Table 1: Policy Assessment Criteria adapted from Dovers & Hussey(2013, p134) and applied to policy instruments of education, institutional change (policing), statute law, communication flows, community involvement and consultation Criteria Explanation Instrument: Instrument: Instrument: Instrument: Instrument: Instrument: Education Policing Statute Law Communication Community Consultation Flows Involvement Effectiveness Criteria Determining the likelihood of the instrument achieving goals. Information Is the information required to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes design the instrument Requirements available within the required timeframe? Dependability Will the instrument be more Yes Shown as core No Yes No No No – likely than other options to pillar in other achieve the outcomes effective containment required? programs Corrective Versus Does the instrument target Corrective Antidotal Corrective Corrective Corrective Corrective proximate or underlying (‘Band-Aid Antidotal Factors factors? effect’) Systemic Potential Related to 1c), does the Yes Can target all Yes with large Yes Yes Yes Yes – – instrument have system-wide Canberra through investment of potential, influencing numerous channels of many officers to widespread causes of communication cover all sustainability problems? Canberra Flexibility in Time and Can the rate or style of Yes Can be adapted Yes Yes Could be Yes Yes Yes – – application of the instrument to be more prelevant applied to small Space be varied depending on the at particular of or large area context, or as the situation or year, e.g. festival status of knowledge changes? season Efficiency, in terms of Will the instrument achieve Yes Low cost, high No High cost, Yes Yes Yes less No high – – – – the desired goals in an return smaller gain enforcement resource in time achieving outcomes efficient manner? from external required source required i.e. more outcome per unit of investment
Table 1: Policy Assessment Criteria adapted from Dovers & Hussey(2013, p134) and applied to policy instruments of education, institutional change (policing), statute law, communication flows, community involvement and consultation Criteria Explanation Instrument: Education Instrument: Policing Instrument: Statute Law Instrument: Communication Flows Instrument: Community Involvement Instrument: Consultation Effectiveness Criteria Determining the likelihood of the instrument achieving goals. Information Requirements Is the information required to design the instrument available within the required timeframe? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Dependability Will the instrument be more likely than other options to achieve the outcomes required? Yes – Shown as core pillar in other effective containment programs No Yes No No No Corrective Versus Antidotal Factors Does the instrument target proximate or underlying factors? Corrective Antidotal (‘Band-Aid effect’) Corrective Corrective Corrective Corrective Systemic Potential Related to 1c), does the instrument have system-wide potential, influencing widespread causes of sustainability problems? Yes – Can target all Canberra through numerous channels of communication Yes – with large investment of many officers to cover all Canberra Yes Yes Yes Yes Flexibility in Time and Space Can the rate or style of application of the instrument be varied depending on the context, or as the situation or status of knowledge changes? Yes – Can be adapted to be more prelevant at particular of year, e.g. festival season Yes Yes – Could be applied to small or large area Yes Yes Yes Efficiency, in terms of achieving outcomes Will the instrument achieve the desired goals in an efficient manner? i.e. more outcome per unit of investment Yes – Low cost, high return No – High cost, smaller gain Yes Yes Yes – less enforcement from external source required No – high resource in time required
Cat-Containment_-AC-MF_V3.docx