California Housing Policy Analysis
I will attach my alternatives to these instructions as well!! Please read the additional materials!
Instructions:
Evaluation criteria
A clear description of the evaluation criteria/goals/categories for comparing/contrasting policy alternatives including, at a minimum, an assessment of:
1) Political feasibility: perspectives of key constituencies and stakeholders 2) Administrative feasibility: barriers to implementation
3) Ability to address/ameliorate the problem
4) Cost to implementation: examine the cost to implement each option
5) Ethics/equity: fairness in allocation of resources
8. Scale for ranking:
Scale (high, medium, low) for ranking/rating each alternative by the criteria (be sure to explain if your cost criterion is measured on a different scale).
Tip: Introduce your criteria by saying something like: In order to identify the best option for ameliorating/addressing the X problem, each alternative will be evaluated against the following # criteria: then list and briefly describe them. Be sure that they are tailored to your situation and not just generic definitions.
9. Policy analysis:
1) A descriptive text-based, evidence-informed analysis of the alternatives by the criteria, citing to scientific evidence/literature to thoroughly back up your analysis. This section must be informed by your research. This is the HEART of the analysis; it is where you evaluate each alternative according to the given criterion. It is this section that will be used to determine your final recommendation.
2) Include relative ranking for each alternative/criterion combination and explains WHY the ranking was assigned. For example, This alternative was ranked HIGH on political feasibility because there is bipartisan support in Congress for this option based on recent votes and hearings.(And then cite to sources to back up this statement).
3) For political feasibility, be sure to address a range of specific proponents and opponents for each alternative and explain WHY.
4) For alternatives based on models from elsewhere, be sure to provide data/evidence from those other jurisdictions to support the likely impact, cost, feasibility, etc. This is KEY.
