The stages of policy development can generally be categorized into five general stages. U.S. policy development encompasses several stages.

Most policy models generally include the following stages:

1. identifying the issue to be addressed by the proposed policy,
2. placement on the agenda,
3. formulation of the policy,
4. implementation of the policy, and
5. evaluation of the policy.

This is similar to the community police response acronym SARA (scanning, analysis, response, and assessment) and uses some of the same techniques but on a much bigger, national level.

Perpetuating stereotypes about juvenile sex offenders has the potential to create more victims. Watch Dangerous myths about juvenile sex offenders: Meghan Fagundes at TEDxAustinWomen to learn why.

2.4.1 Identifying the Issue

Identifying the problem involves addressing what is happening and why it is an issue. In criminal justice, this might look at the increase in opioid use and overdoses or acts of youth violence. Once the issue is identified, there can be a serious debate about the plans of the policy. Once it is decided what the policy will look like, it is placed on the agenda.

2.4.2 Placement on the Agenda

Getting placed on the agenda is perhaps the most politicized part of the process, as it involves many different stakeholders. It involves identifying the legislative, regulatory, judicial, or other institutions responsible for policy adoption and formulation.

2.4.3 Formulation of the Policy

The next stage involved adopting the policy. Depending on the nature of the policy, this could involve a new law or an executive order.

2.4.4 Implementation of the Policy

Then, it is a matter of enforcing the new policy. If a new law or order was initiated, then governing bodies would ask law enforcement or control commissions to enforce this new law as a result of the policy.

2.4.5 Evaluation of the Policy

Finally, the evaluation examines the efficacy of the policy, where data is gathered to see the results. There are three different types of evaluation: impact, process, and cost-benefit.

Impact (outcome) evaluations focus on what changes after the introduction of the crime policy (Lab, 2016). Changes in police patrol practices aimed at reducing residential burglaries in an area are evaluated in terms of subsequent burglaries. The difficulty with impact evaluations is that changes in the crime rate are rarely, if ever, due to a single intervening variable. For example, juvenile crime decreased after implementing curfew laws for juvenile offenders. Can we say that was because of curfew laws? The entire crime rate for America decreased at the same time. Attributing a single outcome based on a solitary intervention is problematic.

Process evaluations consider the implementation of a policy or program and involve determining the procedure used to implement the policy. These are detailed, descriptive accounts of the implementation of the policy, including the goals of the program, who is involved, the level of training, the number of clients served, and changes to the program over time (Lab, 2016). Unfortunately, process evaluations do not address the actual impact policy has on the crime problem, just what was done about a specific issue or who was involved. While this is indeed a limitation, it is essential to know the inner workings of a program or policy if it is to be replicated.

Cost-Benefit evaluations, or analysis, seek to determine if the costs of a policy are justified by the benefits accrued. A ubiquitous example of this would be an evaluation of the popular anti-drug D.A.R.E. program of the 1980s and 1990s. The D.A.R.E. program was a school-based prevention program aimed at preventing drug use among elementary school-aged children. Rigorous evaluations of the program show that it was ineffective and sometimes increased drug use in some youths. The cost of this program was roughly $1.3 billion dollars a year (about $173 to $268 per student per year) to implement nationwide (once all related expenses, such as police officer training and services, materials and supplies, school resources, etc., were factored in) (Shepard, Winter 2001-2002). Using a cost-benefit analysis, is that a good use of money to support an ineffective program?

Policy formation is often a knee-jerk reaction to the current problem. Many policies result from grassroots efforts to change something in their communities. For example, let us pretend the issue is youth crime in our city. Kids are roaming the streets like packs of wild dogs, jeering at the elderly and making us feel unsafe. A proposed policy might be to hold parents accountable for their child’s misbehavior. If parents are responsible, they will take better care of their kids, right? Take, for example, Little Skippy. He’s kind of a jerk. He smokes, curses, and recently stole his neighbor’s car. Arrested after crashing into the drive-thru sign at the local fast-food restaurant, based on parental responsibility law, his mom and dad are to blame for his reckless driving fiasco. Let’s look at the policy process in this case:

1. Identifying the issue: We identified the issue as youth crime in our city because parents are not being responsible for their children. So what’s next?
2. Formulation of the policy: How can this be instituted? By fining the parent? By sentencing the parents to jail time? The policy needs to be a concrete solution to a problem. Many states use fines instead of jailing the parents because who will watch over the children if the parents are locked up? Fines sound great. This will ensure parents take an active interest in their children because they do not want to pay money if their kid gets into trouble.
3. Placement on the agenda: Who needs to be involved in lobbying for this law? Legislators? Senators? Local police? Maybe even city officials, local school boards, and religious organizations. So it’s put on the agenda and gets moved onto a ballot for an official vote. The citizens who think their city needs to be tough on crime vote to approve this policy.
4. Implementation of the policy: Bam, it’s the law. It is implemented, and now parents of juvenile delinquents are charged fines. This is actually the law in nearly every state. In the 1990s, Silverton, Oregon, was a model for communities interested in imposing ordinances that hold parents accountable for their children’s behavior. In Silverton, parents can be fined up to $1,000 if their child is found carrying a gun, smoking cigarettes, or using illegal drugs. Parents who agree to attend parenting classes can avoid fines. Within the first two months after the law was passed in early 1995, seven parents were fined, and many others registered for parenting classes.

Oregon has ORS 30.765 (2021), which states:

(1) In addition to any other remedy provided by law, the parent or parents of an unemancipated minor child shall be liable for actual damages to person or property caused by any tort intentionally or recklessly committed by such child. However, a parent who is not entitled to legal custody of the minor child at the time of the intentional or reckless tort shall not be liable for such damages.

(2) The legal obligation of the parent or parents of an unemancipated minor child to pay damages under this section shall be limited to not more than $7,500, payable to the same claimant, for one or more acts.

5. Evaluation of the policy: So, it is law, but is it effective? The evaluation stage of policy is critical. The goal is to curb youth crime, and we might expect to see a decrease in the juvenile crime rate. However, charging parents fines for the misdeeds of their children actually increases recidivism! It’s true! A study, “Justice system–imposed financial penalties increase the likelihood of recidivism” in Pennsylvania found that the total amount of fines, fees and/or restitution significantly increased the likelihood of recidivism for 1,167 adolescent offenders. The study also found that, in particular, males, non-Whites, youth with prior dispositions, and those adjudicated with a drug or property offense were at an increased likelihood of recidivism associated with owing fines and fees (Piquero & Jennings, 2017). This is problematic as fees not only increase recidivism but also increase the likelihood of a “revolving door” juvenile justice system for minority youth. In the end, what is law is not always effective and what is effective is not always law. This is where evidence-based practices come in.