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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evaluation of the Policy

Finally, the evaluation examines how well the policy solved the problem. Researchers gather data and analyze 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). For example, we check if changes in how the police patrol a neighborhood help lower home break-ins. But it’s complicated because crime rates usually don’t change because of just one thing. For instance, when curfew laws for young people were enforced, youth crime went down. But was it only because of the curfew laws? Crime across the whole country dropped at the same time. It’s hard to say that one thing caused the change in outcome because many factors can influence crime rates.

Process evaluations look at how a policy or program is put into action. They focus on figuring out the steps taken to implement the policy. These evaluations provide detailed and descriptive information about the policy’s implementation, such as the program’s goals, the people involved, the training provided, the number of clients helped, and any changes made to the program over time (Lab, 2016). However, process evaluations don’t tell us how much the policy actually reduces crime; they only tell us what steps were taken to address a specific issue and who was involved. Even though this is a limitation, understanding how a program or policy works on the inside is crucial if we want to repeat its success.

For example, imagine a program aimed at reducing bullying in schools. A process evaluation would tell us about the goals of the program, who participated, the training given to teachers, how many students were reached, and any changes made to the program over the school year. But it wouldn’t directly tell us if bullying decreased as a result of the program—that’s a question for impact evaluation.

Cost-Benefit evaluations, or analysis, determine if the costs of a policy are justified by the benefits accrued. A common example of this is seen in the evaluation of the well-known anti-drug D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program from the 1980s and 1990s. D.A.R.E. was a school-based program designed to prevent drug use among elementary school children. When researchers thoroughly looked into the program’s effectiveness, they found that it didn’t work well and, in some cases, made some kids more likely to use drugs. The cost of running this program nationwide was about $1.3 billion per year (equivalent to about $173 to $268 per student annually) when considering all related expenses like training police officers, providing materials and supplies, and using school resources (Shepard & Winter 2001-2002). So, when we use a cost-benefit analysis, the question arises: Is spending such a large amount of money on an ineffective program a wise use of resources?

Policy formation often happens quickly in response to current issues. Many policies come from community efforts to change something in their neighborhoods. For instance, let’s imagine we’re dealing with the problem of youth crime in our city. Kids are wandering the streets in groups, sometimes causing trouble and making people feel unsafe. One suggested policy could be to hold parents responsible for their child’s actions. The idea is that if parents are held accountable, they’ll take better care of their kids. Take, for example, a young person named Joey. He’s been making some poor choices, like smoking, using bad language, and recently stealing a neighbor’s car. After getting into trouble for crashing into a fast-food restaurant sign, according to the parental responsibility law, his mom and dad are seen as responsible for his actions. Let’s explore the process of making and applying this policy 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 child 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: Now, 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.

Feel free to read the entirety of ORS 30.765 [Website] here.

Now, let’s see if the policy is actually working. The evaluation part of the policy is really important. The main aim is to reduce youth crime, and we would hope that the juvenile crime rate goes down. However, it turns out that charging parents fines for their kids’ mistakes is not helping—it’s making things worse.

A study in Pennsylvania titled “Justice System–Imposed Financial Penalties Increase the Likelihood of Recidivism” discovered that when adolescent offenders were fined, the chances of them getting into trouble again significantly went up. The study found that this was especially true for males, non-Whites, young people with previous problems, and those involved in drug or property offenses (Piquero & Jennings, 2017). This is a problem because not only do fines make it more likely for these young people to repeat offenses, but it also increases the chance of them getting stuck in the juvenile justice system. In the end, just because something is a law doesn’t mean it’s working well, and sometimes what actually works might not be a law. This is where using practices supported by evidence becomes important.

Licenses and Attributions for The Stages of Policy Development

Open Content, Shared Previously

“The Stages of Policy Development” is adapted from “4.3. The Stages of Policy Development” by Alison S. Burke in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Modifications by Roxie Supplee, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, include significant rewording and revisions for clarity.