The Tool Box needs your help
to remain available.
Your contribution can help change lives.
Donate now.
Sixteen training modules
for teaching core skills.
Learn more.
| Learn how to change policies in organizations and the community. |
The Penbrooke County Jail staff had looked at the statistics, and found that a majority of inmates finished their sentences, went back into the community, and all too soon found their way back to jail again. All the research pointed to community support as a crucial factor in keeping former inmates out of jail, but there was no way to assure that support.
Working with the community human services coalition, the jail staff developed a transition program for inmates that included education, career counseling, and connections with community support organizations and individual mentors that started six months before release. Similar programs had worked well in other places, and the jail staff and their partners were enthusiastic. The only problem now was funding.
The human services coalition was agreed that the funding would have to come from the Department of Corrections. The human service budget was already stretched to the limit, and state and local funding was being cut, rather than increased. But Department of Corrections policy stated that its responsibility ended at the moment of release. It became clear that, if the program was ever to become a reality, that policy had to be changed.
Changing policies can be a crucial strategy in implementing community interventions. All too often, legislators and policy makers, local officials, corporations, or, as in the Penbrooke situation, state agencies don't know about or entirely understand an issue, or have other reasons - inertia and self-interest among them - for making or maintaining policy that is outdated, ill-conceived, unfair, or just plain wrong. Changing such policy is one strategy for either implementing interventions or getting them funded.
A strategy is an overall plan for achieving objectives that will help you fulfill your vision and mission. Tactics are the methods you use in an action plan to carry out your strategy. Chapter 25 is about a number of tactics that can be used - separately or in combination - to carry out a strategy of changing the policies about your issue. Policy change can be a strategy in itself, or one element of a broader strategic plan.
In this first section, we'll look at policy change in general - what it consists of, why it's important, when and by whom it should be attempted, and some general guidelines for getting it done. In the following sections of this chapter, we'll examine particular tactics for effecting policy change.
Policies are the written or unwritten guidelines that governments, organizations and institutions, communities, or individuals use when responding to issues and situations. They are generally shaped both by logic (e.g., get a medical history before you prescribe medication) and by people's assumptions about reality, including:
Policies can take different forms, depending upon whose policies they are, and what they refer to. They may be public or private, official or unofficial, expressed or unexpressed. Some common types of policies:
These are usually discussed publicly and written down, either as or within laws and official regulations (such as those of a government agency, e.g. the Department of Education), or as statements of policy in government documents. It is, for instance, currently the US government's policy to reduce the welfare rolls as much as possible, and to give welfare recipients only two years of eligibility. Official policy, in and of itself, can take many forms:
Unofficial policies are shaped by the unspoken attitudes and assumptions held by policy makers. They aren't generally written down anywhere, and may not even be stated to anyone, but they are powerful and long-lasting. They can become part of the culture of a governing body or agency, and, at least in part because they are unwritten, they are often incredibly difficult to change.
No one may admit that unwritten policies exist, or they may be so deeply ingrained that they're viewed not as policies, but as facts. Assumptions about such issues as gender roles, race relations, or the relative status of particular groups may play a huge, but unacknowledged, role in public or corporate policy. Unofficial policies may have to be exposed and changed before any official policy change is possible.
There are numerous instances in the US of unofficial policy guiding lawmaking and other forms of official policymaking. The "glass ceiling" for women and minorities in government and corporations, for instance - the usually unofficial understanding that women and minorities could advance only so far and no farther in management - was, and often still is, one example. Another was the federal government's unwillingness to act to prevent racial discrimination prior to the 1960's, even though it was clearly indefensible under the Constitution.
These policies may cover such areas as:
Foundations and other private funders make policies about what and whom they'll fund, and can have a large influence on what kinds of issues are addressed as a result. In addition to choosing the issues or areas they'll put money toward, these funders' policies may specify:
All businesses, from the smallest mom-and-pop corner store to the largest multinational corporation, have official and unofficial policies about the ways they do business. Among most businesses' policies are:
In the 1950's, even in major corporations, the CEO seldom made more than ten or 15 times what the lowest-paid employee made. By the 1990's, some CEO's of major corporations were making hundreds of times as much as the corporations' lowest-paid employees, sending lower-paid workers a clear message about their value to their employer.
Like businesses, non-profit organizations have both official and unofficial policies which govern and affect all aspects of their operations. These policies usually have a great deal to do with the organizations' effectiveness, and with the way they are viewed by participants and the community. In addition to many of the same policies that businesses might institute - hiring, employee-staff relations, relations with the community - non-profits also usually have policy that governs other important areas:
While some media outlets follow policies that reflect particular political agendas, almost all media, no matter how objective they try to be, make and demonstrate policies by what stories they choose to cover, what features of those stories they choose to emphasize, where they maintain regular bureaus or reporters, and the words and pictures they use to describe what they report.
Much of the world sees the United States as self-centered and oblivious to the needs and concerns of other nations. This view is bolstered by the general American media policy of covering foreign news only when it directly relates to or involves the United States. Many of the major news stories of the past decade - the votes on the European Union, horrific genocide in Rwanda, crucial national elections in Europe and South America and India - went largely uncovered in the US media, and were perceived by much of the American public as therefore unimportant or nonexistent.
While there may be no discussion or complete consensus about what community policy actually is, communities do have policies on issues and other matters. During the darkest days of the Civil Rights Movement, for example, it was community policy in most communities in the South to maintain segregation, often by any means necessary. In many affluent communities, it is clearly a community policy that education is important, and worth spending money on.
Community policy is made by a combination of factors, but two are by far the most important. One is the opinions of community leaders - not necessarily those elected, but those whose opinions are listened to, because of their economic or political clout, or simply because of the respect they've earned. These may include influential business people, clergy, educators, or directors of organizations, among others.
The second factor is public opinion. Public opinion may be formed partially by the opinions of community leaders, but is also a product of people's own experiences, the media, and the long-time standards and practices of the community. Segregation was unquestioningly accepted because it had been in force for a hundred years. Affluent communities are willing to spend money on schools largely because many of the parents in those communities themselves gained affluence through education.
A small community can have its policies determined by an elite group that controls the area's economy. People are afraid to challenge them openly because of their control over the livelihoods of community members, who may include themselves or their relatives.
As we've discussed, policies usually grow out of people's basic assumptions about the world. As a result, they're often difficult to change, and efforts to do so require patience, sensitivity, and hard work if they're to be successful. Why go to all that trouble? Why not just try to get around or ignore policy in the particular instance you're concerned with, and leave it at that?
There are a number of excellent reasons why changing policies is worth the trouble. In general, it's the difference between sweeping problems under the rug, and actually cleaning them up so they don't appear again.
Anyone who's concerned can and should be involved in trying to change policies, but some groups or individuals are more likely than others to be successful.
In many ways a coalition is the ideal group to address policy change. Coalitions have a number of built-in advantages:
Administrators and line staff of community-based and other health and human service organizations often have both technical knowledge of the issue - statistics, study results, understanding of root causes - and the personal understanding of its human consequences that comes from working with those affected. These organizations, as a result, have high credibility, and are appropriate leaders in a campaign for changes in policy.
A well-organized community-based initiative, especially one that includes people affected by the issue, is another group with some credibility, and one that has information and knowledge helpful in discussing policy. Its capacity for advocacy may be another helpful factor here.
In some circumstances, a bar association or medical association, for instance, might take the lead in trying to change policies.
Sometimes, it takes a highly motivated individual to get a policy change campaign off the ground. It makes sense, however, to put together a group to take over the campaign as soon as possible. Credibility, as mentioned several times here, is greater if there's broader representation, and a group will produce more information and ideas than one person alone. There will be more people to divide up the considerable amount of work to be done. In addition, if the campaign is to garner support, it can't look too much like a one-person show, but has to reflect instead the real needs of the larger community.
The listing above may seem to include everyone in the community, and, in a sense, that would be appropriate. In the ideal healthy community, all groups and individuals should feel that they have both the right and the capacity to try to change policy. In order to be successful, however, any policy change advocate has to be well organized and well informed, and has to be advocating for a policy that both appears to serve the public interest and commands public support. Anyone can try to change policies. but some are likely to be more successful than others.
There are particular times when the political or psychological climate is right for changing policies. That doesn't mean that you can't work on policy change at any other time, but simply that it's smart to strike while the iron is hot. If it's a good time for change, you're that much more likely to be successful.
Another circumstance when public opinion can be your guide is when the public has become fed up with the policies of a particular business or institution. That entity might then be convinced to change its policies out of self-interest.
The failure of the Enron Corporation and the revelation that its auditor, the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, was cooperating in bookkeeping that exaggerated the company's financial stability and profits, resulted in Congress passing stiffer laws regulating the accounting industry.
All policy change starts with an assumption on someone's part that current policy, or lack of policy, is not what's needed, and that the current situation is unacceptable. Policy change is difficult and time-consuming, and it may look discouraging. But, with work and dedication, policy change is possible - it happens all the time, usually because ordinary people care enough to keep at it.
Since this section is an overview, we won't try to discuss specific tactics here - you'll find them in the rest of the sections in this chapter. Instead, we'll present some general guidelines for changing policies and choosing tactics. In broad terms, those guidelines take you through eight areas. To make them easier to remember, we've called them the Eight P's: Planning, Preparation, Personal contact, Pulse of the community, Positivism, Participation, Publicity, and Persistence.
Preparation: Prepare well for changing policies. You'll need a firm foundation for the work you're about to do. Changing policy is one of the most difficult - and one of the most effective - means of changing the community or the society for the better. To do it well, you'll have to prepare. Conduct the necessary research to get to know as much as possible about the issue. Make yourself or your group the acknowledged expert, the one individuals, groups, and the media contact when they want information on your issue.
Your research should confirm or establish that the particular policy change you're seeking is, in fact, appropriate and helpful, with no disastrous unintended consequences. If research shows the opposite, you should rethink your strategy, and look for change that will have a positive effect on the issue.
Preparation and planning are so closely allied that it is difficult to put one or the other first here. In fact, it is unwise to plan without having done some research, but your plan will imply further research. In addition, new information may keep coming to light in the course of both planning and research. In fact, both activities should be ongoing throughout a campaign for changes in policy. You should expect to change your overall plan, your strategy, and/or your tactics, as you learn more about the community, your opponents, and the issue.
Planning: Plan carefully for changing policies. In order to ensure that your overall strategy makes sense, and that changing policies is a necessary and appropriate part of it, strategic planning is essential. If you haven't yet engaged in a participatory strategic planning process that involves representation from all groups affected by or concerned with the issue, stop, back up, and do so now. It will take time and effort, and may result in your changing some of your ideas, but it will pay huge dividends in the long run.
If the situation you're dealing with is an emergency, you may not have the time to develop a formal strategic plan, but you can strategize with a group and consult with others who've been in similar situations. Planning, even if it has to take place in a matter of hours, rather than days or weeks, always leads to better results than simply doing whatever comes into your head at the time.
The ideal is to have done your planning before emergencies or the need to act immediately arise. If your group is newly formed to deal with an emergency, you may not have that choice. But if your group has existed for a while, and its purpose is to address the issue at hand, the development of a strategic plan should have been - or should be - one of its first activities.
Personal contact: Establish and maintain personal contact with those who influence or make policy. All politics is not only local, as former House Speaker Tip O'Neill said, but all politics, at bottom, is personal. Personal relationships are the key to successful advocacy of all kinds, and changing policy is no exception. If you can make a personal connection, not only with policy makers, but with opinion leaders, and even opponents, you can get your phone calls returned, make your voice heard, keep argument civil, and maintain a level of credibility far greater than you could if you were only a name or a face.
Some of those with whom you might want to establish personal contact:
In return, you should try to make their lives as easy as possible. Do what you say you'll do, completely and on time. Be unfailingly pleasant and cooperative, even in difficult situations. If it's clear you're doing your best to be helpful, they're likely to return the favor.
All these relationships should be two-way. In many cases, your contacts might develop into friends, or at least friendly acquaintances. In others, the relationships will remain at a collegial level, but they should never be exploitative, i.e. other people should never be only a means to get what you want. Developing relationships means just that - getting to know people so that you and they can personalize the experience of working together. If you concentrate on the relationship itself, its benefits will come naturally.
Pulse of the community. Take the pulse of the community to understand what citizens will support, what they will resist, and how they can be persuaded. You have a far greater chance of success if you set out to change policies in ways that the community will support, or at least tolerate, than if you challenge people's basic beliefs. When it's possible, it makes sense to start where the community is. That may mean putting off your final goal, and working toward an intermediate one that the community can support. Many campaigns base their whole strategy on this kind of approach.
There may, of course, be times when the moral issues involved demand that you address the core issues regardless of the community's position. The Civil Rights Movement in the US, which demanded voting rights, integration, and equal justice under the law for African Americans, is a prime example. The injustice involved was so great, and the attitudes of communities so entrenched, that nothing would have been served by halfway measures.
Positivism. Where you can, choose tactics that emphasize the positive. The old adage, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar," applies to policy change as well. Suggesting incentives (tax breaks, for instance) for doing the right thing, rather than punishment (special taxes) for doing the wrong thing, is one way to accentuate the positive elements of a proposed policy change.
Tax breaks for doing the right thing and tax increases for doing the wrong thing really have the same results - the same people benefit, and the same people pay. The difference, however, is that in the first case, some people gain something, where in the second case, other people lose something. Incentives put a positive spin on what could be seen as a negative consequence.
On the other hand, research seems to show that people are more likely to take action when they have something to lose. The possibility of using both incentives and punishment may be one to consider in some circumstances.
There are many ways to emphasize the benefits of policy change.
In Bellevue, Washington, an environmental group conducted a study that showed the dollar value - in the millions - of trees to the community in absorbing pollution and stormwater runoff. As a result of the study, the community enacted laws for the preservation of green space and tree cover, and the planting of more trees.
Participation. Involve as many people in the community as possible in strategic planning and action. Try to engage key people particularly - opinion leaders, trusted community figures - but concentrate on making your effort participatory. That will give it credibility, encourage community ownership of the effort, make sure that a wide range of ideas and information are considered in developing a plan and action steps, and encourage community leadership of the effort.
Publicity. Use the media, the Internet, your community connections, and your imagination both to keep people informed of the effort and the issues, and to keep a high profile. You want the community to be aware of your policy-change efforts, to know how and why you're trying to change policies, and to understand why change is necessary. You can use everything from straight news stories to street theater and demonstrations to get the message out. Publicity will help you gain and maintain community support, which will greatly increase your chances of success.
Persistence. Policy change can take a long time. You have to monitor and evaluate your action to make sure it's having the desired effect, and change it if it's not. And you have to be prepared to keep at it for as long as it takes if you hope to be successful. As with all advocacy work, policy change takes a long-term commitment.
The rest of the sections in this chapter discuss specific tactics and how to use them effectively. The guidelines above - the Eight P's - should help you understand how best to apply any of those tactics to realize your overall strategy of changing policies for the benefit of the community.
Just about every organization, governing body, and other group has a set of policies - the official or unofficial rules which these organizations employ in relating to the world. Policies - generally based on a combination of logic and people's assumptions, correct or incorrect, about the way the world is and works - dictate how those groups operate, and can have a great deal of influence over community health and development.
When the policies of governments, funders, corporations, or other groups stand in the way of beneficial interventions or necessary fundamental community change, you may need to change the policies themselves. Changing policy is a step on the road to changing social conditions and real community development. It saves you from constantly having to repeat your efforts, and, over the long term, actually changes people's minds and attitudes. It's usually the shortest road to permanent social change.
The ideal policy change agents are broad-based coalitions, although organizations that work with those affected by the policies in question, grass roots community initiatives, concerned professional groups, and determined individuals can all be effective in the right circumstances. The best times to try to change policy are when something important is at stake, either for policymakers (an election, e.g.) or for you (loss of funding, the imminent passage of a disastrous law or regulation); when the issue is at a crisis point; when it's already under discussion, especially for the first time; when public opinion is behind you; or when new information or a new publication draw attention to it.
The fundamental guidelines for changing policies are the 8 P's:
These guidelines can apply to any of the tactics outlined in the rest of the sections of this chapter.
