Complexity and Can the instrument be Yes No officers No No No No – with either fewer or diverted to this Influence identifiable/controllable policy means impacts on other policy or they are not social goals? available for other work Implementation Criteria Determining the likelihood of the instrument successfully advocated and implemented Equity Implications Who bares the costs of the Public is equitable Public is Public possibly Public is equitable Public is Public Must be – – – – – – application and equitable not socially equitable careful to ensure implementation of the equitable if cost appropriate instrument is it equitable? is too high for segmentation of – some to comply public is involved and there is no bias Cost Is the gross cost (including Yes Expensive in Yes Yes if willing to Yes Yes – non-financial resources) long term invest in bearable in a practical sense? technology/ infrastructure and maintenance Social/Political Is the instrument likely to be Yes Support from Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes would be – – deemed acceptable socially key welfare highly supported Feasibility or politically by key groups or organisations & by public the public? community at large Institutional Feasibility Does adequate institutional/ Yes many channels Yes already Yes Yes tools such as Yes Yes – – – organisational capacity exist available: e.g.: have ranger online portal must for design, implementation program in be created Social and monitoring of the Canberra media instrument? Television Monitoring Can the uptake of the Yes Through survey Yes based on Yes Yes number of Yes number of Yes - survey – – – – instrument and/or its impacts and RSPCA statistics infringements registered cats and roaming cats Requirements given
Complexity and Influence Can the instrument be with either fewer or identifiable/controllable impacts on other policy or social goals? Yes No – officers diverted to this policy means they are not available for other work No No No No Implementation Criteria Determining the likelihood of the instrument successfully advocated and implemented Equity Implications Who bares the costs of the application and implementation of the instrument – is it equitable? Public – is equitable Public – is equitable Public – possibly not socially equitable if cost is too high for some to comply Public – is equitable Public – is equitable Public – Must be careful to ensure appropriate segmentation of public is involved and there is no bias Cost Is the gross cost (including non-financial resources) bearable in a practical sense? Yes Expensive in long term Yes Yes – if willing to invest in technology/ infrastructure and maintenance Yes Yes Social/Political Feasibility Is the instrument likely to be deemed acceptable socially or politically by key groups or the public? Yes – Support from key welfare organisations & community at large Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes – would be highly supported by public Institutional Feasibility Does adequate institutional/ organisational capacity exist for design, implementation and monitoring of the instrument? Yes – many channels available: e.g.: Social media Television Yes – already have ranger program in Canberra Yes Yes – tools such as online portal must be created Yes Yes Monitoring Requirements Can the uptake of the instrument and/or its impacts Yes – Through survey and RSPCA statistics Yes – based on infringements given Yes Yes – number of registered cats and Yes – number of roaming cats Yes - survey
Cat-Containment_-AC-MF_V3.docx