PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

3.0 Groups/Committees in Program Development

Too often, meetings result in too much talking and not enough doing.
Knowing the type of work group helps to clarify what needs to be done and can
lead to more specific conversations covering “what needs to be talked about.”
Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton describe the pitfall of the “smart-talk trap,” where
groups confuse talking about something with doing something.2 There are many
bright persons in medical schools and medical centers who often have a lot to say
about a topic—but as Peter Drucker suggests, being bright is no substitute for
knowledge.3 Likewise, knowledge is no substitute for action. Our behavioral
repertoire should be adjusted according to the type of work group, as they all
require different approaches and different behavior. The descriptions that follow
offer some insight to the differences—and similarities—of these three types of
work groups.

3.1 Types

There are three main types of committees: standing, select or special,

and joint. (Party committees, task forces, and congressional Member
organizations—informal groups—are not addressed here.)

3.2 Characteristics

Standing committees are permanent panels identified as such in

chamber rules (House Rule X, Senate Rule XXV). Because they have legislative
jurisdiction, standing committees consider bills and issues and recommend
measures for consideration by their respective chambers. They also have
oversight responsibility to monitor agencies, programs, and activities within
their jurisdictions and, in some cases, in areas that cut across committee
jurisdictions. Most standing committees recommend funding levels—
authorizations—for government operations and for new and existing
programs. A few have other functions. For example, the Appropriations
Committees recommend legislation to provide budget authority for federal
agencies and programs. The Budget Committees establish aggregate levels
for total spending and revenue, via the annual budget resolution, that serve
as guidelines for the work of the authorizing and appropriating panels. Select
or special committees are generally established by a separate resolution of
the chamber, sometimes to conduct investigations and studies and, on other
occasions, also to consider measures. Often, select committees examine
emerging issues that do not fit clearly within existing standing committee
jurisdictions or cut across jurisdictional boundaries. A select committee may
be permanent or temporary. Select committees may have certain
restrictions on member tenure or may include certain specified
representatives (e.g., party leaders or certain standing committee chairs) as
ex officio members. Instead of the term select, the Senate sometimes uses
special committee (e.g., the Special Committee on Aging). Joint committees
are made up of Members of both the House and Senate. Today’s permanent
joint committees conduct studies or perform housekeeping tasks rather than
consider measures.4 For instance, the Joint Committee on Printing oversees
the functions of the Government Publishing Office and general printing
procedures of the federal government. The chairmanship of joint
committees usually alternates between the House and Senate. A conference
committee is a temporary joint committee formed to resolve differences
between competing House and Senate versions of a measure. Conference
committees draft compromises between the positions of the two chambers,
which are then submitted to the full House and Senate for approval.

3.3 Performance

Governance

In organizations considered too large for all the members to

participate in decisions affecting the organization as a whole, a smaller body,
such as a board of directors, is given the power to make decisions, spend
money, or take actions. A governance committee is formed as a separate
committee to review the performance of the board and board policy as well
as nominate candidates for the board.

Coordination and administration

 A large body may have smaller committees with more specialized
functions. Examples are an audit committee, an elections committee, a
finance committee, a fundraising committee, and a program committee.
Large conventions or academic conferences are usually organized by a
coordinating committee drawn from the membership of the organization.

Research and recommendations

Committees may be formed to do research and make

recommendations on a potential or planned project or change. For example,
an organization considering a major capital investment might create a
temporary working committee of several people to review options and make
recommendations to upper management or the board of directors.

Discipline

A committee on discipline may be used to handle disciplinary

procedures on members of the organization.

As a tactic for indecision

As a means of public relations by sending sensitive, inconvenient, or

irrelevant matters to committees, organizations may bypass, stall, or dis-
acknowledge matters without declaring a formal policy of inaction or
indifference. However, this could be considered a dilatory tactic.

Power and authority

Generally, committees are required to report to their parent body.

Committees do not usually have the power to act independently unless the
body that created it gives it such power.

3.4 Task Force

Task forces are work groups typically comprising experts in specified

areas of knowledge or practice. Task forces are small groups of people—and
resources—brought together to accomplish a specific objective, with the
expectation that the group will disband when the objective has been
completed. Whereas committees are typically defined in organizational by-
 laws, charters, or other formal documents, task forces are created on an “as
needed” basis. The impetus for the creation of a task force is often the result
of some event, often unexpected or unanticipated, causing the need for an
organization to acquire knowledge as to how to best respond to the event,
related events, or to a similar situation. One difference between task forces
and committees is the assignment of “forces and resources.”4 That is,
personnel and materials needed to enhance the chance for success of the
task force are put to work simultaneously. Task force work products are
collective and address the specific charge to the group

3.5 Committee

A committee or commission is a body of one or more persons that is

subordinate to a deliberative assembly. Usually, the assembly sends matters
into a committee as a way to explore them more fully than would be possible
if the assembly itself were considering them. Committees may have different
functions and their types of work differ depending on the type of the
organization and its needs.

4.0 Policy Formulation/ Adoption/ Evaluation

Formulation of policy consists of policymakers discussing and suggesting

approaches to correcting problems that have been raised as part of the agenda.
Sometimes it is necessary to choose from among multiple potential paths forward.
The ultimate policy that is chosen to solve the issue at hand is dependent on two
factors. First, the policy must be a valid way of solving the issue in the most efficient
and feasible way possible. Effective formulation involves analysis and identification
of alternatives to solving issues. Secondly, policies must be politically feasible. This
is usually accomplished through majority building in a bargaining process. Policy
formulation is, therefore, comprised of analysis that identifies the most effective
policies and political authorization.

Policy adoption is the phase of the policy process in which policies are
adopted by government bodies for future implementation. Formulated policies
have to be adopted by relevant institutions of government in order to be put into
effect. Adoption can be affected by the same factors that influence what issues
move into the earlier phase of agenda building. For instance, policies that address
the changed circumstances crises often bring can often be immediately adopted.
Meanwhile, powerful interest groups can use their political influence to determine
what policies are adopted.

Policies must be evaluated once in place, but still tend to become entrenched
over time and often do not receive any kind of evaluation. Policies may be
evaluated according to a number of standards. They may be informally evaluated
according to uncritical analysis, such as anecdotes and stories. Policies may also be
substantively evaluated through careful, honest feedback from those affected by
the policies. More formal research can provide empirical evidence regarding the
effectiveness of policies. Finally, scientific research provides both comparative and
statistical evaluations of whether policies produce clear causal results.

Policy evaluation can take place at different times. Administrators seeking to

improve operations may assess policies as they are being implemented. After
policies have been implemented they can be further evaluated to understand their
overall effectiveness.

In spite of the many ways policies may be evaluated, they are often not
evaluated at all. Formal and scientific research is time consuming, complicated to
design and implement, and costly. While more informal evaluations focused on
feedback and anecdotes are more accessible, they also tend to be contaminated
with bias.

4.1 Political party

A political party is an organized group of people who have the same

ideology, or who otherwise have the same political positions, and who field
candidates for elections, in an attempt to get them elected and thereby
implement the party's agenda.

Interest Group

An interest group is an organization of people who share a

common interest and work together to protect and promote that interest by
influencing the government. Interest groups vary greatly in size, aims, and
tactics. Political scientists generally divide interest groups into two
categories: economic and noneconomic.
Political Decisions

Political decision making is one of the most important research

domains in political psychology, and rational choice theory is the most
commonly used theoretical framework to explain decision-making
processes.

Decision Maker

A decision maker as a “person who decides things, especially at a high

level in an organization.” A decision maker might be responsible for
strategic decisions like acquisitions, business expansion or capital
investment.

Non-Decision Maker

Involves suppressing challenges to the status quo and suppressing the

addition of new issues to an agenda. Issues are excluded from an agenda
because they are threatening in some direct way, or because of the
competition for the limited space for agenda items.

Implementing Political Decisions

As a general concept policy implementation can be defined as the

third stage of policy cycle its means the stage of the policy process
immediately after the passage of a law, or the action that will be taken to put
the law into effect or that the problem will be solved. Implementation,
viewed most broadly means administration of the law in which various
actors, organization, procedures, and techniques work together to put
adopted policies into effect in an effort to attain policy or program goals

Implementation can be also defined in terms of outputs, or the extent

to which programmatic goals are supported or perused, like the level of
expenditures that committed to the programs.