Lesson 4:
Analyzing Public Policy: Case Studies
Overview
In this lesson, students develop a deeper understanding of public policy and the interaction
between government and citizens in making policy. They look at case studies and are
introduced to policy analysis.
Civic Mission of Schools Promising Approach: 1, 2
Objectives
Students will be able to:
• Analyze a public policy in terms of its goal and who might support or oppose the policy.
• Recognize that there are multiple perspectives about problems and policies.
• State a reasoned opinion on whether they favor or oppose a particular public policy.
Preparation & Materials
• Handout 4A: Case Study Analysis—1 per student
• Handout 4B: Case Studies—Two different case studies per group of 4–6 students (there
are four case studies, 8–10 copies of each case study for a class of 32–40 students)
Procedure
I.
Introduction—Problems, Policies, and Perspectives
Remind students that the CAP lessons are going to help them learn more about
government and about citizens’ role in government by looking at real issues. Tell them
that today they are going to take a look at several issues that have been in the news.
Explain that these issues inspired a wide variety of opinions on the problem itself and
what kind of policy might be effective in addressing that problem.
II.
Small-Group Activity—Policy Case Studies
A.
Divide the class into groups of 4–6. Distribute Handout 4A: Case Study Analysis to
each student.
Each group will analyze two case studies in Handout B. (You may substitute any of
these case studies with additional case studies, available on the CAP web site.)
Provide half of a group with copies of one case study, and the other half of the group
with a different case study.
Tell students that their task is to:
•
•
Read one case study and work with others in the group to fill out the Case Study
Analysis form.
Share information about the case study with group members who worked on a
different case study.
© 2012, Constitutional Rights Foundation
28
CAP for the AP Classroom (Four Weeks)
B.
After the groups have shared their two case studies, hold a brief discussion with the
whole class to ask clarifying questions about the case studies, such as:
Case Study #1: Suicide Barriers
• Does preventing suicides comply with the Caltrans’ Safety Improvement
Program’s stated purpose of reducing accidents (see the last paragraph of the
article)?
• Would the following fact alter your opinion of the policy? Although the
bridge is the place with the highest number of deaths each year, more deaths
occur along winding stretches of Highway 154. (Critics claim this is true and
urge Caltrans to spend the money improving these stretches of the highway.)
Case Study #2: Random Student Drug Testing
• The courts were involved with this policy. Other than constitutional
challenges, how else might courts be involved with policy?
Case Study #3: Plastic Bag Ban
• The executive branch: How was it and will it be involved in this policy?
Case Study #4: Lead-Testing Requirement
• Why do you think Congress gave the Consumer Product Safety Commission
the power to draft regulations on the law? Does this mean that CPSC is
involved in policymaking?
You may substitute any of the case studies above with one of the additional case
studies available on the CAP web site.
III.
Debrief
A.
Ask students:
• Why are public policies created?
• If policies address problems, how might a policy be considered a problem? (If
students have difficulty with this question, ask them to consider how critics of
their particular policy might respond to the question.)
• What levels and branches of government are involved in public policy? Explain.
• How would you define public policy?
• What did you learn about public policy that you think all citizens should know?
(You might link this discussion to the Citizenship Brainstorm charts.)
After completing this lesson, have students return to the Citizenship Brainstorm,
identifying and adding to the lists.
© 2012, Constitutional Rights Foundation
29
CAP for the AP Classroom (Four Weeks)
Handout 4A
Case Study Analysis
Step One: Read your case study.
Step Two: Work with others in your group who have the same case study to answer the
questions below.
1.
What is the public policy (what is government doing or proposing to do about the
problem)?
2.
What problem does the policy address?
3.
What group(s) supports the policy? Why? What group(s) opposes it? Why?
4.
What institution, if any, is making or has made the decision on the policy?
5.
What level of government is this institution (e.g., federal, state, local)?
6.
In your opinion, do you believe the policy is a good one? Why or why not?
Step 3: Share information about your case study with others in your group.
When you hear about the other students’ case study, ask at least one good question.
© 2012, Constitutional Rights Foundation
30
CAP for the AP Classroom (Four Weeks)
Handout 4B
Policy Case Studies
Plan Proceeds to Build Suicide Barriers on
Cold Spring Canyon Bridge
Santa Barbara, Calif.—Erected in 1963, the Cold Spring Canyon Arch Bridge is a 1,200foot-long bridge in the Santa Inez Mountains along a Designated State Scenic Highway.
Known for its scenic vistas and great architectural beauty, the bridge is also the site of many
suicides. On average, one person a year has jumped from the bridge. No one has ever
survived the 400-foot drop into the canyon below. Four people jumped in 2008.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) maintains the state-owned bridge. It
is planning on building suicide barriers on both sides of the bridge. The barriers would be
six-foot high steel fences curving inward at the top.
The plan came after years of investigation and public hearings. Caltrans formed a special task
force to find out what could prevent suicides on the bridge. In addition to Caltrans, task force
members included police agencies, emergency services, local government agencies and
elected officials, and professionals in suicide prevention.
At public hearings, opponents argued that barriers will not prevent suicides, because people
will simply go somewhere else or try a different way to kill themselves. They said the
barriers were suitable to bridge over a city freeway, not a beautiful natural setting. Opponents
see the barriers as wasting taxpayers’ dollars. Caltrans initially projected the cost at less than
© 2012, Constitutional Rights Foundation
31
CAP for the AP Classroom (Four Weeks)
$1 million. The latest estimate is $3.2 million. Groups opposing the barriers include taxpayer
and environmental groups and also Friends of the Bridge (a citizens’ group formed to oppose
the barriers).
Supporters of the barrier counter that people who commit suicide are torn about whether they
want to live or die, and suicide is often an impulsive act. They say that if a person is stopped
from their impulsive act, the person often will not go somewhere else to commit suicide.
They cite the case of two neighboring bridges in Washington, D.C. A suicide barrier was
erected on one, ending suicides from it. No barrier was erected on the other bridge, but no
increase in suicides has occurred on it.
Supporters further point out that rescuers endanger themselves on the bridge. The Sheriff’s
Department has responded to about 160 incidents on the bridge in the last eight years.
The barriers have many supporters. Among them are the agencies on the task force, mental
health groups, and Stop the Tragedy (a citizens’ group formed to support the barriers).
Funding for the barriers will come from state and federal highway money as part of Caltrans’
Safety Improvement Program. This program aims to “reduce the number and severity of
accidents on the State’s highway system by implementing safety improvements to existing
roadways.” The Cold Spring Canyon Bridge has the highest concentration of fatalities in
Caltrans District 5. The final decision on the barriers rests with Caltrans. If the project is
approved, opponents threaten legal action to stop it.
© 2012, Constitutional Rights Foundation
32
CAP for the AP Classroom (Four Weeks)
Handout 4B
Case Study #2
Random Student Drug Testing Adopted at Hackettstown High
Hackettstown, N.J.—To combat the threat of drug use among students, the Hackettstown
Board of Education in 2004 adopted Random Student Drug Testing (RSDT). The RSDT
policy is directed at the district’s only high school, Hackettstown High School. RSDT affects
about three-quarters of the student body. It applies to students who are engaged in athletics,
take part in extracurricular activities, or have campus parking permits. These students must
return a form signed by their parents consenting to random drug tests. Students who do not
consent to the tests may not participate in athletics or student clubs or park their cars at
school.
The federal No Child
Few students are actually tested. Each week, a computer randomly
Left Behind Act
selects about six students, who are summoned to the guidance office.
authorizes spending
From there, a counselor takes students to the nurse’s office where they
federal education
supply a urine sample. The sample is tested immediately. If positive, it is funds on random
sent to a medical lab to verify the results.
student drug testing.
About 7 percent of
Then the principal notifies the parents. The student will be removed
public schools across
from athletics, extracurricular activities, and parking at school and may
the nation have
not return to these until passing a subsequent drug test. The student must
adopted random drug
also undergo counseling and a treatment program. Everything is done in
testing.
confidence, and the school does not notify the police.
The purpose of the program, according to a school counselor, is “to deter, delay and detect
use.” So far, she reports, it has worked. In the first three years, only two students have tested
positive for drug use. The costs of the program are relatively low. The initial screening costs
$18 and a verification costs another $25. The school pays about $3,000 per year for RSDT.
Drug-testing programs often face legal challenges. But two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases
have ruled that programs similar to RSDT do not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. In some states, these programs have been challenged as violating the state’s
constitution. In Washington state, for example, the state’s highest court ruled that the state’s
Constitution did not allow random drug testing. A similar challenge was rejected in New
Jersey, where Hackettstown High is located. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that
students have a lesser expectation of privacy at schools and that properly conducted testing
may be done.
In Hackettstown, many parents, members of the community, and school officials support the
drug testing program. Opposition, however, comes from some parents and students. They
think it invades students’ privacy, makes them less trusting of parents and the school, and
does not work. One student stated: “There were some kids who just switched to drinking.
And some kids drank to rebel, because they were upset about the tests. Kind of like, ‘Oh
yeah? We’ll show you!’ ”
Hackettstown is a small town in Northwest New Jersey with a population slightly over
10,000. About 1,000 students attend Hackettstown High.
© 2012, Constitutional Rights Foundation
33
CAP for the AP Classroom (Four Weeks)
Handout 4B
Policy Case Studies
Plastic Bags Banned in San Francisco
San Francisco—In March 2007, the Board of Supervisors passed and the mayor signed into
law a ban on plastic bags. The ordinance bans San Francisco’s chain supermarkets and
pharmacies from offering traditional plastic bags to their customers. If the stores continue to
pass out bags, they must be reusable, made of recyclable paper, or composed of
biodegradable plastic.
To give the stores time to comply, the ban went into effect for supermarkets six months after
passage and for pharmacies, one year after passage. The ban only applies to large
supermarkets (an estimated 54 are in the city) and to pharmacies with at least five stores in
San Francisco.
San Francisco is the first city in the United States to ban plastic bags. Other countries,
including Australia, Denmark, Ireland, South Africa, and Switzerland, have imposed taxes,
bans, or restrictions on plastic bags.
Plastic bags are an environmental problem, littering cities, clogging storm drains, harming
wildlife, and taking up space in landfills. Since they are not biodegradable, they ultimately
break down into small bits of plastic. The city of San Francisco uses about 200 million bags
each year. It takes 860,000 gallons of oil to produce 200 million plastic bags, which in turn
produce 2,000 tons of waste.
San Francisco, with a population of
San Francisco’s ban grew out of a proposal in 2005 to
over 800,000, is the fourth largest city
discourage their use. Supervisors proposed imposing a 17-cent
in California. It is also one of
tax on plastic bags at large San Francisco supermarkets. (The
California’s 58 counties. Its combined
city estimated it cost 17 cents in disposal and cleanup costs for
city-county government, unique in
each plastic bag dispensed.) Environmentalists supported the
California, consists of an elected Board
of Supervisors, an elected mayor, and
tax, and the grocery and plastic industries opposed it. Before
various departments and commissions.
supervisors voted on the tax, the mayor intervened and got the
major supermarkets to agree to report on how many bags they
dispensed during 2006 with a goal of dispensing 10 million fewer plastic bags. In return, the
city promised not to impose a tax on the bags.
During 2006, the grocery industry successfully lobbied the California legislature to pass a
law against cities’ taxing plastic bags or requiring stores to disclose the number of plastic
bags they dispense. The law also required large supermarkets to set up in-store recycling
programs for plastic bags.
At the end of 2006 after some delay, the supermarkets announced they had dispensed 7.6
million fewer bags in 2006. This number was 2.4 million short of the 10 million goal, and the
city questioned the reliability of the number.
Since California law now forbid it from taxing plastic bags, the Board of Supervisors decided
to ban plastic bags at supermarkets and chain pharmacies.
Since San Francisco enacted its ban, nearby cities have enacted similar bans. Supporters hope
that more cities and states will ban plastic bags.
© 2012, Constitutional Rights Foundation
34
CAP for the AP Classroom (Four Weeks)
Handout 4B
Policy Case Studies
Lead-Testing Requirement Delayed
Washington—The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that a new
lead-testing requirement will be delayed until at least 2010. In August 2008, Congress passed
the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Among other things, the law limits the
amount of lead allowed in children’s products.
Lead is highly toxic and poses great danger to children. Lead poisoning can harm nerve
development, cause brain and kidney damage, and even result in death.
For many years, lead has been banned in house paint and paint on toys. Manufacturers long
ago agreed to remove it from toys. Recently, however, lead has been discovered in children’s
products, many (but not all) manufactured in China. Highly publicized product recalls
resulted. An estimated 30 million toys and 15 million other children’s products were recalled
in 2007 alone. This crisis prompted Congress to investigate the problem and pass the new
law.
The act requires manufacturers, importers, and stores to remove lead
from products made for children age 12 and younger (clothing, toys,
books, games, etc.). It further requires them to prove that the
products have been tested for lead content. The law also gives CPSC
the power to issue regulations to enforce and clarify the law.
Violators of the law can receive civil and criminal penalties.
The law’s testing requirement was to begin on February 10, 2009.
But CPSC received complaints about the high cost of testing. Thrift
stores and people making handmade products for children expressed
doubt that they could comply with the law. One protester even set up
a web site called National Bankruptcy Day. It referred to the
February 10 deadline as the day many small businesses would go
under. Many libraries also voiced concerns that they would have to
remove all children’s books from their shelves.
Created by Congress in 1972,
CPSC is an independent U.S.
government agency with the
mission of protecting the
public “against unreasonable
risks of injuries associated
with consumer products.”
Three commissioners head the
agency. Each is nominated by
the president and confirmed
by the Senate for a seven-year
term. About 400 employees
work at CPSC.
CPSC posted guidelines on the law. It exempted thrift stores from testing. It also exempted
testing products with no history of lead contamination, such as cotton clothing and children’s
books made after 1985. Most important, it delayed all testing until at least February 2010.
Those supporting the delay include groups representing toy stores, makers of handmade toys
and children’s products, and clothing companies. None favors getting rid of the law entirely.
But a columnist for Forbes, a business magazine, called for its repeal or drastic revision. He
argued that “although it is surely useful to ban lead in paint on toys, in this case the risk was
not sufficient to justify a major emergency bill with ill-thought-out and costly provisions.”
Environmental, children’s health, and consumer groups oppose the delay. An environmental
consultant said: “Try telling a mother whose child was poisoned by a toy containing lead that
we need another year to figure this out.”
© 2012, Constitutional Rights Foundation
35
CAP for the AP Classroom (Four Weeks)