Policy alternatives for addressing water pollution in San Francisco homeless communities

Abstract on Homeless People Water Pollution in San Francisco Public policies are governmental actions implemented to help address issues facing the public. San Francisco is currently facing water pollution brought by homeless population, which has increased in the city in the recent past. Rational-comprehensive approach for policy analysis is utilized to examine this public problem and help in constructing policy alternatives to address it. As part of the policy analysis process, homeless population, taxpaying public, city officials and the Environmental Protection Agency are identified as stakeholders involved in this public problem. Social context and governance context are discussed as the contexts for public policy formulation to address the water pollution issue in San Francisco. The reason for government involvement is moral/ethical reason while government management is the appropriate instrument and regulatory policy the appropriate policy typology. Using Political Systems Theory, the three policy alternatives to address this problem are: environmental policy, increased funding for expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities, and establishment of water and sanitation programs for homeless people. Following an assessment of these alternatives using MAUT analysis, an environmental policy is the preferred policy solution/action to address the issue of water pollution by homeless people in San Francisco.
Keywords: policy, policy analysis, public policy, public problem, policy alternatives, homeless people, water pollution, approach.


Table of Contents
Cover Page
Abstract
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Problem Statement 2
Background Information 3
Stakeholders 4
Problem Identification 4
Government Involvement 7
Appropriate Instrument 8
Policy Typology 8
Theoretical Model 9
Potential Potential Alternatives 11
Alternative 1 – Environmental Policy 12
Alternative 2 – Expansion of Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities 13
Alternative 3 – Water and Sanitation Programs for Homeless People 14
Evaluative Criteria 15
Evaluative Criteria Introduced 15
Evaluative Criteria 1 – Effectiveness 15
Evaluative Criteria 2 – Efficiency 16
Evaluative Criteria 3 – Social Acceptability 16
Assessment of Alternatives 17
Assessment Overview 17
Assessment of Alternative One 17
Assessment of Alternative Two 18
Assessment of Alternative Three 19
Recommended Policy 20
Implementation 21
Evaluation and Monitoring 22
Other Methods of Policy Analysis 24
Conclusion 26
References 28
Tables, Figures and Graphs 31







Introduction
Policy analysis is a term used to refer to different activities such as assessment of components of the policymaking process and evaluation of policy alternatives (Kraft & Furlong, 2012). During this process, information is collected and analyzed to clarify causes and impact of public problems in relation to policy alternatives. The analysis process focuses on determining the effect of using one or more policy alternatives to address the identified public problem (Kraft & Furlong, 2012). Given the multidisciplinary nature of policy alternatives, policy analysis incorporates ideas and techniques from different fields of study including economics, philosophy, sociology, and political science (Kraft & Furlong, 2012). To ensure effectiveness, policy analysis is carried out using different approaches that incorporate a series of steps. The use of such approaches is critical for public officials tasked with developing and implementing various kinds of policies that are geared toward protecting citizens and enhancing the efficiency of government agencies.
One of the approaches used in policy analysis is the rational-comprehensive approach. The rational-comprehensive approach or decision making model incorporates a series of analytical stages or steps. The first step in this process is defining and analyzing the problem. This stage focuses on identification of the public problem, where it exists, who and what it affects, and its major consequences. In addition, the first step in this process also clarifies the impact of policy action on the causes of the public problem. It is followed by the development of policy alternatives that could help address the problem. By this stage, policy action is deemed as a suitable measure for addressing the public problem and its causes. As a result, various policy alternatives to address the problem are constructed (Bardach & Patashnik, 2019).
The nest stage in the rational-comprehensive approach for policy analysis is the creation of evaluative criteria. The criteria is created in relation to the problem and the policy alternatives identified in the previous stage. The evaluative criteria is also developed to help determine whether policy alternatives would be acceptable to the public as well as the effectiveness, equity, and social and political feasibility of the policy alternatives (Kraft & Furlong, 2018).
Once the evaluative criteria is determined, the next stage in this approach to policy analysis is actual evaluation of the policy alternatives. At this point, the evaluate criteria is at hand as well as a list of possible policy actions to take. The actual evaluation of the policy alternatives is geared toward identifying the policy action that could generate the desired outcome. This phase of rational-comprehensive approach is also viewed as forecasting policy outcomes or evaluating impacts (Anderson, 2011). As part of the evaluation process, policy alternatives are presented based on their effectiveness, equity, and economic efficiency (Bardach & Patashnik, 2019).
The final stage in the rational-comprehensive approach to policy analysis is drawing conclusions on the most desirable policy action. In this regard, the most suitable policy action in relation to the given circumstances and the evaluative criteria is identified. The conclusions also incorporate factors to be considered when selecting the policy action or alternatives. In most cases, policy analysts do not present a single policy alternative, but a summary of findings regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the identified policy proposals (Kraft & Furlong, 2012). This is largely because the choice of the most suitable policy action to address the problem is left to policymakers and the public.
Problem Statement
San Francisco experiences a water pollution problem brought by the homeless population who throw needles and waste into the sewer system. The city has already received an environmental notice of violation from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Background Information
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice of violation to San Francisco, California for breaching the Clean Water Act through permitting used needles to be thrown into the ocean (Eilperin, Dennis & Dawsey, 2019). The citation came at a time when California’s most valued beaches, rivers and streams are contaminated with levels of fecal bacteria (Almendrala, 2020). These levels of fecal bacteria exceed the established limits for environmental protection. In the letter by EPA, San Francisco water pollution problem is linked to the homeless population who have been allowed to throw needles and sewer waste into the ocean. As homeless people continue to throw waste into the ocean, the city has seemingly failed to appropriately operate and maintain its sewage collection and treatment facilities (Ho, 2019).
While the city’s officials contend that such waste are not flowing into the ocean en masse, the existing treatment facilities are ineffective to deal with these pollutants (Ho, 2019). The city’s homeless population are putting tremendous pollution into the ocean because of the storm sewer. Therefore, San Francisco is grappling with growing fecal contamination of the waterways by the homeless population. As one of the cities with the highest homeless population, fecal contamination of the waterways generates environmental protection and public health issues.
Additionally, fecal contamination of San Francisco’s waterways worsens during rainy seasons. During such seasons, streets are swept into storm drains and affect the water system. Most of the street waste swept into storm drains during these seasons come from the huge population of homeless people in San Francisco (Kraft & Furlong, 2018). This generates additional demands and strain on San Francisco’s waterways. As a result, the city needs changes in its waste management system and treatment facilities to address the problem of needles and sewer waste thrown into the ocean by homeless people.
Stakeholders
This public problem involves several stakeholders as it affects different people in San Francisco. One of the stakeholders in this public problem is homeless population who are regarded as the source of waste thrown into the ocean or waterways. Homeless population is an important stakeholder in this issue because of their consideration as the cause of the problem. The second important stakeholders is the taxpaying public who are affected by water pollution. Taxpaying public expect policymakers in San Francisco to make decisions and implement policies that protect them and address their wellbeing. Water pollution problem affects the taxpaying public in San Francisco by increasing their risk to public health issues and environmental health issues.
City officials are the third stakeholders in this problem since they play a critical role in policy implementation. Currently, city officials deny the accusation that they have allowed homeless people to throw needles and sewer waste into the ocean causing water pollution (Ho, 2019). Their involvement in this issue would help identify a suitable approach to address the problem. The other stakeholders are the Environmental Protection Agency tasked with environmental protection across all states and cities in the United States.
Problem Identification
The problem is water pollution that is caused by the homeless population in San Francisco, California. Governmental intervention through establishing a public policy would help address the issue of pollution brought by homeless people in San Francisco, CA (Almendrala, 2020). As shown in the background section, San Francisco has one of the highest number of homeless people in California. The size of this population continues to generate concerns as they place new demands for better housing or shelters. As the city grapples with an increase in this population, additional issues relating to their welfare and health also emerge. One of these issues is waste management as many homeless people in the city live in the streets. The problem of waste management among homeless people raises significant concerns for city officials because of its potential impact on public health and environmental protection.
Kraft & Furlong (2012) state that public policies are shaped by different contexts, which become the premise for governmental intervention. These contexts exist because public policies are not made in a vacuum as they have social, political and economic impacts. The public problem facing San Francisco water management system can be understood through examining it from relevant contexts of public policy. The incorporation of relevant contexts help in comprehensive analysis of the problem, its impacts, and formulating suitable policy alternatives to address it.
One of the relevant contexts of public policy for the city’s water pollution problem brought by homeless people is social context. Kraft & Furlong (2012) contend that social conditions are dynamic and affect policy decisions in various ways. The dynamic nature of the social context of public policy is attributable to the impact of social conditions on the lives of people. Social conditions have direct and indirect impacts on the lives of people and generate the need for policy actions to address emerging issues. In relation to the water pollution problem in San Francisco, the increasing homeless population is a major social issue fueling this public problem. Over the past few years, the city has witnessed a significant increase in the number of homeless people (Almendrala, 2020). Waste management for this population, especially during rainy seasons, is a major problem in addition to addressing their other needs and demands.
As the size of the homeless population in San Francisco increases, environmental issues also increase. Similar to other cities in California, the living conditions of homeless people has partly contributed to fecal contamination of waterways (Eilperin, Dennis & Dawsey, 2019). Homeless people in the city seemingly lack appropriate waste disposal and management mechanisms. As a result, they end up throwing waste into the ocean including fecal waste. This in turn generates environmental pollution and pose significant public health issues, especially if the public drinks contaminated water. Therefore, a key aspect of the social context of this problem is the living conditions and waste disposal mechanisms of homeless people in the city. Poor living conditions and the absence of a suitable mechanism for waste disposal and management by homeless people continues to be a major threat to water systems in San Francisco (Almendrala, 2020).
The second relevant context of public policy to this issue in San Francisco is the governing context. Generally, the structure of governance in the United States is complex and has significant impacts on public policymaking processes. During public policymaking process, complexities in the governance structure can result in conflicts among relevant institutions and policy actors. In the case of water pollution problem brought by homeless people in San Francisco, complexities in policymaking is evident in the conflict between the Environmental Protection Agency and city officials. City officials have denied accusations of allowing homeless people to dump used needles and sewer waste into the ocean (Ho, 2019). They have contended that water pollution problem in the city is incorrectly linked to homeless people. According to these officials, water pollution issues occur during the rainy seasons as streets are swept into storm drains, which implies that water pollution is not brought by homeless population. On the contrary, the Trump Administration through the Environmental Protection Agency has already issued a notice to the city for violation of Clean Water Act (Shear, Fuller & Baker, 2019). This situation has resulted in a conflict that could complicate efforts to identify and implement a suitable policy action to address the problem.
Government Involvement
Public policies are enacted to help address some of the major issues facing populations in a specific community. However, the creation of a public policy requires information regarding the specific problem and an assessment of whether government intervention will improve the situation (Bardach & Patashnik, 2020). Government involvement in addressing public problems through policy actions is fueled by various factors. Kraft & Furlong (2012) state that there are three reasons for government involvement in resolving public problems i.e. political reasons, moral or ethical reasons, and economic and market failures.
In the case of water pollution brought by the homeless population in San Francisco, the reason for government involvement is moral or ethical reasons. Government action in this situation is considered the right thing to do regardless of public pressure. While the issue has not generated any public pressure so far, government involvement is the right thing to help resolve the problem. According to Kraft & Furlong (2012), governments engage in some circumstances and problems for moral or ethical reasons. The government’s involvement in this situation is to help protect the public from environmental harm that could be caused by water pollution.
Moral or ethical reason is the suitable justification for governmental intervention in this public issue because of the nature of the problem. Since city officials do not necessarily consider this as a major problem, it could end up harming people because of the dangers posed by consumption of contaminated water. Therefore, governmental involvement in the situation is morally right to help safeguard the wellbeing of people in San Francisco. Additionally, governmental involvement is morally justifiable because of the need to safeguard the public from potential exposure to contaminated water. In this regard, the government acts in the interest of the common good of the public.
Appropriate Instrument
According to Kraft & Furlong (2012), there are various instruments of public policy that help determine the government’s role in addressing public problems. These instruments of public policy are applicable to policy initiatives depending on the nature of the public problem and its impact. As a public problem in San Francisco, the issue of water pollution by homeless people warrants government involvement through an appropriate instrument of public policy. The most suitable instrument of public policy to this issue is government management. Government management is an instrument of public policy that relates to direct services or management of resources.
Government management is a suitable instrument of public policy for this issue because the problem primarily entails delivery of services to the public. In this case, government management would help promote effective management of water resources in the City of San Francisco. Through policy action to help lessen water pollution, the government would ensure that the relevant city stakeholders provide clean and safe water for drinking and use by residents. The provision of clean and safe water is a direct service provided by the City of San Francisco, which warrants effective government management. In light of the existing disagreement between city officials and the government, government management is essential to address this public problem or issue.
Policy Typology
Kraft & Furlong (2012) postulate that there are different policy typologies, which refers to policy options in terms of tools at the disposal of policymakers. Policy typologies are selected and applied in policy initiatives depending on political conditions and differences among policies. The issue of water pollution brought by homeless people in San Francisco would be considered a regulatory policy. Kraft & Furlong (2012) define regulatory policy typology as government restrictions on individual choice to help prevent certain conduct from going beyond acceptable grounds. Since San Francisco’s waterways are characterized by high levels of fecal contamination, policy action is required to help limit the level of contamination from exceeding established limits by the Environmental Protection Agency. This would help provide environmental protection and safeguard the health of the City’s residents. Without protection, the issue of water pollution through fecal contamination could spread and result in numerous public health and environmental protection issues.
At the heart of the water pollution is the fact that city officials have seemingly allowed homeless people to throw used needles and sewer waste into the ocean. This has generated public risks as the waterways are filled with fecal contamination, which could harm people. Therefore, the actions by city officials to permit disposal of such waste into the waterways should be addressed. Regulatory policy provides a suitable approach to address the issue since it would help control the behavior and actions of officials in the City of San Francisco. Rahimi & Noruzi (2011) contend that regulatory policies are established to constrain the discretion of individuals and agencies or compel particular type of behavior. When enacted in the City of San Francisco, regulatory policy would limit the discretion of its officials in terms of permitting waste to be thrown into the ocean resulting in contaminated waterways.
Theoretical Model
Political and social scientists have created different models, approaches and theories for examining policymaking (Anyebe, 2018). These theories, models and approaches are required to guide the study of public policy as well as understand the mechanism with which policy solutions would be considered when constructing public policy. There are different kinds of theories that are applicable when constructing public policies to mitigate and solve a public problem. The applicability of these theories, models and approaches is dependent on the specific public problem to be addressed, its impact, and the desired outcomes (Anyebe, 2018).
For the issue of water pollution by homeless people in San Francisco, California, the most suitable theoretical model for constructing policy alternatives/actions is the Political Systems Theory. Based on this theory, public policy is considered as a political system’s response to environmental demands (Kraft & Furlong, 2012; Anyebe, 2018). As a result, Political Systems Theory emphasizes social, economic, and cultural context. In this regard, the political system responding to demands arising from the environment comprises identifiable and interrelated institutions that make binding authoritative allocations of values on the society (Anyebe, 2018). On the other hand, the environment generating demands on the political system include the social system, biological setting or the economic system. These systems are external to the limits of the political system and generate demands that influence/shape public policy initiatives and actions. Political Systems Theory implies that mutual causation exists between environmental variables and public policy making it applicable to addressing this problem.
While members of the public have not explicitly stated such demands, the political system (government) considers the construction of policy as the appropriate thing to do to address this perceived demand. Therefore, the government acts as the political system responding to the demand/need to protect the city’s waterways from pollution and avoid dangers posed by the fecal contamination of water.
Under the Political Systems Theory, policy solutions are instituted in the form of societal values and allocation of resources (Anyebe, 2018). In this regard, the values of the society are taken into consideration when examining a public problem. This implies that societal values are the lenses through which a public problem is examined to determine its prevalence and impact. Once the problem is examined through the lenses of societal values, public policy making initiatives are considered from the premise of resource allocation. The political system considers the need for policy actions and the potential impact of policies in addressing the identified problem. The resources required to implement the policy action and their availability are taken into consideration when instituting public policy. Therefore, this theory plays an important role in turning inquiry into policy formulation as important facets of the political system gain insights regarding the environment and its demands. The political system then converts environmental demands into public policy through which it addresses public problems.
Potential Policy Alternatives
Almendrala (2020) contends that fecal contamination of waterways is a widespread problem in San Francisco and other states a huge number of homeless people. The presence of fecal bacteria in the city’s water is an indicator of problems with septic tanks and sewer systems (Ho, 2019). As the city’s homeless population continues to grow, there is need to develop policy actions to address water pollution. Policy actions are required since much of the fecal bacteria in water could be associated with homeless encampments (Alexander & Fracassa, 2019). Policy alternatives should focus on addressing the environmental impact of homeless population with respect to management of water resources in the City. One of the policy alternatives is an environmental policy to help prevent/lessen the amount of waste flowing into the ocean from homeless encampments. The other policy alternatives are increased funding for expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities, and establishing water and sanitation programs for homeless people as shown in Table 1, which provides description of the three policy alternatives.
Alternative One: Environmental Policy
The first policy alternative to address the issue of water pollution by homeless people in San Francisco is the implementation of an environmental policy to prevent waste from flowing into the ocean. An environmental policy would be suitable for the issue because preventing or lessening the amount of waste flowing into the ocean would help enhance environmental protection through reduction of water pollution (Boucher, 2013). In the new environmental policy, San Francisco should continue filtering waste through its sewage system. However, during periods of storms, storm water should be permitted to flow into rivers to avoid the leakage that occurs when such water is captured in combined systems and mixed with household sewage and other human waste. City officials would then enforce regulations requiring separation of household sewage and human waste from the city’s water treatment systems and facilities.
Environmental policies basically shape actions undertaken by various players towards ensuring environmental protection and wellbeing. In essence, such policies act as the foundation of initiatives undertaken by the government and other stakeholders including the public. For the City of San Francisco, enacting an environmental policy would act as the first step toward addressing the water pollution problem brought by homeless population. This policy would require relevant officials and stakeholders to filter waste using a different system other than the combined systems that mixes household waste and human waste. The separation of the treatment facilities or systems would help ensure that human waste is filtered and avoid contamination of water. Therefore, human waste from the homeless population would be filtered and prevented from contaminating the city’s water system, which will in turn address the problem of water pollution. The policy would be part of attempts by city officials to enhance maintenance of its sewer system in order to avoid water pollution (Alexander & Fracassa, 2019).
Alternative Two: Expansion of Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities
The second probable policy action that could address this problem is increasing funding toward expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities. This would require identifying the capacity of existing facilities vis-à-vis demands, especially during rainy seasons. Policy initiatives should then be developed to help address the gap between the capacity of the current facilities and demands. The policy should increase allocation of financial resources relating environmental protection to the development of new sewage collection and treatment facilities. Expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities would be suitable because existing facilities have been unable to handle waste flowing into the ocean en masse during rainy seasons. Expansion of these facilities would in turn result in increased capacity to handle waste, which will effectively reduce fecal contamination of waterways by homeless people in the City.
According to Alexander & Fracassa (2019), the problem of water pollution by homeless people in the City of San Francisco is partly attributable to its maintenance of the sewer system. The status of the current system allows sewage to go back into homes and small businesses as noted by the Environmental Protection Agency. Pollution that was released in the city’s waterways exceeded permitted levels resulting in the problem. This is an indicator that current sewage collection and treatment facilities are unable to effectively handle or treat human waste. Therefore, expansion of the city’s sewage collection and treatment facilities would provide a suitable premise for addressing the problem of water pollution. Lack of adequate sewage collection and treatment facilities contribute to discharge of over one billion gallons of sewage and stormwater (Shear, Fuller & Baker, 2019). Expansion of these facilities would essentially improve the capacity of City of San Francisco to handle water pollution by homeless people.
Alternative Three: Water and Sanitation Programs for Homeless People
Third, water pollution by homeless people can be addressed through implementing policies to promote the establishment of water and sanitation programs for these people. Pitzer (2019) states that California should implement policies that require local communities to establish minimum standards for water and sanitation for homeless people. Policies should promote the identification of ways to enhance water and sanitation for homeless people such as providing bathrooms. Additional measures that could be implemented in the policy as part of water and sanitation programs for the homeless is provision of free RV dump stations and sanitation services for encampments (Almendrala, 2020). Once such a policy is enacted into law, local municipalities and communities in San Francisco and other cities in the state should be required to adopt such projects or face fines. This would help ensure the enforcement of the regulation and reduce water pollution by homeless populations in the City of San Francisco.
Establishment of water and sanitation programs has proven effective in other areas with respect to dealing with the water pollution issues. For example, regulators in Bay Area have collaborated with others to conduct pilot projects in which homeless people provide free RV dump stations and sanitations services (Almendrala, 2020). The implementation of this alternative would help enhance the City’s capacity and ability to deal with water pollution. Water and sanitation programs should be adopted as part of plans to address some of the challenges facing the homeless population. In addition, the alternative would help deal with the problem through addressing its root cause. This implies that providing water and sanitation services for the homeless would essentially give them a place for dumping human waste and others like needles. Therefore, establishment of such programs would prove critical in efforts by the city officials to prevent water pollution.
Evaluative Criteria
Kraft & Furlong (2018) provide eight criteria for assessment of public policy proposals. Public policy analysts and policymakers utilize the criteria to examine public policy proposals. The proposed alternatives for dealing with water pollution brought by homeless people in the City of San Francisco will be analyzed using the criteria. These policy proposals will be analyzed using three criteria i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, and social acceptability. The three criteria provide different aspects for examining public policy proposals to determine their suitability in addressing public issues or delivery of public services as desired. When the criteria is utilized, the most suitable policy alternative to address the problem of water pollution by homeless people in San Francisco will be identified. The three criteria are adopted on the premise that they provide a suitable foundation for appropriate consideration and analysis of all the three proposed public policies. The different dimensions of analyses provided by the three criteria would essentially help identify an appropriate policy solution.
Criteria One: Effectiveness
Effectiveness is a criterion for public policy analysis, which refers to the probability of achieving policy goals/objectives or demonstrated realization of the goal/objectives. Generally, public policy proposals have different goals and objectives that act as the basis for their implementation. Goals/objectives act indicators or measures for evaluating the effectiveness of a public policy or program (Kraft & Furlong, 2018). When examining a public policy the probability to achieve these indicators/measures if adopted is the premise for selecting the policy.
Looking at the three policy alternatives to address water pollution by homeless people in the City of San Francisco, this analysis will attempt to determine whether the proposals would deal with water pollution in the city. The analysis will attempt to evaluate whether the adoption of the alternatives would improve the City’s capacity to manage waste while avoiding contamination of the waterways.
Criteria Two: Efficiency
The second criteria for analysis of public policy is efficiency, which involves examining the probability of achieving policy goals/objectives or providing benefits in relation to the costs (Kraft & Furlong, 2018). In essence, this criterion helps to establish justification for policy action based on economic concepts. Therefore, when employed in public policy analysis, efficiency focuses on the overall costs and benefits relating to the proposed policy or programs.
This criterion is an appropriate evaluative tool for the three public policy proposals since it will help determine the most cost-effective alternative. Each of the policy proposals will be evaluated in relation to their probability to offer the greatest benefits at the lowest cost possible. In essence, each proposal will be evaluated depending on the costs of implementation vis-à-vis the probable benefits.
Criteria Three: Social Acceptability
Kraft & Furlong (2018) define social acceptability as the extent with which the larger public will accept and support a policy proposal. In essence, public perception plays a critical role in determining a suitable public policy. While determining whether public views of a policy as suitable and responsible is difficult, social acceptability is still critical. Social acceptability is important because the implementation of a policy solution have direct or indirect impacts on the general public.
Looking at the three alternatives and using social acceptability, the public policy analysis will seek to establish whether the proposals would be acceptable to the public. In this regard, the acceptability of the proposals to the homeless population and the general public will be considered to determine an appropriate policy solution.
Assessment of Alternatives: An Overview
Assessment of the public policy proposals to deal with the problem of water pollution by homeless people in the City of San Francisco will involve the use of effectiveness, efficiency and social acceptability. In essence, assessment of each alternative policy will be carried out against the three evaluative criteria. The evaluative criteria were selected because they are the most relevant in determine the most desirable policy alternative. Under effectiveness, the assessment will focus on determining the extent with which the proposals will achieve the desired policy goals and objectives. Under efficiency, the focus on the assessment will be to determine the proposal whose benefits outweigh the costs. Under social acceptability, the assessment will focus on determining the proposal that would attract the largest public support. The next step of the assessment would involve assigning a percentage for each alternative in comparison to the evaluative criteria. During this process, the research will be utilizing a multi-attribute utility analysis (MAUT) to calculate the most feasible public policy proposal.
Alternative One: Environmental Policy Evaluation
If the City of San Francisco was to adopt a new environmental policy, city officials would have a framework for developing programs that help enhance the management of waterways and waste disposal across the city. It has been calculated that establishment of an environmental policy would probably bring about 1.78 efficiency rate. Such an efficiency rate is critical in addressing the problem because the city has already received a citation from the Environmental Protection Agency. In the current policy framework, city officials would have a relatively complex process in establishing measures or programs that address the issue of water pollution. Without a suitable regulatory or policy framework, changes in the management of waterways and waste in San Francisco would be challenging (EPA, 2019). Therefore, establishing environmental policy provides a suitable foundation for addressing the problem.
When looking at effectiveness, an environmental policy scores 80% (.80) as it would give city officials the ability to create programs that seek to address water pollution issues especially during periods of storms. The creation of such programs would help in achieving the city’s goals in preventing water pollution by lessening the amount of waste flowing into the ocean (EPA, 2019). City officials will have the discretion to establish suitable programs on handling waste captured during storms not to flow into drains. With regards to efficiency, the establishment of an environmental policy provides numerous benefits in comparison to the costs scoring 90% (.90). In essence, it is a cost-effective way for addressing the problem because city officials will create programs or undertake initiatives depending on the prevailing situations. Therefore, the costs of implementing the various initiatives/programs will be dependent on the situation. When looking a social acceptability, an environmental policy to deal with management of waste is likely to obtain widespread public support and scores 70% (.70). The public support would emerge from the empowerment the policy gives to city officials to deal with the problem.
Alternative Two: Expansion of Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities Evaluation
If the City of San Francisco would adopt the expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities, more funding for management of waterways and waste would be required. Increased allocation of financial resources would be required to support the expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities. However, this alternative would provide a premise for the city to enhance its management of existing waste disposal framework and waterways (Alexander & Fracassa, 2019). It has been calculated that expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities would probably bring approximately 1.04 efficiency rate. This efficiency rate would be too low with regards to preventing water pollution brought by homeless populations in the City of San Francisco. With a lower efficiency rate, this alternative may fail to address the problem in an effective manner.
With regards to effectiveness, the expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities would achieve policy goals of lessening water pollution through improving waste and waterways management. However, the alternative scores 60% (.60) in terms of effectiveness since it primarily focuses on expansion of the facilities without addressing how leakages that cause pollution are addressed. In terms of efficiency, the alternative scores 40% (.40) as it is associated with more costs than benefits. The expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities would require increased funding for environmental protection and water management (WaterWorld, 2017). Additionally, it requires an near overhaul of the existing systems and facilities, which is a relatively costly and time-consuming process. In this regard, the costs of implementing this policy proposal are high while the benefits are relatively minimal. On social acceptability, the expansion of existing sewage collection and treatment facilities is likely to receive minimal public support. The policy proposal scores 40% (.40) on social acceptability because of the need for increased funding, which could probably result in more taxation for the public.
Alternative Three: Water and Sanitation Programs for Homeless People Evaluation
One of the major roles of management of waterways and waste disposal is to ensure environmental protection. Environmental protection also entails preventing the public from exposure to contaminated water, which could pose significant public health and environmental problems. If the City of San Francisco adopts water and sanitation programs for homeless people, it would essentially address the root cause of the problem scoring 0.96 efficiency rate. In addition to lacking appropriate housing, homeless people also lack water and sanitation programs. Therefore, establishing these programs/initiatives provides a suitable framework for the population to enhance sanitation (Pitzer, 2019). The provision of these programs would also help homeless people to stop dumping human waste and others into the ocean, which eventually result in water pollution (Almendrala, 2020).
Looking at effectiveness, this policy proposal would improve management of waterways by preventing dumping of human waste and others into the city’s waterways (Almendrala, 2020). This proposal scores 70% (.70) on effectiveness with respect to the achievement of the desired goals and objectives in safeguarding the city’s waterways. With regards to efficiency, the requisite cost implications associated with establishing water and sanitation programs for homeless people is relatively unknown. In essence, it is difficult to ascertain the specific cost implications for establishment of such programs because of its multifaceted nature. City officials would need to consider different aspects of the programs ranging from dump stations to other sanitation services. These different aspects of the programs are likely to increase the costs of the policy alternative making it untenable. In light of these factors, this policy proposal/alternative scores 35% (.35) on efficiency. With respect to social acceptability, the policy proposal is likely to attract significantly minimal public support and score 20% (.20) on this evaluative criteria. Homeless people and the general public are likely to favor addressing the issue of homelessness rather than water and sanitation programs.
Recommended Policy
Therefore, the results of the assessment of the three policy alternatives denote Alternative #1, creating an environmental policy, is the preferred policy because it ranked the highest in the three evaluative criteria. This alternative is the highest ranked in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and social acceptability. By implementing this policy alternative, the City of San Francisco is likely to fully address the problem of water pollution by homeless people. The suitability of this alternative is linked to its multifaceted nature and its promotion of a diversified approach toward addressing water pollution in the city. City officials have the discretion and prerogative to determine a suitable course of action for safeguarding the city’s waterways from pollution and contamination. Therefore, it yields short-term and long-term results in terms of prevention of water pollution and contamination. By yielding these results, this policy proposal ensures that residents of the City of San Francisco are protected from water pollution at all times regardless of the potential sources of contamination including homeless people.
After conducting MAUT calculations as shown in Table 2, Alternative #1 scored 90% (.90) followed by Alternative #2 at 40% (.40) and Alternative #3 at 35% (.35). The ranking of each of these policy proposals is attributable to their scores in the three evaluative criteria. Alternative #1, an environmental policy, is suitable over the other policy proposals in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, and social acceptability. While each of these policy proposals have high scores in effectiveness, they differ in terms of efficiency and social acceptability. An environmental policy is associated with numerous benefits at lower costs in comparison to the expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities and water and sanitation programs for the homeless people. Additionally, an environmental policy is likely to obtain extensive public support unlike the other two alternatives, which demonstrates its suitability in addressing the problem (Boucher, 2013).
Implementation
The implementation of the preferred policy would involve adopting a regulatory approach. In this case, regulation provides a suitable means for addressing the public problem as it is one of the things governments do to stimulate ideas on public policy (Bardach & Patashnik, 2019). Using regulation as a measure of implementation, the first step in actualizing the preferred policy is for the city’s policymakers to draft a bill on the issue of water pollution. The draft bill should incorporate new standards on the management of the city’s waterways and waste disposal, especially by homeless people. Some of the provisions to include in the draft bill include allowing city officials to filter waste through the sewage system and permitting storm water to flow into rivers during periods of storms or other extreme weather events.
One the bill has been drafted and incorporate the different provisions to help safeguard against water pollution, it should proceed to the other stages of policymaking in San Francisco. The process would include public participation to help ensure that various views relating to the policy are incorporated. Given the multifaceted nature of the stages of policymaking, the process may take a period of between 12 to 18 months to complete. The protracted period of time is attributable to the different complex activities that need to be carried out in a detailed and comprehensive manner. However, the time period is adequate for progression of the policy proposal from a draft bill to its enactment into law. As shown in Table 3, each of the stages in the policymaking process will take a minimum of 2-months period for completion. Once the draft bill is enacted into law, city officials would embark in a process of establishing relevant systems and initiatives for its implementation. This would involve identifying the relevant required material, human and financial resources for effective implementation. Resources are then allocated to support the programs and ensure that the new standards for waterways’ management are implemented.
Evaluation and Monitoring
The success of the preferred policy in achieving desired goals and objectives will be determined through evaluation and monitoring. According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2011), evaluation and monitoring is an activity carried out to determine a policy’s merit, utility and worth. For this preferred policy, evaluation and monitoring will focus on examining its impact in dealing with water pollution problems in the city. In this case, the evaluation/monitoring will answer several questions including: Did the policy action achieve desired outcomes, goals and objectives? What are its short-term, medium-term and long-term outcomes? The recommended measures for policy evaluation and monitoring will be harkened back to the evaluative criteria utilized earlier.
One of the recommended measures for evaluating and monitoring the success of this policy proposal is conducting a cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis will should be carried out within the first 6 months of the policy’s implementation. It would help indicate the success of the proposed policy through determining whether its costs outweigh the benefits. Cost-benefit analysis would help determine whether the proposed policy is efficient. The analysis will focus on examining cost implications vis-à-vis the benefits/effectiveness, which are linked to the policy objectives or goals.
Secondly, cost-effectiveness analysis will be carried out to help determine the effectiveness of the policy. It will also be carried out within the first 6 months of its implementation and will focus on demonstrating whether desired policy goals/objectives can be achieved with existing resources (Kraft & Furlong, 2018). Therefore, cost-effectiveness will help determine the effectiveness of this policy in relation to the desired objectives/goals.
The third recommended evaluation and monitoring measure is social experimentation, which entails identifying social indicators of the policy’s success. It will help establish the social acceptability of the proposed policy for the water pollution problem.
Other Methods of Policy Analysis
Kraft & Furlong (2018) states that there are different methods of analysis that can be employed in policy evaluation. In consideration of the entire policy cycle regarding the identified problem and preferred policy solution, there are other methods of policy analysis that can be applied. The other method of policy analysis that could be applicable in this case is administrative feasibility. According to Kraft & Furlong (2018), administrative feasibility is an evaluative tool for policy analysis that refers to the probability that an agency or department can implement a policy or delivery a public program well. As a result, the evaluative criteria entails assessing an agency or department’s capacity, its available resources, and behavior. However, assessment of these factors may be difficult to estimate though they are critical in the analysis.
Administrative feasibility is an applicable method of policy analysis since the proposed policy alternative would require the involvement of a relevant agency or department for effective/successful implementation. The implementation of this policy will be the responsibility of San Francisco’s water department. The agency/department is mandated with the responsibility of managing the city’s waterways and waste disposal system. Therefore, this agency will play a crucial role in ensuring effective implementation of the proposed policy to address water pollution by homeless people. Even though other agencies could be involved such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the water department plays a major role in implementation of the proposed policy.
Given the significant role played by the water department, administrative issues relating to its available resources and administrative capacity are critical factors for consideration. These issues have significant impacts on the department’s capability to implement the policy in an effective and successful manner. Administrative feasibility requires navigating complexities and issues that could affect the ability of the department/agency to implement the policy successfully.
The current issue of water pollution by homeless people in the City of San Francisco is partly attributable to the ability of the water department to manage waste disposal and waterways. The water department requires adequate resources and capability to safeguard the city’s residents from water pollution. The preferred policy seeks to provide an avenue to improve the capacity of the water department to ensure effective management of the waterways. However, the implementation of the policy would require additional resources on the part of the department to ensure success.
Additional resources will be required since the proposed environmental policy requires the department to establish measures and initiatives that will be utilized to manage human waste and others during storms and other extreme weather events. In essence, the policy generates new demands for the water department, which will require more resources. The department has adequate resources at its disposal to establish initiatives for water and waste management, particularly during storms. These adequate resources are attributable to the fact that the policy would not require an overhaul of existing sewage collection and treatment facilities. The agency can still utilize existing facilities and system but ensure that storm water flows into rivers during storms to avoid leakages resulting in water contamination or pollution.
With respect to administrative complexities, the water department has a suitable organizational structure with clear responsibilities for its personnel. The organizational structure supports effective operations, which implies that there would be minimal interruptions in policy implementation efforts. Additionally, the water department in the City of San Francisco has a suitable leadership structure and framework for smooth operations. The structure and operational framework results in lower administrative costs that improves policy implementation.
Conclusion
Public policies are enacted to help address some of the major issues facing populations in a specific community. The enactment of a public policy requires information regarding the specific problem and an assessment of whether government intervention will improve the situation. As a result, policymakers engage in the process of policy analysis, which refers to different activities such as assessment of components of the policymaking process and evaluation of policy alternatives. The process of policy analysis entails collection and analysis of information to clarify causes and impact of public problems in relation to policy alternatives. While different approaches for policy analysis exist, rational-comprehensive approach was employed in this project. It incorporates a series of stages i.e. defining and analyzing the problem, developing policy alternatives, creating evaluative criteria, evaluating policy alternatives, and drawing conclusions.
San Francisco experiences a water pollution problem brought by the homeless population who throw needles and waste into the sewer system. The city has already received an environmental notice of violation from the Environmental Protection Agency. This problem comes at a time when the number of homeless people in the city continues to increase while fecal contamination of waterways has become widespread. The stakeholders involved in this public problem are the homeless population, the taxpaying public, City officials, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Given the nature of the issue, the context for government’s involvement is the social context and governance context. In addition, governmental intervention in addressing the water pollution issue in San Francisco is justified on moral and ethical grounds. Since the issue has potential environmental and public health impacts, government intervention is the right thing to do.
The relevant political typology for governmental involvement in water pollution issue brought by homeless people in San Francisco is regulatory policy, which would help constrain the discretion of individuals and agencies or compel particular type of behavior among city officials. Since city officials are allowing homeless people to throw used needles and sewer waste into the ocean, regulatory policy would help limit their discretion and compel them to adopt suitable measures to prevent water pollution in San Francisco.
The theoretical model supporting government intervention in addressing water pollution by homeless people in San Francisco is Political Systems Theory. This theory emphasizes that public policy is political system’s response to environmental demands. Therefore, there is a strong causation link between public policy and environmental demands. The political system in this public problem include city officials and the government through the Environmental Protection Agency. On the other hand, the environmental system generating demands for the issue to be addressed as the homeless population and the taxpaying public.
There are three possible policy alternatives that should be considered by the city’s policymakers. One of these policy alternatives is an environmental policy to help prevent/lessen the amount of waste flowing into the ocean from homeless encampments, which would require minimal changes to the existing policies. The second alternative is increased funding for expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities since the problem is associated with the inability of current facilities to meet demand. The other policy alternative is creation of water and sanitation programs for homeless people, which will be enforced by local municipalities and communities. Through MAUT calculations and assessment of these three alternatives, the establishment of an environmental policy is the recommended/preferred policy action because it ranked the highest in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and social acceptability.

References Alexander, K. & Fracassa, D. (2019, September 26). EPA Blasts California, Attempting to Link SF/LA Homelessness and Pollution. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/EPA-demands-Calif-SF-clean-up-its-streets-to-14470248.php (Helpful Resource) Almendrala, A. (2020, January 6). Fecal Bacteria in California’s Waterways Increases With Homeless Crisis. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://californiahealthline.org/news/fecal-bacteria-in-californias-waterways-increases-with-homeless-crisis/ (Helpful Resource) Anderson, J.E. (2011). Public policymaking: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. (K&F) Anyebe, A.A. (2018, January). An Overview of Approaches to the Study of Public Policy. International Journal of Political Science, 4(1), 8-17. (Scholarly) Bardach, E. & Patashnik, E.M. (2020). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press. (B&P) Boucher, M. (2013, March 12). Homelessness and Water Pollution: Thinking Outside the Channel. Retrieved from Contra Costa County website: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/29632/Homeless-Presentation-Walnut-Creek-Community-Meeting-2014-03-12?bidId= (Helpful Resource) Eilperin, J., Dennis, B. & Dawsey, J. (2019, September 26). EPA Tells California it is ‘Failing to Meet its Obligations’ to Protect the Environment. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/epa-tells-california-it-is-failing-to-meet-its-obligations-to-stem-water-pollution/2019/09/26/b3ffca1e-dfac-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html (Helpful Resource) EPA. (2019, December 26). San Francisco Bay Delta – What are the Challenges? Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency website: https://www.epa.gov/sfbay-delta/what-are-challenges (Scholarly) Ho, V. (2019, October 3). EPA Cites San Francisco for ‘Water Pollution’, Fulfilling Trump’s Threat. The Guardian. Retrieved March 24, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/02/san-francisco-epa-water-pollution-trump (Helpful Resource) Kraft, M.E. & Furlong, S.R. (2012). Public policy: Politics, analysis and alternatives (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press. (K&F) Kraft, M.E. & Furlong, S.R. (2018). Public policy: Politics, analysis and alternatives (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press. (K&F) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2011). Brief 1: Overview of Policy Evaluation. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief%201-a.pdf (Scholarly) Pitzer, G. (2019, June 27). Can Providing Bathrooms to Homeless Protect California’s Water Quality? Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://www.watereducation.org/western-water/can-providing-bathrooms-homeless-protect-californias-water-quality (Non-academic) Shear, M.D., Fuller, T. & Baker, P. (2019, September 18). San Francisco to Get Environmental Violation for Homelessness, Trump Says. The New York Times. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/us/politics/trump-san-francisco-homeless.html (Helpful Resource) Rahimi, G.R. & Noruzi, M.R. (2011, June). A Brief Look on Policy, Typology of Policy, and Its Related Affairs. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(11), 173-176. (Scholarly) WaterWorld. (2017, August 4). San Francisco’s Largest Wastewater Treatment Facility Awarded $939 Contract for Upgrades. Retrieved May 13, 2020, from https://www.waterworld.com/wastewater/article/16223603/san-franciscos-largest-wastewater-treatment-facility-awarded-939m-contract-for-upgrades (Helpful Resource)


Tables, Figures and Graph
Table 1: Policy Alternatives
Alternatives
Description

Alternative One: Environmental Policy
- To help prevent/lessen the amount of waste flowing into the ocean from homeless encampments.
- Requires minimal changes to existing policies.
- Enhanced enforcement of environmental protection laws on water pollution.


Alternative Two: Expansion of Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities
- Improves current systems for sewage collection and treatment.
- Reduces amount of fecal contamination of waterways.


Alternative Three: Water and Sanitation Programs for Homeless People
- Establishes projects to enhance the standards of water and sanitation among homeless people.
- Requires local communities and municipalities to ensure enforcement or face fines.






Table 2: MAUT Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Alternative

Effectiveness
Efficiency
Social Acceptability
Total
Ranking









Alternative One: Environmental Policy

Importance

.80
.80
.60



Criteria Rating

.80
.90
.70



Importance x rating

0.64
0.72
0.42
1.78
1









Alternative Two: Expansion of Sewage Collection and Treatment Facilities

Importance

.80
.80
.60



Criteria Rating

.60
.40
.40



Importance x rating

0.48
0.32
0.24
1.04
2









Alternative Three: Water and Sanitation Programs for Homeless People

Importance

.80
.80
.60



Criteria Rating

.70
.35
.20



Importance x rating

0.56
0.28
0.12
0.96
3





Table 3: Stage of Environmental Policy Formulation & Implementation
Stage
Duration

Agenda Building
2 months

Formulation
3 months

Adoption
2 months

Implementation
3 months

Evaluation
3 months

Termination
2 months