLDERS ARE THOSE PARTIES WHO HAVE SOMETHING TO WIN OR LOSE FROM THE REFORM
PROPOSAL.  THERE MAY BE OTHER PLAYERS OR DECISION-MAKERS WHO HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE OR
WIN BUT WILL PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN LEGISLATING OR IMPLEMENTING THE REFORM.  AND, THERE IS A
PROCESS THROUGH WHICH THE REFORM WILL BE DECIDED, E.G., AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION,
APPROPRIATIONS, OR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS.  THERE MAY BE A SEPARATE
PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY.  A PLAYER IN ONE MIGHT BE A STAKEHOLDER IN THE OTHER.

      IF THERE ARE TWO MAJOR PLAYERS, EACH WITH A VESTED INTEREST, YOU MIGHT EXPECT THAT
THEY HAVE ARTICULATED A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT TO SUPPORT THEIR INTERESTS.  UNDER THESE
CONDITIONS, THIS SECTION MIGHT MERGE WITH THE SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
SECTION.  ALTERNATIVELY, YOU MAY FIND THAT YOUR ISSUE HAS BEEN THROUGH A PROCESS SEVERAL
TIMES AND, THUS, THIS SECTION MIGHT BE BETTER ADDRESSED IN THE ISSUE HISTORY SECTION.

      THIS SECTION DEMONSTRATES TO THE READER THAT YOU HAVE A GRASP OF THE PRAGMATICS OF
THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND THAT YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS AND MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS.  THIS IS A STRONGER REQUIREMENT IN A POLICY RELEVANT THESIS THAN IN A
PURELY SCHOLARLY RESEARCH THESIS.

RESEARCH DESIGN

      AT THIS POINT, YOU’VE SET UP THE PROBLEM FOR THE READER.  THEY BELIEVE YOU UNDERSTAND
WHAT’S GONE ON BEFORE.  NOW YOU’RE SHIFTING TO WHAT WILL BECOME YOUR ORIGINAL
CONTRIBUTION.  THE REQUIREMENT IS TO DESCRIBE PRECISELY WHAT YOUR RESEARCH SEEKS TO
SHOW, AND HOW YOU HAVE PROCEEDED TO GATHER INFORMATION IN A WAY THAT SUGGESTS THE
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF YOUR CONCLUSIONS.  DON’T BE AFRAID TO IDENTIFY YOUR
WEAKNESSES.  THIS SECTION IS OFTEN TITLED SIMPLY ?METHODOLOGY.?

      IF, AS IS SUGGESTED IN THE METHODS OF SOCIAL INQUIRY CLASS, YOU TOOK THE TIME TO CREATE A
PROJECT PROSPECTUS OR RESEARCH PLAN, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO PLUG IT IN HERE AS A FIRST CUT.  NO
DOUBT YOUR RESEARCH PLAN WILL FAIL YOU IN SOME WAY.  THINGS NEVER WORK OUT THE WAY WE
 16

PLAN.  BRING THIS SECTION IN LINE WITH THE RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS THAT YOU
ACTUALLY DID.

DATA AND ANALYSIS

      IN A FULL THESIS, DATA MIGHT BE BEST PRESENTED IN AN APPENDIX.  MAKE A JUDGEMENT

CALL.  EITHER PUT IT HERE OR PUT IT IN AN APPENDIX AND SUMMARIZE IT HERE.  THE ANALYSIS MIGHT
BE HIGHLY QUANTITATIVE OR JUST PURE DEDUCTIVE LOGIC.  ANALYSIS MIGHT ALSO BE CONDUCTED
THROUGH SEVERAL CASE STUDIES.

      YOU MAY FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE GATHERED SUPPORTS ONE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT AND REFUTES
ANOTHER.  SINCE POLICY ISSUES TEND TO BE QUITE COMPLEX, ANOTHER COMMON OUTCOME OF
ANALYSIS IS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS INCONSISTENT, CONTRADICTORY, AND INCONCLUSIVE.  SAY SO.

CLOSING SECTION

      YOUR CONCLUSIONS SHOULD FOLLOW DIRECTLY FROM YOUR ANALYSIS.  RESTATE YOU THESIS,
RECALL YOUR EVIDENCE, AND SUMMARIZE YOUR LOGICAL ARGUMENT.  IF YOU CAN WRITE THE
CONCLUSION BEFORE DOING THE RESEARCH, YOU ARE NOT WRITING A SCHOLARLY THESIS, YOU ARE
WRITING A LARGE EDITORIAL.

      I OFTEN FIND IT CONVENIENT TO SEPARATE WHAT I LEARN IN RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS INTO THREE
CATEGORIES: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.  IF IT HELPS, USE IT, BUT DON’T
FEEL COMPELLED TO LEAVE THE STRUCTURE IN YOUR FINAL THESIS.

FINDINGS

      SOME THINGS ARE FINDINGS OF FACT.  NO READER SHOULD BE ABLE TO ARGUE WITH FINDINGS OF
FACT.  THEY MAY NOT LIKE THEM, BUT YOU’LL HAVE ALL OF YOUR SOURCES IDENTIFIED, AND YOUR
DISAPPROVING READER WILL HAVE TO ATTACK SOMEONE ELSE.  MAKE SURE YOUR SOURCES ARE GOOD
ONES.

 
 17

CONCLUSIONS

      SOLID, CLEAR LOGIC IS USED TO WEAVE TOGETHER FINDINGS TO PRODUCE CONCLUSIONS.  ONE

MIGHT EXPECT ANOTHER TO ARRIVE AT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, BUT YOUR LOGIC SHOULD BE
SUPPORTABLE.  THOSE INCLINED TO PUT ASIDE THEIR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS SHOULD FIND YOUR
CONCLUSIONS REASONABLE.  IF ANOTHER READER CAN REFUTE YOUR CONCLUSIONS, THAT’S JUST
FINE.  THAT’S WHAT SCHOLARLY WORK IS ABOUT.  THESIS, ANTITHESIS, SYNTHESIS, AS HEGEL WOULD
SAY.

RECOMMENDATIONS

      BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT, LOGICALLY DERIVED CONCLUSIONS, CREDIBLE CAUSAL

RELATIONSHIPS, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO MOVE INTO THE WORLD OF THE PREDICTIVE THESIS.  THAT IS,
BASED ON EVERYTHING YOU’VE PRESENTED SO FAR, YOU CAN PREDICT A CERTAIN OUTCOME, E.G., THE
EVENTUAL COLLAPSE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND.  THEN THE TITLE OF THIS SUBSECTION
WOULDN’T BE “RECOMMENDATIONS” BUT SOMETHING ELSE.

      IF YOUR WORK JUSTIFIES IT, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO PRODUCE A PRESCRIPTIVE THESIS.  THAT IS, YOU
CAN PRESCRIBE A COURSE OF ACTION THAT WILL ACHIEVE A DESIRED SOCIAL OUTCOME, E.G., WHAT
POLICY ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN NOW TO PREVENT THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST
FUND.

YOUR VIEW

      YOU HAVE NOW EARNED THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT’S ON YOUR MIND.  IF YOUR ANALYSIS SAYS THE
REFORM WILL FAIL, BUT YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT WHY IT SHOULD PASS IN THE INTEREST OF
NATIONAL SECURITY, THIS IS THE PLACE TO SAY IT.

          NOW GO BACK AND WRITE YOUR INTRODUCTION, THE PART I ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH THE
MOST.

 
 18

DO NOT ASSUME THAT THIS OUTLINE AND THESE HEADING TITLES WILL BE RIGHT FOR YOUR FINAL
PRODUCT.  IT IS OFFERED AS A POINT OF DEPARTURE.  AS INDICATED ABOVE, SOME OF THESE SECTIONS
MIGHT PROFITABLY BE COMBINED AND REORDERED.  YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL HOW TO
COMMUNICATE YOUR RESULTS UNTIL FAIRLY LATE IN THE PROCESS.  YOU CAN, HOWEVER, BE
CONFIDENT THAT THE ORDER YOU FOLLOWED CONDUCTING RESEARCH IS THE WRONG ORDER FOR
FINAL EXPOSITION.  THE FINAL PRODUCT MUST BE STRUCTURED FOR THE CONSUMER, NOT THE
PRODUCER.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

A GOOD POLICY ANALYSIS PAPER COVERS EACH OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS (THE WEIGHTING GIVEN
TO EACH SECTION WILL VARY DEPENDING ON THE TOPIC):

ISSUE DEFINITION: THE POLICY DECISION IS ARTICULATED AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE IS ESTABLISHED.

BACKGROUND: ALL BACKGROUND INFORMATION (TECHNICAL, POLITICAL, ETC.) NECESSARY TO PLACE

THE DECISION IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT IS GIVEN.

POLICY OPTIONS: THE VARIOUS POLICY OPTIONS THAT THE DECISION-MAKER MUST DECIDE BETWEEN
ARE PRESENTED AND DESCRIBED.

POLICY ANALYSIS: THE PROS AND CONS OF EACH OPTION ARE EXPLAINED. THE VALUE TRADE-OFFS
IMPLICIT IN CHOOSING ONE OPTION OVER ANOTHER ARE EXPLAINED.

RECOMMENDATION: BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, A RECOMMENDATION IS MADE. THE BIASES AND

JUDGMENT FACTORS THAT WENT INTO THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE EXPLAINED. YOU SHOULD
SUMMARIZE YOUR RECOMMENDATION CONCISELY AT THE VERY START OF YOUR PAPER.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 
 19

POLICY PAPER ON DIVERSITY ISSUES FOR NGOS’S:

1.                 PERFORMING A  REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN TO IDENTIFY THE SCOPE OF

DIVERSITY WITHIN THE REGION;

2.                 ANALYZING AND EVALUATING ACTIVITIES TO IDENTIFY DIVERSITY GROWTH

OPPORTUNITIES.

3.                 DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXTERNAL

PARTNERS AND WITHIN DIVERSE COMMUNITIES TO ASSIST THE REGION IN IDENTIFYING DIVERSITY
NEEDS.

4.                 STRENGTHENING DIVERSITY WITHIN THE VOLUNTEER BASE WITH THE

REGION/UNIT/BRANCH, PARTICULARLY THROUGH RECRUITMENT/RETENTION STRATEGIES AND
IDENTIFYING OPPORTUNITIES AND MEANS FOR DIVERSE GROUPS TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN AND /OR
VOLUNTEER FOR THE CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY.

5.                 PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THE UNIT OFFICES IN THE VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT AND

DEVELOPMENT CYCLE, ASSISTING IN PLANNING, SURVEYS AND ASSOCIATED BUDGETS TO INTEGRATE
DIVERSITY INTO DAILY OPERATIONS.

6.                 WORKING WITH STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS TO CREATE AND IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES AND
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCE MATERIALS TO PROMOTE BETTER ACCESS TO SERVICES AND
PROGRAMS.

7.                 WORKING CLOSELY WITH KEY STAFF TO COORDINATE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS TO

CREATE AWARENESS WITHIN THE REGION.

8.                 IMPLEMENTING  ONTARIO DIVISION - CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY DIVERSITY

POLICY, PHILOSOPHY AND STRATEGY TO ENSURE THE SOCIETY'S STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS ARE
KNOWLEDGEABLE OF AND SENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF DIVERSE GROUPS.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
 20

1.                 RESEARCH EXISTING EVALUATION METHODS, INCLUDING IN-DEPTH MEETINGS WITH OTHER

UNITED WAYS.

1.                 DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A BASE-LINE SURVEY FOR ORGANIZATIONS TO IDENTIFY

CURRENT EVALUATION PRACTICES.

2.                 ESTABLISH A PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (PEOD)

PROCESS ADVISORY GROUP THAT WILL MEET AT LEAST 10 TIMES THROUGH THE DURATION OF THE
PROJECT.

3.                 ASSESS STATUS OF EVALUATION AT PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS AND DELIVER

APPROPRIATE WORKSHOPS GEARED TO THEIR LEVEL OF COMPETENCY.

4.                 DEVELOP A 3-YEAR PLAN TO IMPLEMENT OUTCOME MEASUREMENT TRAINING THROUGH

VARIOUS METHODS (WORKSHOPS, CUSTOMIZED CONSULTATION, DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES ETC.)

5.                 DEVELOP COMMUNICATION AND DISSEMINATION STRATEGY WITH AGENCIES.

6.                 PROVIDE GENERAL EVALUATION WORKSHOPS TO UNITED WAY STAFF.

7.                 DEVELOP A RESOURCE GROUP OF TRAINED VOLUNTEERS WITH EXPERTISE IN EVALUATION

TO PROVIDE ONGOING TRAINING.

8.                 REVIEW AND REVISE PROCESS AND MATERIALS ACCORDING TO WORKSHOPS AND

CONSULTATIONS.

9.                 TRAIN UNITED WAY VOLUNTEERS (CITIZEN REVIEW, BOARD, COMMUNITY INVESTMENT

CABINET) ON PROGRAM EVALUATION.