:Public Policy Development and Analysis Notes

For
:Legislators and Local Government Officials in Liberia
January 4, 2009
,By: Gleh Huston Appleton
;BBA, (Student-MPA-International Development Policy and Management
(Management Institute of Canada
;Dear Mr. Editor and fellow Liberians

I believe, and I am sure you agreed with me, that as Liberia transitions from a period of acrimony;
during the dark period of its history, into the dawn of a new democracy, there is an ever increasing
role, duty and responsibility for proficiency marked by accountability, transparency and
professionalism and participation in the discharge of public duties. In an effort to building national
capacity in response to meeting the growing challenges of the 21st century requiring strategic policy
decisions and actions, the concerted effort of all is required. Our world and society are plagued by a
number of uncertainties requiring competitive policy actions in areas such as Poverty Reduction,
Market Failures, Corruption, Climate Change and Environmental Protection, National Security and
Human Rights, Foreign Policy Options, Social Inequalities, Health Care, Building Responsive
Educational System, Building New and Emerging Market/Investment Industries, Rebuilding New
.Infrastructures and Energy Shifts, etc

Hence, if Liberia must muscle up the courage and build the capacity to respond to the critical
challenges of the 21st century, we must work together to build the resilience and action for change.
And so, I wish to provide this policy guidance note to help national and local government policy
.makers in the discharge of their duties

:Description of policy making process and its steps

1. The “Policy Making Process”-in the public governance sector, can be described from a
diametrical spectrum with the one side presenting a complex, irregular and often time
consuming cycle of technical and political set of activities, while the other side presenting
the rigor, robust, participatory and systematic process consisting of six major stages/steps
extremely necessary in crafting a common vision and presenting alternative strategies to
solving a past, present or perceived National, County, District, Clan or Community
problem. It can best be described as “A dynamic and interactive process with various
stages feeding into each others and influenced by a number of internal and external
forces…underpinned by principles of governance through creating a common ethos
from which we can tackle and solve many common and complex problems that arise.”1
2. The process, stemming from my research analysis, and as propounded by Patton and
Sawicki-1998, depicted in a six-stage circular flow, can be grouped into three clusters:
a. Situation Examination (Identify/define/detail problem, and establish evaluation criteria),
b. Strategic/Comparative Analysis (identify/specify alternative policies, and
assess/display/distinguish alternative policies, and recommend/adopt policy strategy )and c.
Evaluate Domino-Effects (implement/monitor/evaluate policy outputs, outcomes and
impacts).
3. Still in another description, the policy process can be seen as a technical and people-
centered political endeavor which involves an intensive interaction between major
stakeholders (the public including citizens of all walks of life) and decision makers
(President, Cabinet Ministers and Junior Ministers, Heads of Public Agencies and
Corporations, the Legislature, Superintendents, City Councils, Chiefs, etc). Marked by
political undertones, there are often conflicting interests at stake which must be mediated as
the common community issue/problem is being highlighted for a solution. The process,
critically implemented, derives the alternative measures to reaching and meeting desired

1
Institute of Policy Development: Research Unit; Singapore, 2007: “Policy Development in Practice, an overview of the
policy process”.
 community visions, goals and objectives. And the role of the Policy Analyst (a Policy
researcher, policy entrepreneurs, crafter, proponent, etc) in this process is to “a. produce
arguments for public debates of public policy issues, b. produce evidence for decisions
about public policies, c. act as independent consultant maintaining a balance on political
fronts and d. handle both technical and people-centered aspects of the process, etc.” 2
4. Hence, the six steps of the Policy Process or Circle can be described as follow:
• Policy Initiation: Get issues on the agenda: Identify/define/detail problem-
this is probably the most-people centered activity of the process, at this
stage/step; you state the problem meaningfully and determine its magnitude and
extend. Question the acceptable thinking and initial formulation with
supporting data and the analysis of similar policy analyzes. You clarify
objective and resolve conflicting goals focusing on the central and critical
factors as well as identify major stakeholders to the issue. This stage tries to set
the pace for testing public opinion on the subject matter and alerting decision-
makers about a past, current or perceived problem indicating the urgent need
for actions.
• Problem Identification and Evaluation: Document existing conditions:
Establish evaluation criteria-at this stage, you set problem scope and outline the
goals and objectives and adopt measurable indicators for implementation and
success. Identify criteria central to the problem and stakeholders, predate
desirable and undesirable outcomes and conduct a cost-benefit analysis, focus
the socioeconomic implications as well as the legal and political propositions of
the situation. It involves the following activities:
i. The assembling and analyzing of available multiple sources
data;
ii. Understanding the context of the problem and conducting a
force field analysis (external and internal forces of change),
historical events and related issues;
iii. Understand stakeholders perspectives of the problem; and
iv. Identify the values and interests at stake.
Policy Alternatives Identification: Generate alternatives:•
identify/specify alternative policies- this stage probably marks
the beginning of the analytical phase of the process. You
consider a wide range of policy options with the status quo in
mind. In this stage, there is an attempt to answer to the
questions of “Which policy option is the most viable? Which is
the most cost-effective? And which is the most feasible in the
terms of public acceptability, relevant to addressing the situation
at hand, etc. Brainstorming of the problem, the relevant policy
alternatives is essential as is consult with experts in respective
fields of policy study. But this stage tries to ensure that some
level of divergent thinking occurs bearing the possibilities for
values and assumptions to be questioned in mind, providing
tangible options to policy makers. “Some ways to develop
policy alternatives include scenarios writing, experts
consultation, literature review, inter-country comparison, etc”3
with the option of in-action or non-action listed as an
.alternative
Policy Alternatives Evaluation and Decision: Identify Key•
Interest Groups/Decide: assess/display/distinguish alternative
policies and recommend/adopt policy strategy - At this stage,
you identify stakeholders and link them with their values, select
appropriate policy method and apply them correctly, estimate
the expected outputs, outcomes and impact of each alternative
2
Ibid-1
3
Ibid-2
 and align them with the policy goals and objectives for
consistencies and predictability of desired results. At this stage,
you seek to answer whether the predicted outcomes meet
desired results, which alternative should be discarded and which
is the best approach/method to implement based on tested
.assumptions
Policy Implementation: Implement and Monitor:•
implement/monitor/readjust- Polices are embodied in sets of
laws, ordinances, procedures, rules, programmes/projects
documents, etc and can not be meaningful unless
implemented/tested. This stage involves the fruition of the
plan/strategy to reach desired results. At this stage, you draw
plan of action, monitoring is essential as success indicators are
set as process indicators measuring the degree of consistencies,
uncovering unintended obstacles, meeting timelines, responding
to conflicting but mutual values and interests, readjusting to
meet desired results and documenting best practices for
replications. But, initially a clear distinction must be drawn
between parties on specific roles, duties and responsibilities to
avoid conflicts in implementation. And
Policy Outcomes Evaluation: evaluate policy outputs,•
outcomes and impacts- This is the stage at which the policy is
assessed against impact indicators stated in the goals and
objectives. By this, you assess for effectiveness, responsiveness,
transparency, coherence and you draw up conclusions as set of
.recommendations in the event of future replications

:Criterions to recognize a good policy

5. A good policy, in my views, is a one that meets precisely or accurately the intended
outcomes, makes desired impacts on the masses and sets basic standards for replications by
proper analyses, implementation and documentation.
a. From a general observation, as stated by the Institute of Policy
Development: Research Unit; Singapore, 2007 and modified by me, a
“Good Policy is the one that portrays a. Analytical Flexibility-it is important to
establish a relationship between the problem, its solution and intended outcomes.
But adopting the extreme of analytical rigor-gathering as much information as can
get can be time consuming, make decision confusing and delayed. On the other
hand, making policy decision based on guts and intuition can be misleading and
disastrous and may even deepen problem situation instead of finding a solution.
Hence, a good policy will try to sample a range of relevant alternatives, gather the
concise and précised information and work within timeframe necessary for
capturing popular support; b. Political Reality-Although with deep rationality, a
policy-maker is expected to decide, he must understand that policy making in the
public sector is a technical but political process and each situation will have a
political undertone. There will be vested and conflicting interests at stake that will
require collective bargaining and consensus. A good policy must be keen to the
values of the status-quo; c. Policy Time-lag- It is astute to be keen to the facts that
the policy process is time required and that the problem conditions/situations may
take a change or shift. Hence, the problem identification must not actually be
perceived as a stage but an ongoing process. And so, a good policy will adopt a
contingency strategy in reaching desired results; d. The Role of Consultation-
incorporating experts’ opinions and feedbacks on policy issues may also include
public opinions. It is intended to make a clearer understanding of the problem,
deriving policy alternatives, evaluating them and working through implementation.
A good policy has consultation as a key element; and e. Value, Capacity and
Support- complementing the role of policy-makers as mobilizing
resources/capacity toward pursuing programmes strongly supported by
 stakeholders, it is essential for policy-makers to ask whether the programme or
objective create public values, whether its outcome presents a public good, and is in
the public interest? This is evidently a critical decision as at times pursued
programmes and objectives which create strong public values may not have a
majority support. But whatever the case, a good policy must seek the best interest
of the masses (simple majority or critical minority) irrespective of popular support.
b. Hence the above, the criterions to recognize a good policy are as follow:
o There is Public Support: It is often said that popular support and good policy
are synonymous. From studies and practices around the world, this is largely
true in part. As the policy development process presents a technical but political
face, numbers matter in getting issues on the agenda and supported for
budgetary allotments and implementation. This can not be ruled out. As
governments face the challenges of allocating public resources in response to
meeting the needs of public objectives, the popular-majority-concept underpins
the process. For instance, in a representative democracy, legislative decisions
are made by majority votes by members of parliament as these representatives
represent the voice of a segment of people under a particular constituency.
Through this popular-majority-concept process, public laws are made and
guidelines are set as the embodiment of public policy decisions.
6. On the other hand, the popular-concept of policy support can be misleading and applied
dangerously against public interest. For instance, Liberia runs a hugely centralized system
of governance which has been poorly managed. The result of which has led the country into
steep underdevelopment, grave poverty and 14-yrs internal/civil conflict. She currently runs
a health care programme that is weak and polarized with incompetence and corruption
stemming from the scenario of vested internal and external influences. Unconfirmed repots
indicate that in the past great majority of the members of government had vested financial
interests therein. Huge budgets were passed to fund ghost programmes with no semblance
of results. But by popular vote through a representative democracy, these budget items
passed with overwhelming majority as every attempt to reverse the course and recommend
alternative policy directions were vehemently defeated by “popular majority”. The same
scenarios may be uncovered in other government funded programmes. Hence the above, in
my analysis, I judge fairness and justness over the popular-majority-concept based on the
principles of ethics as in integrity, honesty, commitment and productivity as the hallmarks
for testing the popular-concept of a good policy.
7. Policies are just: As indicated above, pursuing equity, justice, protection and defending the
inalienable rights of all citizens irrespective of popular-majority, should be the base for a
good policy. Based upon ethical standards, policy-makers must seek to defend and promote
the constitutional rights of all impartially, using their best judgments in the best interest of
each individual citizen or group, whether majority or minority.
8. Sound decisions backed by solid analysis: a good and measurable result in terms of
output, outcomes and impacts of any decision or process is based on the quality of inputs
and the proficiency of programming/management/coordination. Solid analysis and
evaluation of alternatives reflecting the attainment of set goals and objectives is the key to
reaching sound decisions. Spend the best time, knowledge and consultation on the analysis
of the problem and sound decision is inevitable.
9. Policies are relevant: Policies do not develop/operate in a vacuum; there must be a
triggering incident. Hence, the policy must be designed as either a curative, responsive, or
divertive measure of problem relevance.
10. Possibility for Implementation: The level of policy feasibility and achievability must be
established. Establishing feasibility is attempting to answer many, including the following
questions: a. is there a commonly identified problem that needs collective action; b. is there
the willpower, capacity and commitment to effect this change in present condition; c. is
there a commonly acceptable strategy for action and d. is there a plan of action. If the
answers to these questions are “YES”, then there is “Feasibility” for achievability of policy
predicted outcomes. And
11. Results are Monitored: Monitoring and evaluation serves as the core of any successful
programme management framework. As a control mechanism, it seeks to ensure
 implementation consistencies, effect readjustments, respond to unintended shocks of
implementation, ensure standards and quality in implementation, record/document
feedbacks and experiences and match outputs against intended objectives through
measurable indicators. Hence, in my views, a good policy, as is its objective, must be
“SMART” (S-sustainable, M-measurable, A-attainable, R-relevant, T-time bound).

Description of the policy analysis methods

12. Policy Analysis in the public sector, can be defined as the systematic and schematic
process of applying either quantitative or qualitative evaluation tools or both to strategies,
approaches and alternatives as a means of testing feasibility, viability, relevance and
fairness in meeting social goals and objectives. “It can include:
• Analyzing a problem or situation with a view to determining a policy response.
• Evaluating different policy options to determine which is the most suitable. This
involves making judgments about how well options are likely to fulfill desired goals,
taking into account the implications or consequences of implementing each option.
• Assessing existing policy to evaluate its suitability or fitness for purpose. This involves
a consideration of how well the policy fulfils its intended goals, and other implications
or consequences arising from the operation of the policy.”4
a. In each case, policy analysis involves identifying the effects a policy has, or will
have, including the policy’s contribution to achieving desired goals. As stated
above, there are both quantitative and qualitative methods of application.
b. Policy Analysis Methods can be grouped as indicated above, qualitative
applications and quantitative applications with both adapting to the basics of
research principles.
A. Qualitative Applications: involve the understanding and
rationalization of the human values in the evaluation of policy
effects, outcomes or intends whether preclusive or responsive
through communications and observations without the delegation of
numbers/numerical values. It tries to establish the “WHY and
HOW” of change in phenomenon. Common methods under this
application include the following:
a. Case Study- appears to be the single most and commonly used qualitative research and
policy analysis method as it incorporates all of the instances discussed below. It takes a
comprehensive review and examination of an event or set of events with the view of
testing hypotheses or deriving them. There are various categories of the Case Study
method. They include illustrative (viewed as the “Instance or occurrence similarity
approach”), exploratory (viewed as the pre-emptive approach), critical instance (view
as the cause-and-effect approach), programme implementation (viewed as the
implementation-process evaluation approach), programme effect (viewed as the
impact/outcome evaluation approach), perspective (viewed as the theory-base
approach), and cumulative (view as the time-series approach).
b. “Cost-benefits analysis- this method analyses the costs and benefits of policy options
and are usually quantified by assigning a $ amount. This assists in the evaluation and
comparison of different policy options.
c. Cost-effectiveness analysis- this method is similar to cost-benefit analysis. But it is
used when the outcome is pre-determined and the different ways of reaching that
outcome need to be cost for the purposes of evaluation.
d. Benefit-effectiveness analysis-This is also similar to cost-benefit analysis. It is used
when the available resources for achieving an outcome are pre-determined and the
benefits of different ways of using those resources need to be evaluated.”5
e. Qualitative Surveys- referred to as “Community expectation surveys”, tries to bring a
wider range of views to bear on the policy development and analysis process including
those of the implementers and beneficiaries conducted through focus group discussion,

4
University of New South Wales: Guide to Policy Development Process; phase two-Research and Analysis;
Version 1.1, 22/07/2008
5
Ibid-1
 community meetings, workshops, etc with the intend to gather feedbacks and evaluate
behavior-change-effect before and after implementation of policy decision.
c. These methods, used at any combination collectively or in isolation, provide a
systematic way of looking at events, collecting data, analyzing information, and
reporting results with a human-face in response to the WHY and HOW of policy
analysis.
B. Quantitative Applications: involve the evaluation of policy
effects, outcomes and impacts by the use of statistical/mathematical
and or numerical values through various methods/approaches to
research. Some common methods include the following:
a. Surveys- in the quantitative framework, appears to be the single most integrated and
commonly used research and policy analysis approach as it tries to incorporate various
quantitative (can also represent qualitative analysis) categories and methods in data
collection, analysis and reporting expressed either graphically or statistically with a
focus on either opinions, facts or both. And it is applied normally by the use of
questionnaires or structured interviews. It includes serial survey (referred to as time-
series data analysis) representing the repetition of similar questions at different points
in time either by the use of new and different sample (cross-sectional) or the same
sample (Longitudinal). Common methods may include Mail survey-postal service,
Telephone survey-landline of cell-phones, Online survey -email or web, Personal
Contact survey (Home), Personal mall intercept survey (shoppers in small groups).
b. Statistics- as an analytical tool is applicable across the almost every inter-disciplinary
study. It examines simple and complex quantitative facts, opinions and logics necessary
for the conduct of studies/research and reaching rational decisions. Though structural
application in process may vary by discipline and scientist, the process normally
integrates the use of mathematical functions in data collection, analysis, interpretation
and presentation necessary for reaching informed decisions. Some common
method/approaches include Literature reviews-comparing similar practice in other fields and
occasions including webs, government publications and published survey data; System
modeling- using economic market models, evolutionary models, operations research models, or
linear programming models to analyze policy effects and trends; Sensitivity Analysis- testing
the extent of reliance of assumptions on policy effect, usually when there are uncertain factors
that may effect policy outcomes; Outcomes Matrixes- systematically comparing policy options
in terms of pre-determined criteria; and Graphing and Grading Methods- presenting a
schematic diagram, chart either as bi or pie, and percentage rating of data representing trends,
series, sequence, tendency or movements/shift in factors and conditions.
d. A Comparative Analysis of Policy Quantitative and Qualitative Methods:
e. √ Qualitative Analysis: brings the human-face and values to the process of
policy analysis, investigating behavior change in terms of perceptions, beliefs,
values, opinions, etc through the derivation and testing of theories and hypotheses.
It describes meaning through communications and observations usually by the
synthesizing of unstructured data collection. It is multi-focused ensuring flexibility
and analysis are based on non-numerical values, analysis is time-and place-bound
representing content, context analysis and responses and is often narrative oriented
in nature. While;
√ Quantitative Analysis: representing the opposite of the above; brings
mathematical/statistical or numerical values to the process of policy analysis and
investigation. It tests theories and hypotheses establishing cause and relationships
and tries to verify and make a proof of hypotheses through the use of instruments.
Data are collected in a structured pattern eliminating the high degree of error and
biases. It is issue-specific and objective. It believes in findings extrapolation and
generalization. Approaches are rigid.

Description of policy development in government:

13. A policy will articulate a “decision” or a “purpose” that a Council at any decentralized
level of government, a ranking official in central government, the state legislature, the
 national legislature or its member in part or any responsible citizen, etc may either wish
to pursue, or that it is required to pursue. The policy will define the course or program
of action that will be needed to deliver upon and be accountable to. For a policy to be
effective it needs to be fair (in the public interest), practical (able to be implemented)
and measurable (must have indicators for success);
14. “The policy process in government involves certain basic concepts and principles to
ensure sustainability, acceptability and fairness: there must be a. Policy actors-different
players in the process; b. Separations of power-normally, the organic laws of nations
indicate specific duties and responsibilities to each policy actor/group; c. Policy – must
include intentions- purpose of government actions; goals-stated ends to be achieved;
proposals/plans/alternatives-various recommendations for achieving goals;
programmes-authorized means of reaching goals; decision/choice-specific actions taken
to set goals, develop plans and implement and monitor/evaluate programmes. The
Policy is influenced by the social and economic conditions, prevailing political values,
public mood at any given time, structure of government and national and local cultural
norms. d. Public Interest-responding to vested public values in articulating and solving
problems; e. Policy Outputs-the tangible results at implementation of
programmes; f. Policy Outcomes-the effects such outputs have on the masses; and g.
Economic Rationality-the model that assumes that human beings are guided by the
prospects of individual profits or other forms of utility, and that people choose the
course that yields the maximum net gain; i.e., making the best of limited resources to
reach maximum public utility.”6
15. The Policy Development Circle starts when government pays attention to some policy
issues and not others; when issues are placed on the Agenda by a policy entrepreneur
which is normally either a technical or political propellant (policy analyst him/herself,
politician, civil society organization, business leader, and responsible citizen, etc.)
through the creation of an awareness/advocacy leading to problem identification
whether at the local level or national/federal level issues are triggered. Agenda can be
of two categories: 1. Institutional, governmental or official agenda-include those that
government acts on; such as those that legislator/public officials feel obliged to act on;
and 2. Systemic or non-institutional agenda-those set of issues that the political
community see as meriting attention by the public but are not yet at the institutional
level. They are those on which decisions are often delayed. In this stage Policy
Entrepreneurs help shape the policy agenda and serve as catalyst for change. They
work against Policy Saboteurs-those who undermine and try to prevent situation
change. The next stage is Estimation/Policy formulation-Once an agenda attains
institutional status, specific policies must be formulated to respond to the problem
situation. Here, the Strategic Role of the Policy Analysts become more important as
they are involved in each stage of the policy cycle, their involvement is most critical in
the phases of policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation which involves
setting goals, creating specific plans, and selecting the means to accomplish the goals
with the hope to provide positive or negative incentives, modify behavior by changing
rules or providing information, give rights or take rights away, shift power over the
agenda to a specific agency, etc. It is important to mention that in order to formulate
policy we must have a behavior model that makes assumptions about human nature.
And as government must protect public interest, this brings about the relevance of the
qualitative method/approach to policy analysis; giving policy approaches a human-face.
This stage tries to figure out ways to reduce complexities. The next stage becomes
Policy Selection/Adoption –which comes at the end of the formulation process, with a
well-defined outcome leading to decision and legitimization as policy become
embodied in sets of Laws or Statutes as passed by the legislature and approved by the
president, Executive Orders as issued by the president or high ranking decision-maker,

6
”.Mark T. Imperial: PLS 304: Introduction to Public Policy; “The Policy Process
 Policy Documents, Plans or Programmes, etc. But these policy instruments must be
legitimized in the process where public hearings, opinions and other administrative
procedures are held. The next stage leads to Policy Implementation –involves the
execution of the selected option as provided by the analyst, consulted by the experts
and vetted by the public. During this process, readjustments are common as conditions
may have changed in time. But the results of implementation will become an evidence
of a good policy in formulation. Finally, Policy Monitoring and Evaluation- the result
of this stage leads to either of three outcomes; continuation, replication or
termination depending on the quality of process as in performance evaluation and
results. However the above, at the formulation, implementation and evaluation,
important revelations are often uncovered which ultimately lead to the recycling of the
policy process in addressing new and surfacing issues of public interest which move up
the ladder from systemic/non-institutional to institutional/government.7
16. An Empirical Case/Simple Case-In-Point: ”Action to Reduce the Increased Crime
Rate in Monrovia City”:
Developing the Policy Issue Paper:
1. Issue Identification/Agenda Setting: Facts: 14-yrs of war have left total socio-
economic breakdowns. Unemployment stands at 85% of labor force,
underemployment at 50% of percentage of workforce, annual GDP growth rate at
5%, 1003 ex-combatants disarmed, crime incidence rate increased by 25% in 12-
months; Police force stands at 10,000 trained and equipped men, Military stands at
4,000 trained and equipped men. There are 15-political sub-divisions of Liberia
requiring security protection. Issues: a. General Issue-“Growing Crime Rate and
Insecurity”, b. Specific Issue- “Increased Prevalence of Armed-Rubbery resulting to
murder.” Advocacy: through Media coverage and selective engagements with
stakeholders, establish pluralist/popular support and get institutional attention.
2. Estimation/Policy Formulation: Goal: Reduce general crime-rate prevalence by
building institutional capacity for response. Objectives and Indicators: a. to reduce
rate of armed-rubbery by 80% by end of 2009 through effective security response;
and b. to increase public confidence and investment security by 80% through the
improvement of information/communication by end of 2009. Policy
Alternatives/Analysis: a. No Action- effect could lead to increased prevalence rate
of crime and murder by an additional 20% by end of 2009; b. Increase Police
Presence in the Streets- recruiting/training and equipping an additional 2,000 police
officers will effectively combat crime and reduce rate by 80% in 12-months at full
capacity but will have a time lead of at least 6-months for full impact; c. Creating a
Parallel Team: Giving Military Temporary Police-Power to Act- At full capacity of
4,000 well-trained and fully equipped, in the absence of internal/external
aggression, the military can be given temporary police-power as a parallel force to
the police to respond to the urgent increase in crime rate. At a combined force full
capacity, holding all factors constant, crime rate may decrease by 80% in 6-months,
but strategy may create lax in the urgent need for government to build the capacity
of the police force and reserve the military for other civil duties and keeping them
ready for potential aggressions as there remains the possibilities for a nation just
from war to return to war in her first 10 post-war years. No-Action, as an option,
will cost the government a steady decrease in revenue collection of approximately
$250,000 as insecurity may decrease private investment spending, result to jobs-
cuts and ultimately result to a recession/stagnation. The effect would be a.
subsequent increase in crime rate resulting to murders as an alternative option to
income in a deep economic recession, b. riots and lawlessness as idleness may
create social perception change. Increase Police Presence in the Streets, as an
option, may cost a. approximately $50 million in additional security spending over
12-months, b. political will and commitment of policy-makers and implementers;

7
Ibid-1
 while in effect, a. the police force have likelihood of reaching full capacity to
respond to the growing rate of crimes in the medium and long runs and b. there is a
likelihood that private investment would reduce in the short-run but additional
consumption spending on security may bust private investment spending and
resuscitate economic growth with a multiplier effect in the medium and long-runs
and increase public confidence overtime. Finally; Creating a Parallel Team:
Giving Military Temporary Police-Power to Act, as an option, will cost a.
approximately $50 million in additional security spending over 12-months for
police capacity development, b. an additional $1million in joint operation cost of
the parallel team in 12-months; while in effect; there will be a. the immediate
capacity for response, b. private remains steady in the short-run with a potential for
growth in the medium and long-runs, and c. public confidence remains effective
and responsive as economic growth leads to jobs creation.
3. Policy Selection/Adoption: With the analysis of the above option, Creating a
Parallel Team: Giving Military Temporary Police-Power to Act has the potential
for creating short-term, medium, and long-term impact and is a recommended
option for policy action resulting to legislation and the development of ”Strategic
Security Enhancement Plan.” This recommendation is based on the current public
security risk possibilities assessment and expert’s opinions, public resource
availability and the potential impact of alternative.
4. Policy Implementation: drafting a robust implementation strategy: For instance, A
”4-Components RFSF Document” (Results Focused Security-Enhancement
Framework) is developed. Components may include a. Key Pillars of Intervention;
b. Resource Mobilization Schedule; c. Programming Strategies and d. Monitoring
and Evaluation Matrix. (A detail plan can be developed if this is an issue on the
Liberian Government Agenda by a strategic public-private partnership engagement
forum)

I thank you.

,By: Gleh Huston Appleton

BBA, (Student-MPA-International Development Policy and Management,
(North American School of Management: Management Institute of Canada
ghapple2003@yahoo.com
Tel: +231-6-580184

:Ps: At the moment, I am currently based in the Sudan. My contact is as follow)

(249126394908+