Steps in Implementing Program or ProjectWhile public administrators are involved in all stages of the policy process, much of their work is focused on implementation of public policies. Review the lecture notes and Chapter 9 before preparing this assignment, as the specific steps from which to develop your essay are clearly outlined.Write a well-organized, three- to four-page essay in which you summarize and discuss the major steps involved in implementing a program or project and identify some of the problems that can arise with each.NOTES CHAPTER 9 Discussions of government policy in areas such as agriculture, education, homeland security, emergency management, criminal justice, environmental quality, foreign affairs, health care, transportation, or land-use planning attempt to convey an impression of well-defined purposes—carefully mapped out, sufficient resources marshaled and at the ready, with consistent support through the political process. However, the realities of governing in the United States differ dramatically from this conception. In our complex and fragmented governmental system, there is often no single dominant political majority capable of determining policy in every instance. Congressional voting coalitions are usually temporary, changing from one issue to the next; presidential election majorities are often fashioned out of very diverse groups in the population, each with policy interests that conflict with others; court rulings may or may not coincide with public sentiment; administrative agencies are not permanently tied to any one political coalition. The combined impacts of these shifting attitudes, institutions, and a very diverse population on the definition, formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public policy often blur rather than clarify policy objectives and content. Instead of being clear and unmistakable government commitments, many policies are “mixed bags” of programs reflecting a variety of past actions and declarations, ad hoc responses to contemporary situations, and considerable uncertainty about future policy directions. Cynicism abounds as greater numbers of citizens express reservations about the capacity of executives, legislators, and public administrators to address fundamental and fiscal issues. Yet there are strong expectations that public problems will be tackled and that the resulting programs will be well managed—that they represent the culmination of deliberate efforts to analyze, plan, design, fund, and operate objectives. There is the further expectation that managers and others will be capable of evaluating the actual achievements of government programs. Although it is difficult to identify or rationalize all aspects of a given policy, managers must focus on discrete tasks involved in organizing and operating programs. This is necessary despite the ever-present swirl of political controversy, media scrutiny, opposing approaches offered by various interests, and bitter partisanship that frequently surrounds much of what governments try to accomplish. In these endeavors, a particular agency or bureau in the administrative process and the individuals within that organization (as well as other “stakeholders” such as recipients of public services, elected officials, and government contractors) must collaborate in a common effort to achieve policy goals. Managing public programs, individually and as they affect the course of public policies, involves major concerns discussed in previous chapters: expertise, ethics, effective management, executive and managerial leadership, organizational structure, motivation, decision making, personnel selection, and budgeting. All of these impact the roles of bureaucracy and the ultimate success or failure of government problem solving. And with growing sophistication in our capacity to analyze public programs has come a greater awareness of the need and potential for more intelligent, more “rational” conduct of public management processes. At the same time, increasing numbers of narrow-focused special-interest groups, commonly referred to as single-issue groups, mount well-funded campaigns on both sides of numerous issues. Therefore, policies are applied through a complicated and fragmented political process that is anything but rational, in classical/economic terms. In this chapter, we examine the nature of public policies; describe various policy-making processes, particularly as they involve individual administrators and private contractors; program management, planning, and analysis; implementation, including how some policy directions are altered in the course of managing individual programs; how programs are (or could be) evaluated; and the challenges of improving policy by applying analytical processes. The ultimate purpose is to understand how public policies evolve as they do, the role of administrative politics in this process, and the operational realities—including problems—of managing public programs to achieve policy goals.The Changing Nature of Public PoliciesWhat precisely is public policy? Many people regard public policies as deliberate responses or purposive actions to alleviate problems and needs systematically identified by some legitimate means. It is commonly assumed that government policies are intended to solve—or at least cope with—major social and economic problems. There is typically some disparity, however, between the perception of the average citizen about policy processes and the outcomes and realities of policy making.public policy(1) organizing framework of purposes and rationales for government programs that deal with specified societal problems; (2) complex of programs enacted and implemented by government. Let us consider some of the most common popular assumptions about government policy. First, some people believe that governments have clearly defined policies, well-thought-out in advance, on all or most major issues and problems. Second, many believe these policies are established through some kind of rational choice of better (as opposed to worse) alternatives made by political leaders. Third, some think everything that is done to address a problem or issue follows those policies. Fourth, it is often assumed that the policies of government are clearly perceived and understood by citizens. And fifth, many believe that government policies are widely agreed on and supported—otherwise, how could they remain in force? As appealing or logical as these ideas might be, not one of them is true. Public policies are generally not clearly defined in the sense that all major problems are anticipated and the machinery of government geared up to meet them before they become unmanageable. That would require the kind of centralized leadership inconsistent with the Constitution and resisted by many of us. Some processes designed to foresee future developments and prepare for them have not accomplished all that they were intended to, and “circumstances beyond our control” often prevail. With the exception of threats to national security and major natural disasters, it is unusual to have a consistent policy for dealing with a specific problem. As a practical matter, governments could not possibly have predetermined policies on all issues, especially accidents, natural disasters such as earthquakes, wild fires, tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes, as well as deliberate acts of terror. Thus, policies are more often the product of responses to particular circumstances or problems rather than the result of deliberate actions. They frequently result from ad hoc decisions made at many levels, at different times, by officials and others who see only some parts of the overall problem. Rational policy choice implies a decision-making capacity largely lacking in most of our noncentralized government institutions. The diffuse intergovernmental array of some 87,000 state and local governments, combined with differences of opinion among over 500,000 elected nationwide policy makers, further weakens the capacity for centrally coordinated actions. Because of this size and diversity, many government activities do not follow official policy directions or support publicly stated goals. Political party platforms, pronouncements by top executives, state and local initiatives and referenda, even Congressional resolutions are often a better reflection of intent than of reality in policy making. What actually takes place often differs from official proclamations of what was supposed to occur. Also, we tend to pay more attention to government activity that is likely to have a tangible impact on our lives, but otherwise it is unusual for large numbers of people to comprehend the intricacies of public policy. A good example is foreign policy. Different ethnic and nationality groups are sensitive to even small changes in what this nation does or contemplates doing regarding their mother countries or other entities with which those groups identify, but most citizens have only a generalized awareness of our overall foreign policy. Another issue that defies easy comprehension is climate change. Although we are generally aware of the ostensible (apparent) effects of climate change on the environment, we tend to view government policy options and actions through the “lenses” of our own experiences. Unless we are personally and immediately affected by climate change (or by any other broad policy concern), we are most likely to accept the status quo, and to question policy proposals that may require us to make significant changes in the ways we live our lives. The visibility of any particular problem or set of issues affects our awareness of proposed public policy. Many domestic policies are also understood only in broad outline. In short, it is not accurate to assume that most Americans are knowledgeable in detail about individual policies. Finally, it is rarely true that there is widespread, active support for existing public policies, although most have at least passive backing. Policy directions that offend basic values of large numbers of people are not likely to be sustained for very long without at least being challenged. Examples of sharp public reaction to disputed policies include resistance to the Supreme Court ban on prayers in the public schools, opposition to judicial rulings on abortion, challenges to hiring preferences and “quotas” for affirmative action, disagreement over the display of religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments in state facilities, opposition to and support for the use of vouchers for public school students to attend private schools, and expressions of public distaste for some forms of public health and safety regulation. In one sense, policies that exist without widespread challenge may be taken as a barometer of public feeling about what is acceptable, generally speaking. Few policies survive that offend either powerful political interests or large numbers of ordinary citizens, or both. In sum, although support for what government does is not necessarily enthusiastic, policies must have a certain amount of acceptability. However, the most acceptable policies may not be the most effective, and the most effective policies may not be acceptable to a majority or a vocal minority. Some compromise is often necessary to implement most public policies. It makes a difference which situations are defined as problems, who defines them, and why they deserve attention in the policy arena. Unequal access to affordable health care, for example, was part of the American scene for decades before President Barack Obama defined it as a high-priority problem in 2008. Although the problem was analyzed and various options were formulated by experts using a rational policy approach (see Chapter 5), opponents were successful in labeling the changes as “socialized medicine,” assuring its defeat in Congress prior to 2010. Nuclear reactor safety, climate change, crime control, job training, “welfare-to-workfare” reform, sex discrimination, and the AIDS epidemic are examples of issue areas that were defined as policy problems long before any action was taken. Also, policy initiatives can come from many parts of the body politic—the president, Congress, interest groups, the mass media, state or local governments, and so on. Perhaps the only policy maker prohibited in theory from initiating policy changes on its own is the judiciary. Chief executives are usually in the best position to take the initiative, but they have no monopoly on attempting to raise awareness of issues for public and governmental attention. Furthermore, most policy changes come about slowly; it is far easier to resist change than to bring it about. American government tends to move in evolutionary fashion; incrementalism has generally been the order of the day. Finally, many policy actions are more symbolic than real. Symbolism is not without value in politics, but it should be understood for what it is and not be confused with substantive change.1 State laws punishing desecration of the American flag, legalizing moments of silence to counter federal court decisions banning school prayer, permitting the display of state flags bearing Confederate symbols, and calls for a balanced federal budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution are largely symbolic, but no less important to constituent groups. Because most citizens are unfamiliar with the details of policy, symbolic actions are often sufficient to satisfy calls for change without threatening the status quo. The passing of public attention from an issue often signals a slowdown in dealing with it, even if many in government would prefer to move more rapidly. Organized group support and opposition make a major difference in how substantive—or simply cosmetic—policy changes are. Public policies, then, tend to be haphazard, not widely understood or actively supported, and often inconsistently applied. Not all situations in society that might be classified as problem areas are, in fact, defined as such. At other times, problems that affect only a small, but politically powerful, minority are defined as public issues deserving of broader attention. This happened in 2008, when the Bush administration tried to ease stock market jitters with an ambitious plan to assist banks, corporations, Wall Street firms, and other financial institutions with significant investments of federal loans and loan guarantees to rescue financially troubled companies. And sometimes an unspoken policy exists to take no action on a problem; the decision not to act can be just as significant as a stated government policy to those interests that benefit from the status quo. When changes in policy do occur, they tend to be rather slow and unfocused. That any coherent policies exist is often a surprise.Types of PoliciesThere is great variety in the kinds of policies pursued by government entities. These can be distinguished on the basis of their essential rationales, their impacts on society, and the respective roles played by administrative agencies in each. Major policy types include distributive, redistributive, regulatory, self-regulatory, and its logical corollary, privatization.2 Distributive policies deliver large-scale services or benefits to certain individuals or groups in the population. Examples are loans and loan guarantees provided by the national government to cover private-sector losses, such as those suffered by the commercial airlines following September 11, 2001, and the banking, financial services, and financial services industries in 2007–2008; agricultural price supports, especially those benefitting wealthy farmers; tax deductions for interest paid on home mortgages; loans for college students; subsidies to energy and oil companies (sometimes labeled “corporate welfare”); and government contracts to politically active private firms. These involve policy subsystems or iron triangles (described in Chapter 2) on almost an ad hoc basis, with direct beneficiaries who do not pay direct costs. Bureaucracies are often, but not always, involved in both the enactment of such policies and their implementation. President George W. Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, was heavily criticized for engineering the “bailout” of politically influential corporations in 2007–2008. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout was originally estimated to cost taxpayers $300 billion, but current Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner estimated that all but $25 billion of the loans would be paid back by the summer of 2011.distributive policiespolicy actions such as subsidies or tax deductions that deliver widespread benefits to individuals or groups who often do not bear the costs directly. Redistributive policies “involve deliberate efforts by the government to shift the allocation of wealth, income, property, or rights among broad classes or groups” within the population.3 These efforts are often the source of intense controversy in the political arena, controversy that could significantly impact the execution of a policy as well as its initial adoption. Thus, redistributive policies such as affirmative action, the graduated (or “progressive”) income tax, Medicaid for the poor and (to a lesser extent) Medicare for the elderly, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) were all subject to intense debate and conflict during legislative deliberations. This type of policy is most sensitive politically and thus most susceptible to political pressures. It is also very difficult to implement policies that are redistributive across economic classes in society. Many policies that began with this goal have lost much of their redistributive character as a result of changes (for example tax exemptions, lower tax rates, income shelters, and similar loopholes) made in the basic law—some of which were proposed by the agency responsible for its administration! Because of the controversy they generate, redistributive policies almost inevitably draw bureaucracies directly into the policy process, even though many would prefer to remain on the sidelines. In other instances, agencies with jurisdiction over redistributive policies have taken the lead in maintaining their essential character.

**This is the final assignment, and it is based on the four assignments leading up. You did 3 of the 4, so it should be somewhat easy. You'll basically be summarizing the work from the other assignments. The one assignment you didn't do was the week 2 assignment, so you'll have to do a little research for that one. This assignment only takes 1-2 bullet point from each assignment, so it'll only be 1-2 things you'll have to research. If you need me to post the specifics of the wk 2 assignment, I can. I had you redo the wk 1 assignment, because another tutor got me a 55 on it. It was the one you just did. That is what will start off the presentation. Please refer to the attached grading rubric, for guidance.**Create a 10-slide presentation for Caterpillar Inc. leadership in which you summarize your key findings, propose recommendations, and provide rationale for your recommendations. Respond to the following prompts: Summarize your evaluation of the alignment between what Caterpillar Inc. is currently doing and their mission, vision, or values statement. Would you propose any changes to Caterpillar Inc.'s mission, vision or values statements? Why or why not? (Refer to Wk 1, Bullet #4.)Summarize your assessment of whether Caterpillar Inc. is leveraging the appropriate value and cost drivers for their business strategy. Would you propose any changes? Why or why not? (Refer to Wk 2, Bullet #3.)Summarize your analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Caterpillar Inc’s competitive advantages. Based on your analysis would you propose any changes? Why or why not? (Refer to Wk 2, Bullet #4.)Summarize your assessment of whether Caterpillar Inc. is using the appropriate measures to verify its strategic effectiveness. Based on your analysis would you propose any changes? Why or why not? (Refer to Wk 3, Bullet #1.)Summarize your evaluation of Caterpillar Inc.’s competitive position and how they have responded to shifts in the external and internal environments. Would you propose any changes in how Caterpillar Inc. responds to shifts in the external and internal environments? Why or why not? (Refer to Wk 3, Bullet #5.)Summarize your evaluation of how mergers and acquisitions in the past 5 years have contributed to Caterpillar Inc.’s performance. Would you propose that Caterpillar Inc. pursue mergers and acquisitions in the future? Why or why not? (Wk 4, Bullet #2.)Summarize your assessment of Caterpillar Inc.’s global strategy. Based on your assessment would you propose any changes? Why or why not? (Refer to Wk. 4, Bullet #3.)Use the Grading Assignment Rubric as a guide to complete your paper.