1. Policy Making In the Public Interest
Chapter 5
Comparative Analysis to Address Multiple Alternatives

2. Comparative Analysis
Designed to choose best alternative when several alternative approaches exist.
Not for issues with only one approach, doing something or not doing something, is under consideration. Use sustainability analysis for single alternatives.
Consider the scale of the problem. One city or county may not be the proper scale. It could be regional or multi-city

3. Defining Policy Issue
Is the issue interlocked with other issues? Is it being addressed by other organizations? How do they define the problem?
Should be a broad question or statement from which it is easy to conceptualize several alternative approaches.
Do not include biases towards an alternative in problem statement. Example: “to implement a housing program to reduce homeless population”. Housing is only one alternative out of several. Problem is reducing homelessness

4. Defining Policy Issue
Quantify policy issue e.g. reducing violent crime by 25%
Set a target time frame (date) for accomplishment.
Do not include biases towards an alternative in problem statement. Example: “to implement a housing program to reduce homeless population”. Housing is only one alternative out of several. Problem is reducing homlessness

5. Defining Policy Issue
Problem must be consider through appropriate scale. Appropriate scale could be multi-city, county wide, regional.
Work for consensus for problem definition. Not everyone will identify the policy issue alike. There will likely be competing interests and viewpoints. Example city sees parking as traffic flow problem. Downtown merchants see it as access to their business.
Insure all terms are fully understood.
Ideal is consensus policy issue be designed.

6. Identifying Alternatives
Several questions in designing alternatives.
What has been attempted previously?
What approach has been used?
Do alternatives reflect interests, values, needs of the community
Ideally alternatives should be mutually exclusive.
Should have 3-5 alternatives to analyze.
Current operational approach should be an alternative analyzed
Stakeholders must be involved in identification of alternatives

7. Identifying Criteria
Criteria allow analyst to discriminate objectively amont the alternatives
Criteria are standards important to issue that assist alayst to choose best alternative.
Typical Criteria
Effectiveness
Cost
Equity
Societal values
Liberty/Freedom
Environmental impact
Administrative-technical feasibility
Political-Stakeholder acceptability
Each policy issue will have unique community based criteria applicable to the issue

8. Weighting Criteria
Not all criteria is of same importance to policy issue.
Weighting is subjective but involving stakeholders iscritical for acceptance of ranking.
Use whole numbers in ranking typically 1-10 with 10 being the most important.
Each policy issue will have unique community based criteria applicable to the issue

9. Schematic with weighting for criteria
Weighting Criteria
Schematic with weighting for criteria
Criteria
Weight
Equity 10
Political acceptability 8
Stakeholder acceptability 6
Efficiency 5
cost

10. Analyzing Criteria with Alternatives
Use comparative matrix to analyze alternatives with criteria.
Final evaluation of alternatives is through numerical score.
Comparative analysis takes time and involves many people-stakeholders, citizens, staff. In return for time local government acquires citizen investment and increased community acceptance of policy outcome.
This leads to citizens viewing themselves as partners with government and not just “customers”

11. Number beside each criterion reflects weight of criterion
Number beside each criterion reflects weight of criterion
Using 1-5 how each criterion satisfies objectives of policy
Number in ( ) is score for each criterion times weighting
Criteria A
Alternatives B C D
Cost to Citizen (10)
1 (10)
5 (50)
4 (40)
Community
Acceptability
(8)
3 (24)
2 (16)
4 (32)
Equity (5)
1 (5)
3 (15)
4 (20)
Neighborhood
Appearance (7)
5 (35)
1 (7)
4 (28)
2 (14)
Administrative feasibility (3)
4 (12)
1(3)
3(9)
2 (6)
Total 86 91
129
104