Water Pollution Policy Analysis: San Francisco's Homeless Crisis

Introduction to Policy Analysis and the Rational-Comprehensive Approach

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. During this process, information is collected and analyzed to clarify the 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. 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, 2015). 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 geared toward protecting citizens and enhancing the efficiency of government agencies.

One of the approaches used in policy analysis is the rational-comprehensive approach, which is a relatively more demanding method for analyzing policies. 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. The first step 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 a suitable measure for addressing the public problem and its causes, and various policy alternatives are constructed accordingly.

The next stage in the rational-comprehensive approach is the creation of evaluative criteria. The criteria are developed in relation to the problem and the policy alternatives identified in the previous stage. The evaluative criteria are also designed to help determine whether policy alternatives would be acceptable to the public, as well as to assess the effectiveness, equity, and social and political feasibility of the alternatives. Once the evaluative criteria are determined, the next stage is actual evaluation of the policy alternatives. At this point, the evaluative criteria are in hand alongside a list of possible policy actions. The actual evaluation is geared toward identifying the policy action that could generate the desired outcome. This phase of the rational-comprehensive approach is also viewed as forecasting policy outcomes or evaluating impacts (Anderson, 2011). Policy alternatives are presented based on their effectiveness, equity, and economic efficiency.

The final stage in the rational-comprehensive approach 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, 2015). 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 and Background

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.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice of violation to San Francisco, California, for breaching the Clean Water Act by 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 were contaminated with levels of fecal bacteria that exceed established environmental protection limits (Almendrala, 2020). In the EPA's letter, San Francisco's 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 city officials contend that such waste is not flowing into the ocean en masse, the existing treatment facilities are ineffective at dealing with these pollutants. The city's homeless population is putting tremendous pollution into the ocean via the storm sewer system. San Francisco is therefore grappling with growing fecal contamination of its waterways. As one of the cities with the highest homeless populations, fecal contamination of waterways generates both environmental protection and public health concerns. This contamination worsens during rainy seasons, when streets are swept into storm drains and affect the water system. Most of the street waste swept into storm drains during these seasons originates from the large population of homeless people in San Francisco. This generates additional demands and strain on the city's water system. As a result, the city needs changes in its waste management system and treatment facilities to address the problem of needles and sewer waste being thrown into the ocean.

Stakeholders and Problem Identification

This public problem involves several stakeholders, as it affects different people in San Francisco. One of the stakeholders is the homeless population, who are regarded as the source of the waste thrown into the ocean or waterways. The homeless population is an important stakeholder because they are considered the primary cause of the problem. The second important stakeholder is the taxpaying public, who are affected by water pollution. The taxpaying public expects policymakers in San Francisco to make decisions and implement policies that protect them and address their wellbeing. Water pollution increases the taxpaying public's risk of public health and environmental health issues.

City officials are the third stakeholder group 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. Their involvement in this issue would help identify a suitable approach to address the problem. The other key stakeholder is the Environmental Protection Agency, tasked with environmental protection across all states and cities in the United States.

The problem is water pollution caused by the homeless population in San Francisco, California. Governmental intervention through establishing a public policy would help address this issue. As shown in the background, San Francisco has one of the highest numbers of homeless people in California. The size of this population continues to generate concerns, as it places new demands for better housing or shelters. As the city grapples with an increase in this population, additional issues relating to welfare and health also emerge. One of these issues is waste management, since many homeless people live in the streets. The problem of waste management raises significant concerns for city officials because of its potential impact on public health and environmental protection.

Kraft & Furlong (2015) 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 — they have social, political, and economic impacts. The public problem facing San Francisco's water management system can be understood by examining it through the relevant contexts of public policy.

One relevant context is the social context. Kraft & Furlong (2015) contend that social conditions are dynamic and affect policy decisions in various ways. 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 San Francisco's water pollution problem, the increasing homeless population is a major social issue fueling this public problem. Over the past several years, the city has witnessed a significant increase in the number of homeless people. 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 grows, environmental issues also increase. Similar to other cities in California, the living conditions of homeless people have partly contributed to fecal contamination of waterways. Homeless people in the city appear to lack appropriate waste disposal and management mechanisms, leading them to throw waste — including fecal waste — into the ocean. This generates environmental pollution and poses significant public health risks, particularly if the public drinks contaminated water. Poor living conditions and the absence of a suitable mechanism for waste disposal and management by homeless people continue to be a major threat to water systems in San Francisco.

The second relevant context is the governance context. Generally, the structure of governance in the United States is complex and has significant impacts on public policymaking processes. Complexities in the governance structure can result in conflicts among relevant institutions and policy actors. In the case of San Francisco's water pollution problem, this complexity is evident in the conflict between the EPA and city officials. City officials have denied accusations of allowing homeless people to dump used needles and sewer waste into the ocean, contending that water pollution occurs during rainy seasons as streets are swept into storm drains — implying that homeless people are not the cause. On the contrary, the EPA issued a notice of violation under the Clean Water Act. This conflict could complicate efforts to identify and implement a suitable policy action.

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, the rational-comprehensive approach was employed in this project. It incorporates a series of stages: 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 EPA. 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 contexts for governmental involvement are the social context and the governance context. 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 policy typology for governmental involvement in the water pollution issue is regulatory policy, which would help constrain the discretion of individuals and agencies or compel a 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 limit their discretion and compel them to adopt suitable measures to prevent water pollution in San Francisco.

The theoretical model supporting government intervention is Political Systems Theory. This theory emphasizes that public policy is the political system's response to environmental demands, creating a strong causation link between public policy and environmental demands. The political system in this public problem includes city officials and the government through the EPA. The environmental system generating demands includes the homeless population and the taxpaying public.

In light of the nature of this issue, three possible policy alternatives should be considered by the city's policymakers. The first is an environmental policy to help prevent or lessen the amount of waste flowing into the ocean from homeless encampments, requiring minimal changes to existing policies but improved enforcement of environmental protection laws. The second is increased funding for expansion of sewage collection and treatment facilities, addressing the inability of current facilities to meet demand. The third is creation of water and sanitation programs for homeless people, to be enforced by local municipalities and communities.