Policy Making In the Public Interest Chapter 4 Sustainability Analysis for Single Alternative Issues

Sustainability Analysis Complexity poses policy makers with widely divergent, often conflicting information. Principles of sustainability, analyzing social, economic, environmental criteria, can identify what constitutes common interest. Excellent for analyzing single alternative policy proposals. Administrative/governance capacity used with sustainability analysis to determine resource availability & responsible lead organization.

Geneses for Sustainability Analysis Originally defined by UN Brundtland Commission. Defined as “development that meets the needs for the present without compromising the ability of future generations”. ICMA modified definition” measures taken to protect and enhance the environment, the economy, and equity for current residents and future generations”. Avoid political attack of association with UN by relating components of sustainability with community quality of life.

Operationalizing three Components Environmental-Maintaining our biophysical capacity Economic-Maintaining adequate standard of living for all citizens. Social –values held by citizens reflected in policy decisions made. Include equity, education, crime, mobility, recreational etc. By Daniel Fiorino in PAR Sustainability takes long and short term view of outcomes

Operationalizing three Components Policy analysis designed to find the overlapping sweet spot for three components or highest positive net outcome-thus the public interest Optimum Policy meets the “triple bottom line”. Triple bottom line seldom occurs. Analyst must judge how policy meets the public interest evaluating community specific criteria Public interest may still be me when there is not equal distribution of policy impact between all three components.

Triple Bottom Line Optimum policy where three components overlap

Administrative/Governance Capacity If sustainability analysis indicates policy meets public interest analysis must determine financial and administrative resources exist to carry out policy and what agency or network should manage policy. Critical question what other agencies have this issue as a mission? Does network exist? Should a network be formed? In contrast to numerical analysis used for sustainability, administrative/governance capacity is a go-no go analysis.

Setting Criteria for Analysis Criteria for social, environmental, economic must be specific to each community, and to each issue analyzed. Examples-Social Redress of past inequities or injustice Increasing equality of outcome in education, health care, employment Reduction in homelessness-reduction in poverty Increase in affordable housing

Setting Criteria for Analysis Environmental Reduction in urban sprawl Energy use reduction Reduction in greenhouse gas Increase in urban forest Increase in renewable energy Reduction in traffic

Setting Criteria for Analysis Economic Enhancement of property values Increase in economic opportunities for high school graduates Distribution of costs to socio-economic gourps in comparison with benefits received Increase in employment base with wages = or greater than living wage Increase in commercial shopping diversity

Analyzing Criteria Criteria stated in positive terms but can have a negative value assigned through analysis based on issue impact Each criteria should be weighted to reflect relative importance of each criterion to policy issue. Suggested scale is 10 point scale ranging from -5 to +5 One sustainability component can receive a zero or negative score and public interest can still be met. Public interest is identified through net positive score. Negative score should cause question "can policy be modified to all increase criterion values”?

Weight represents the importance of the criterion to meeting goal of sustainability   Scale must allow both negative and positive numbers based on impact of criterion on issue. Environmental Weight (1-5) Score-5-+5 Total Decreasing CO 2 emissions and automobile emissions. 5 3 15 Reduction in solid waste especially hazardous waste 9 Economic   Enhanced ability to recruit employers paying living wage 4 2 8 Increase economic opportunities for young people graduating from local high school -3 -15 Incompatibility between industrial zoned and office zoned properties -2 -6 Social Connection of bike trail system enhancing transportation mobility 12 Employer will contract with school board to provide office technical education for high school students. 10 Total Score 33

Analysis: Evaluation of the criteria should be explained in this section. Each policy issue analyzed will have a unique set of criteria that is applicable to that policy issue. With this issue note that there are evaluative criteria for each of the three sustainability components. For environmental there are two relevant criteria, for economic three criteria, and, for social there are two criteria.  The city has a strategic goal of providing jobs to those not going to college. An office related business would reduce the transition of low skilled students to industrial jobs but this would be partially offset by the technical training that will be conducted through the high As the total score for this policy issue is a positive 33 the policy result in a net positive outcome. Thus, the rezoning is in the public interest. A total positive score indicates that public interest is being achieved by the policy even though not all three components of sustainably have a net positive impact. A zero or close to zero score would indicate the public interest is not being addressed whereas a negative score means that the public interest is adversely impacted.

Administrative/Governing Capacity Performed after sustainability is analyzed and determination abut public interest is made Does organization have administrative capacity-revenue and personnel to carry out policy? Does policy have impact outside organization and possibly beyond city/county? What is proper service-jurisdictional scale for issue? Criteria not assigned evaluate numbers. Go or no-go. Numbers used only to support or explain narrative.

Administrative/Governing Capacity Financial Impact   Total Cost to Operationalize Policy One Year Personnel Cost Operational Cost Capital Cost Are funds appropriated in current year or proposed budget? If no, what revenue sources are available to generate required revenues? Explain increased revenues in quantifiable terms e.g. % tax increase or Total $ user fee. What areas of budget could be reduced to provide revenues? Governing Impact Is the impact of policy limited to city/county? If no, what is the region of impact? What other organizations/governments should be involved in addressing this policy issue? What organization/government should be the lead in this policy effort? Why?

Analysis:   Administrative /organizational capacity is analyzed using a subjective go/no go decision format. Numerical weightings are not used. In the analysis section the analyst should discuss how the information listed above determines whether the organization has the capacity, or is the correct agency to implement the policy.