Objective: The promotion of self-management support for people with LTCs is a health policy priority across the UK (LTCAS 2008; DoH 2012). Self-management support is designed to change and improve care for people with LTCs, who form an increasing proportion of the population requiring healthcare and treatment. For health organisations models of care, which support self-management, require greater emphasis on person-focused rather than disease-focused manifestations of health and represents a new model of care delivery requiring changes in practice. Current research demonstrates that health policies are increasingly complex, involve multiple organisations and often fail to translate into effective practice (Noyles et al. 2014). The deficit between what works and what happens in practice is referred to as the “implementation deficit” (Pressman and Wildasky 1984) and traditionally it has been difficult to breakaway from the idea that the policy process is best viewed from the top-down (Barett and Fudge 1981). However, there remains a need to understand the processes of implementation, which takes account of the variation, the multiple layers and interactions which takes place between policy-maker and -implementer as policy becomes practice (Hupe 2011). Implementation of self-management is a contemporary focus in UK health policy and this thesis explains what processes are used to implement self-management policy for people with LTCs into everyday practice in one health board. Methods: A case study approach was used to investigate the policy process with data collected using thirty-one semi-structured interviews with policy-makers and regional and local policy-implementers plus eight hours of observation of national and regional policy meetings. To provide context to the implementation process data also included thirteen policy documents. Data analysis used the retrospective application of NPT as a theoretical framework with which to explore the implementation processes. NPT is an emerging theory that is being promoted as a means of understanding implementation, embedding and integration of new ideas in healthcare (McEvoy et al. 2014). The application of NPT focuses on four mechanisms, termed work (May and Finch 2009: 547), which promote incorporation of new ideas in practice. These areas of work are coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring (Mair et al. 2012). Findings: The findings suggest that there are a number of important influences operating behind or as part of the policy implementation process. These included the need for a shared understanding, getting stakeholders involved to drive forward policy, work promoting collaboration and participation was the most detailed and important in the process of policy implementation; the course of policy was affected by factors which facilitated or inhibited stakeholders acceptance of self-management; and NPT fosters key analytical insights. Conclusion: Understanding the process of policy implementation in healthcare and how practice changes as a result of policy is subject to a wide range of influences. What emerges are five key recommendations relating to understanding policy implementation. (1) understanding the concept of self-management is important in promoting policy implementation. This understanding benefits from dialogue between policy-makers and -implementers. (2) stakeholder involvement supports implementation particularly the role of clinical leadership and leadership through existing networks but also value in establishing new organisational structures to create a receptive context. (3) develop participation and collaboration through use of the patient voice which helped simplify the policy message and motivate change. (4) other resources help policy implementation and where these are evident then policy is implemented and where they are absent then implementation is not embedded. Lack of evidence was a particular area of constraint. (5) NPT has shown that social context is important, and provides for this. But in addition there is evidence that historical perspectives and previous experience are also important influence on receptivity to implementation. This research contributes to the development of theory and practice in the area of implementation science. The exploration of the policy implementation has revealed the action and work which policy-makers and -implementers are engaged in while implementing policy. It has tested the utility of NPT in a real-life setting using all four mechanisms.

Este trabalho busca compreender a implementação de políticas públicas como um processo complexo que envolve interação entre diversos atores. Partimos do princípio de que, para compreender as políticas públicas, devemos observar o processo de implementação enquanto uma dinâmica de interações entre os usuários e os burocratas implementadores que, por meio de valores, crenças e idéias, transformam o modo como as políticas foram concebidas. Assim, buscamos observar os detalhes do processo de implementação, especialmente operados pelos burocratas de nível de rua, para compreender como opera e quais os resultados das decisões organizacionais e individuais para a efetivação da política pública. Nesta pesquisa estudamos a atuação dos Agentes Comunitários de Saúde, do Programa Saúde da Família, que atuam enquanto burocratas de rua implementadores, com uma particularidade de inserção comunitária. A partir do acompanhamento etnográfico de 24 Agentes Comunitários de 3 unidades básicas de saúde, buscamos compreender o processo de implementação a partir de dois elementos: as práticas realizadas pelos burocratas e os estilos de interação que influenciam a forma como eles se relacionam com os usuários. Levantamos, então, os fatores que podem alterar essas formas de implementação, considerando dois conjuntos de fatores: os institucionais/organizacionais, relacionados à gestão dos trabalhos das equipes de saúde da família e dos agentes comunitários; e os fatores relacionais, ligados às redes sociais dos agentes e às suas afiliações e trajetórias. Concluímos com o levantamento de condições importantes para a melhoria dos processos de implementação, considerando os fatores relacionais, o perfil dos burocratas e a organização dos trabalhos. Observamos, dessa maneira, que a prática das políticas públicas varia de acordo com fatores relacionados ao cotidiano de sua implementação e que as interações dos agentes com os usuários, suas relações e trajetórias trazem novas dinâmicas para dentro das políticas, que se transformam diretamente na implementação. / This research aims to understand public policy implementation as a complex process involving interaction between several actors. We consider that, in order to understand public policy, we must examine the implementation process as a dynamic interaction between users and bureaucrats who, by values, beliefs and ideas, transform the way the policies were designed. Thus, we observe the details of the implementation process, especially operated by street-level bureaucrats to understand how it operates and what are the results of individual and organizational decisions public policy implementation. This research studies the performance of Communitarian Health Agents, inside the Family Health Program, which act as street-level bureaucrats. Using ethnographic research with 24 Agents from three basic health units, we seek to understand the implementation process considering two elements: the practices carried out by bureaucrats and interaction styles that influence how they interact with users. We raise, then, the factors that may alter such forms of implementation, considering two sets of factors: the institutional / organizational, that are related to the way teams are managed, and relational, linked to the Agents social networks and their affiliations and trajectories. We conclude with a survey of the important conditions for the improvement of implementation processes, considering the relational factors, the profile of the bureaucrats and the organization of work. We observe, then, that the public policy practices vary according to factors related to daily implementation and that agents\' interactions with users, their relationships and careers bring new dynamics into the policies, which is transformed directly in the implementation.

This dissertation explores the role of relationships with front-line officers on the subjective wellbeing of the recipients of the conditional cash transfer programme in Mexico, Oportunidades-Prospera. To do so, it builds bridges between the literatures on wellbeing, development and public policy. In recent decades, wellbeing has acquired greater significance in public policy with the interest of changing the conceptualization of progress from one driven by economic growth to one which takes quality of life as its ultimate aim. Much attention has been placed on measuring wellbeing for national policy deliberation. This dissertation, instead, is interested in understanding how taking a wellbeing approach may contribute to street-level development: to the design, practice and implementation of social policies and programmes. The value of wellbeing is that it draws attention to dimensions of experience that policy has tended to under-estimate or ignore. In this respect, one of the most consistent findings of wellbeing scholarship is the centrality of social relationships in shaping action and driving how people evaluate their lives. While the main emphasis has been on close relationships, this dissertation asks how the relationships created during the implementation of social programmes may influence wellbeing – and hence the overall impact of policies themselves. This research focuses on relationships at the health clinics which clients of Oportunidades-Prospera are required to attend as a condition for receiving a cash transfer. It follows a mixed-methods approach that reveals that relationships with health officers have a significant role on recipients’ sense of what they can do and be in different domains. It also finds that the quality of these relationships has two dimensions, positive and negative, and that these have differential effects on wellbeing. The study concludes that paying attention to the wellbeing implications of officer-recipient relationships deepens understanding of the overall effect of social programmes on their clients, highlighting unintended effects that are usually unaccounted for. In addition, the significance of relationships in implementation indicates a vital dimension of the policy process that requires direct attention if social policy and programmes are to achieve their full potential to improve people’s wellbeing.

This project studies how bureaucratic behavior influences policy implementation. It presents a novel bureaucratic access points and leverage theory, which help us understand how policies are successfully implemented in the midst of bureaucratic challenges resulting from organizational roles and responsibilities and contrasting assessments. The concept of access points has traditionally involved lobbyists and interest groups accessing elected officials and their staffs. I ask what is the effect of bureaucrats accessing bureaucrats directly in the policy implementation process and its subsequent evaluation. I argue that bureaucrats leverage other bureaucrats during policy implementation proceedings, which adds the notion of power to access points theory. The focus of this investigation is the relationship between humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) agencies and associated Department of Defense (DOD) components, particularly DOD medical components providing wellness intervention. Bureaucratic access and leverage enables a more unified implementation of over-arching HA/DR policy by disparate agencies with unique missions, resources, capabilities, and assessment measures. The existing literature does not fully capture how such agency differences are mitigated and overcome in implementing policy that spans multiple entities. Bureaucratic access points and leverage theory offers bureaucrats the analytical capability to know who is controlling policy implementation. It also presents a tool they can use to maintain and increase their own influence and power within a policy domain. / text

<p> <p>&nbsp / </p> </p> <p align="left">Whilst policy formulation has been extensively studied and theorised in the literature, far less attention has been paid until fairly recently to the issue of policy implementation. For a long time it was more or less assumed that once policy was formulated, implementation was a relatively straightforward administrative matter. In the past twenty or thirty years, however, public administration scholars (such as Pressman and Wildavsky and, in the South African context, Brynard and de Coning) have devoted more attention to unravelling the complexities of policy implementation. The current study intends to apply these more theoretical approaches to an analysis of the implementation of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare with particular respect to children in conflict with the law, focusing specifically on the One Stop Child Justice Centre in Mangaung, Bloemfontein. Welfare Service in South Africa before 1994 had a racial bias with services mostly unavailable to the majority of the citizens of the country. The 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare, based on a developmental approach to social welfare, was designed to take the country in a new and inclusive direction. In line with South Africa&rsquo / s 1996 ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other international instruments, Section 4 of Chapter 8 of the White Paper focuses on crime prevention through development and restorative justice, and recommends diversion wherever possible in the case of juveniles. With respect to Juvenile justice, this section of the White Paper makes provision for the establishment of One Stop Child Justice Centres, where a variety of services, from Social Development, the Department of Justice, the South African Police Services, Correctional Services, and the NPA, would be available to clients under one roof. All of these role players, it was envisaged, would operate as a multi-disciplinary team to achieve the objectives of the White Paper with respect to developmental and restorative forms of justice. The Centre at Mangaung is one of only a few centres to have been established as yet in South Africa. Although focusing in particular on the implementation of the 1997 White Paper, the study is also informed by other policy and legislative measures with respect to juvenile justice, in particular the Child Justice Bill of 2002 (now the Child Justice Act of 2008) and the Probation Services Amendment Act of 2002. It is generally accepted by the Government and its critics alike that the policy scene in South Africa in the period since 1994 has been characterized by good policies but poor execution. This is, however, a relatively untested hypothesis and needs further investigation. In the light of this, it is anticipated, that the present study will make a contribution to the literature on policy implementation in South Africa, as well as providing useful insights and lessons that can inform general government policy in this regard, and policy with respect to juvenile justice in particular. Within the general context of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare and the Department of Social Development&rsquo / s Integrated Service Delivery Model, and the specific context of the Mangaung One Stop Child Justice Centre, the overall purpose of the study is to scrutinize the apparent discontinuity between policy design on the one hand and policy implementation on the other. More specifically, though, the objectives of the study are: (i) to examine the content of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare in general and more specifically the section on children in conflict with the law, (ii) to provide a historical overview of the delivery of services to youth in conflict with the law prior to the first democratic elections (1994) in South Africa, (iii) to examine what the concept of &lsquo / integrated service delivery&rsquo / means to the different role-players at the One Stop Child Justice Centre, (iv) to examine the existing resources (human, financial and other) for successful implementation of the policy,(v) to examine whether there are procedures in place to encourage co-operation among stakeholders at the One Stop Child Justice Centre, (vi) to examine the successes, challenges and opportunities presented by the implementation of this policy at the One Stop Child Justice Centre and, (vii) to identify gaps between policy and implementation and make recommendations towards more successful implementation. Detailed semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Centre Manager and senior representatives of all the services involved (Social Development, the SAPS, Magistrates, the Probation Service, and Prosecutors). The interview questions focus mainly on implementation issues and challenges, but also gather information on the knowledge of the interviewees on the content of the policy. In addition, in order to validate and compare the data collected from these respondents, semi-structured interviews were held with six parents/guardians of children in conflict with the law who had been serviced by the centre. Official documents of the centre, such as annual reports, were also consulted for purposes of triangulation. Detailed transcripts will be made of all the interviews. In analysing the data, use was made in particular of the 5C Protocol advocated by Brynard and De Coning (2006) in their study of policy implementation in South Africa. The five C&rsquo / s include the Content of the policy, the Context in which the policy is implemented, Commitment from those implementing the policy, the role of Clients and Coalitions, and the Capacity of those tasked with implementing the policy. In addition other C&rsquo / s which have an impact on policy implementation (such as communication, co-ordination, and change management) will also be considered. Confidentiality of data gathered and anonymity of respondents were ensured by not requiring any personal details from the survey instruments. The sole purpose of using the data gathered for research was communicated to the respondents on the front page of the survey instruments. The choice of also not answering questions raised was respected.</p>

<p>&nbsp / </p> <p>&nbsp / </p> <p>&nbsp / </p> <p align="left">Whilst policy formulation has been extensively studied and theorised in the literature, far less attention has been paid until fairly recently to the issue of policy implementation. For a long time it was more or less assumed that once policy was formulated, implementation was a relatively straightforward administrative matter. In the past twenty or thirty years, however, public administration scholars (such as Pressman and Wildavsky and, in the South African context, Brynard and de Coning) have devoted more attention to unravelling the complexities of policy implementation. The current study intends to apply these more theoretical approaches to an analysis of the implementation of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare with particular respect to children in conflict with the law, focusing specifically on the One Stop Child Justice Centre in Mangaung, Bloemfontein. Welfare Service in South Africa before 1994 had a racial bias with services mostly unavailable to the majority of the citizens of the country. The 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare, based on a developmental approach to social welfare, was designed to take the country in a new and inclusive direction. In line with South Africa&rsquo / s 1996 ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other international instruments, Section 4 of Chapter 8 of the White Paper focuses on crime prevention through development and restorative justice, and recommends diversion wherever possible in the case of juveniles. With respect to Juvenile justice, this section of the White Paper makes provision for the establishment of One Stop Child Justice Centres, where a variety of services, from Social Development, the Department of Justice, the South African Police Services, Correctional Services, and the NPA, would be available to clients under one roof. All of these role players, it was envisaged, would operate as a multi-disciplinary team to achieve the objectives of the White Paper with respect to developmental and restorative forms of justice. The Centre at Mangaung is one of only a few centres to have been established as yet in South Africa. Although focusing in particular on the implementation of the 1997 White Paper, the study is also informed by other policy and legislative measures with respect to juvenile justice, in particular the Child Justice Bill of 2002 (now the Child Justice Act of 2008) and the Probation Services Amendment Act of 2002. It is generally accepted by the Government and its critics alike that the policy scene in South Africa in the period since 1994 has been characterized by good policies but poor execution. This is, however, a relatively untested hypothesis and needs further investigation. In the light of this, it is anticipated, that the present study will make a contribution to the literature on policy implementation in South Africa, as well as providing useful insights and&nbsp / sessons that can inform general government policy in this regard, and policy with respect to juvenile justice in particular. Within the general context of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare and the Department of Social Development&rsquo / s Integrated Service Delivery Model, and the specific context of the Mangaung One Stop Child Justice Centre, the overall purpose of the study is to scrutinize the apparent discontinuity between policy design on the one hand and policy implementation on the other. More specifically, though, the objectives of the study are: (i) to examine the content of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare in general and more specifically the section on children in conflict with the law, (ii) to provide a historical overview of the delivery of services to youth in conflict with the law prior to the first democratic elections (1994) in South Africa, (iii) to examine what the concept of &lsquo / integrated service delivery&rsquo / means to the different role-players at the One Stop Child Justice Centre, (iv) to examine the existing resources (human, financial and other) for successful implementation of the policy, (v) to examine whether there are procedures in place to encourage co-operation among stakeholders at the One Stop Child Justice Centre, (vi) to examine the successes, challenges and opportunities presented by the implementation of this policy at the One Stop Child Justice Centre and, (vii) to identify gaps between policy and implementation and make recommendations towards more successful implementation. Detailed semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Centre Manager and senior representatives of all the services involved (Social Development, the SAPS, Magistrates, the Probation Service, and Prosecutors). The interview questions focus mainly on implementation issues and challenges, but also gather information on the knowledge of the interviewees on the content of the policy. In addition, in order to validate and compare the data collected from these respondents, semi-structured interviews were held with six parents/guardians of children in conflict with the law who had been serviced by the centre. Official documents of the centre, such as annual reports, were also consulted for purposes of triangulation. Detailed transcripts will be made of all the interviews. In analysing the data, use was made in particular of the 5C Protocol advocated by Brynard and De Coning (2006) in their study of policy implementation in South Africa. The five C&rsquo / s include the Content of the policy, the Context in which the policy is implemented, Commitment from those implementing the policy, the role of Clients and Coalitions, and the Capacity of those tasked with implementing the policy. In addition other C&rsquo / s which have an impact on policy implementation (such as communication, co-ordination, and change management) will also be considered. Confidentiality of data gathered and anonymity of respondents were ensured by not requiring any personal details from the survey instruments. The sole purpose of using the data gathered for research was communicated to the respondents on the front page of the survey instruments. The choice of also not answering questions raised was respected.</p>

<p> <p>&nbsp / </p> </p> <p align="left">Whilst policy formulation has been extensively studied and theorised in the literature, far less attention has been paid until fairly recently to the issue of policy implementation. For a long time it was more or less assumed that once policy was formulated, implementation was a relatively straightforward administrative matter. In the past twenty or thirty years, however, public administration scholars (such as Pressman and Wildavsky and, in the South African context, Brynard and de Coning) have devoted more attention to unravelling the complexities of policy implementation. The current study intends to apply these more theoretical approaches to an analysis of the implementation of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare with particular respect to children in conflict with the law, focusing specifically on the One Stop Child Justice Centre in Mangaung, Bloemfontein. Welfare Service in South Africa before 1994 had a racial bias with services mostly unavailable to the majority of the citizens of the country. The 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare, based on a developmental approach to social welfare, was designed to take the country in a new and inclusive direction. In line with South Africa&rsquo / s 1996 ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other international instruments, Section 4 of Chapter 8 of the White Paper focuses on crime prevention through development and restorative justice, and recommends diversion wherever possible in the case of juveniles. With respect to Juvenile justice, this section of the White Paper makes provision for the establishment of One Stop Child Justice Centres, where a variety of services, from Social Development, the Department of Justice, the South African Police Services, Correctional Services, and the NPA, would be available to clients under one roof. All of these role players, it was envisaged, would operate as a multi-disciplinary team to achieve the objectives of the White Paper with respect to developmental and restorative forms of justice. The Centre at Mangaung is one of only a few centres to have been established as yet in South Africa. Although focusing in particular on the implementation of the 1997 White Paper, the study is also informed by other policy and legislative measures with respect to juvenile justice, in particular the Child Justice Bill of 2002 (now the Child Justice Act of 2008) and the Probation Services Amendment Act of 2002. It is generally accepted by the Government and its critics alike that the policy scene in South Africa in the period since 1994 has been characterized by good policies but poor execution. This is, however, a relatively untested hypothesis and needs further investigation. In the light of this, it is anticipated, that the present study will make a contribution to the literature on policy implementation in South Africa, as well as providing useful insights and lessons that can inform general government policy in this regard, and policy with respect to juvenile justice in particular. Within the general context of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare and the Department of Social Development&rsquo / s Integrated Service Delivery Model, and the specific context of the Mangaung One Stop Child Justice Centre, the overall purpose of the study is to scrutinize the apparent discontinuity between policy design on the one hand and policy implementation on the other. More specifically, though, the objectives of the study are: (i) to examine the content of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare in general and more specifically the section on children in conflict with the law, (ii) to provide a historical overview of the delivery of services to youth in conflict with the law prior to the first democratic elections (1994) in South Africa, (iii) to examine what the concept of &lsquo / integrated service delivery&rsquo / means to the different role-players at the One Stop Child Justice Centre, (iv) to examine the existing resources (human, financial and other) for successful implementation of the policy,(v) to examine whether there are procedures in place to encourage co-operation among stakeholders at the One Stop Child Justice Centre, (vi) to examine the successes, challenges and opportunities presented by the implementation of this policy at the One Stop Child Justice Centre and, (vii) to identify gaps between policy and implementation and make recommendations towards more successful implementation. Detailed semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Centre Manager and senior representatives of all the services involved (Social Development, the SAPS, Magistrates, the Probation Service, and Prosecutors). The interview questions focus mainly on implementation issues and challenges, but also gather information on the knowledge of the interviewees on the content of the policy. In addition, in order to validate and compare the data collected from these respondents, semi-structured interviews were held with six parents/guardians of children in conflict with the law who had been serviced by the centre. Official documents of the centre, such as annual reports, were also consulted for purposes of triangulation. Detailed transcripts will be made of all the interviews. In analysing the data, use was made in particular of the 5C Protocol advocated by Brynard and De Coning (2006) in their study of policy implementation in South Africa. The five C&rsquo / s include the Content of the policy, the Context in which the policy is implemented, Commitment from those implementing the policy, the role of Clients and Coalitions, and the Capacity of those tasked with implementing the policy. In addition other C&rsquo / s which have an impact on policy implementation (such as communication, co-ordination, and change management) will also be considered. Confidentiality of data gathered and anonymity of respondents were ensured by not requiring any personal details from the survey instruments. The sole purpose of using the data gathered for research was communicated to the respondents on the front page of the survey instruments. The choice of also not answering questions raised was respected.</p>

<p>&nbsp / </p> <p>&nbsp / </p> <p>&nbsp / </p> <p align="left">Whilst policy formulation has been extensively studied and theorised in the literature, far less attention has been paid until fairly recently to the issue of policy implementation. For a long time it was more or less assumed that once policy was formulated, implementation was a relatively straightforward administrative matter. In the past twenty or thirty years, however, public administration scholars (such as Pressman and Wildavsky and, in the South African context, Brynard and de Coning) have devoted more attention to unravelling the complexities of policy implementation. The current study intends to apply these more theoretical approaches to an analysis of the implementation of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare with particular respect to children in conflict with the law, focusing specifically on the One Stop Child Justice Centre in Mangaung, Bloemfontein. Welfare Service in South Africa before 1994 had a racial bias with services mostly unavailable to the majority of the citizens of the country. The 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare, based on a developmental approach to social welfare, was designed to take the country in a new and inclusive direction. In line with South Africa&rsquo / s 1996 ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other international instruments, Section 4 of Chapter 8 of the White Paper focuses on crime prevention through development and restorative justice, and recommends diversion wherever possible in the case of juveniles. With respect to Juvenile justice, this section of the White Paper makes provision for the establishment of One Stop Child Justice Centres, where a variety of services, from Social Development, the Department of Justice, the South African Police Services, Correctional Services, and the NPA, would be available to clients under one roof. All of these role players, it was envisaged, would operate as a multi-disciplinary team to achieve the objectives of the White Paper with respect to developmental and restorative forms of justice. The Centre at Mangaung is one of only a few centres to have been established as yet in South Africa. Although focusing in particular on the implementation of the 1997 White Paper, the study is also informed by other policy and legislative measures with respect to juvenile justice, in particular the Child Justice Bill of 2002 (now the Child Justice Act of 2008) and the Probation Services Amendment Act of 2002. It is generally accepted by the Government and its critics alike that the policy scene in South Africa in the period since 1994 has been characterized by good policies but poor execution. This is, however, a relatively untested hypothesis and needs further investigation. In the light of this, it is anticipated, that the present study will make a contribution to the literature on policy implementation in South Africa, as well as providing useful insights and&nbsp / sessons that can inform general government policy in this regard, and policy with respect to juvenile justice in particular. Within the general context of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare and the Department of Social Development&rsquo / s Integrated Service Delivery Model, and the specific context of the Mangaung One Stop Child Justice Centre, the overall purpose of the study is to scrutinize the apparent discontinuity between policy design on the one hand and policy implementation on the other. More specifically, though, the objectives of the study are: (i) to examine the content of the 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare in general and more specifically the section on children in conflict with the law, (ii) to provide a historical overview of the delivery of services to youth in conflict with the law prior to the first democratic elections (1994) in South Africa, (iii) to examine what the concept of &lsquo / integrated service delivery&rsquo / means to the different role-players at the One Stop Child Justice Centre, (iv) to examine the existing resources (human, financial and other) for successful implementation of the policy, (v) to examine whether there are procedures in place to encourage co-operation among stakeholders at the One Stop Child Justice Centre, (vi) to examine the successes, challenges and opportunities presented by the implementation of this policy at the One Stop Child Justice Centre and, (vii) to identify gaps between policy and implementation and make recommendations towards more successful implementation. Detailed semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Centre Manager and senior representatives of all the services involved (Social Development, the SAPS, Magistrates, the Probation Service, and Prosecutors). The interview questions focus mainly on implementation issues and challenges, but also gather information on the knowledge of the interviewees on the content of the policy. In addition, in order to validate and compare the data collected from these respondents, semi-structured interviews were held with six parents/guardians of children in conflict with the law who had been serviced by the centre. Official documents of the centre, such as annual reports, were also consulted for purposes of triangulation. Detailed transcripts will be made of all the interviews. In analysing the data, use was made in particular of the 5C Protocol advocated by Brynard and De Coning (2006) in their study of policy implementation in South Africa. The five C&rsquo / s include the Content of the policy, the Context in which the policy is implemented, Commitment from those implementing the policy, the role of Clients and Coalitions, and the Capacity of those tasked with implementing the policy. In addition other C&rsquo / s which have an impact on policy implementation (such as communication, co-ordination, and change management) will also be considered. Confidentiality of data gathered and anonymity of respondents were ensured by not requiring any personal details from the survey instruments. The sole purpose of using the data gathered for research was communicated to the respondents on the front page of the survey instruments. The choice of also not answering questions raised was respected.</p>

The aim of this thesis is to create knowledge on processes of change in the contemporary organizing of Swedish voluntary sport and the systems of meaning at work in these processes. The thesis proceeds from the assumption that the contemporary public sport policy climate is characterized by a pressure on organized sport to change in order for sport to better serve as an implementer of non-sport goals. In attempting to capture the possible ramifications of this pressure on the organizing of voluntary sport, the thesis work relies on the argument that processes of change are best captured in instances where new and established ideas are confronted with one another. Following this argument and drawing upon the concept of theorization, the first research question treated in the thesis concerns how legitimacy is established for a new practice (reported in Article 1). The second research question addressed is how, why, and with what consequences new ideas on organizing are implemented in sport organizations (reported in Article 2 &amp; 3). In relation to this question, the concepts of translation and organizational identity are mobilized in the analysis. Empirically, these two questions are addressed using data from 29 interviews covering the emergence and organizing of organized spontaneous sport, so-called Drive in sport, in four Swedish municipalities. The analysis relating to these two questions shows that the same systems of meaning invoked to legitimize and specify Drive-in sport as a practice that has the potential to remedy problems being faced by both the Swedish society and the Swedish sports movement, also made Drive-in sport an unlikely developmental direction for the majority of implementing sport clubs. This process is understood with reference to a mismatch between the organizational identity of the clubs and the cultural material of the idea of Drive-in sport. This insight is brought into the formulation of the third research question treated in the thesis, which is concerned with sport clubs’ readiness, willingness, and ability to respond to policy changes (reported in Article 4). Building on data from short, qualitative interviews with representatives from 218 randomly selected sport clubs, 10 organizational identity categories are constructed. Between these categories, there is a variety of clubs’ core purposes, practices, and logics of action. The implications of this heterogeneity, in terms of sport clubs’ role as policy implementers, are discussed with reference to what clubs in each category might "imagine doing." The analysis provided in the thesis as a whole suggests that at stake in processes of change in the contemporary organizing of Swedish voluntary sport, is the very definition and meaning of sport.

中共對台工作組織研究是兩岸關係研究課題的核心，值得就此議題，投注心力予以關注。本論文旨在針對中共對台工作運作過程，透過理論的闡述和案例的實證，試圖掌握中共決策行為發生的規律、決策規則的選擇，以及政策的實施等過程，進一步找出影響中共對台決策績效的真實原因，為我國與中共交手尋求對策。因此，本論文以政府過程為研究途徑，關注下列問題：中共對台決策權由哪些組織及何人控制？哪些組織或人得以參與對台決策過程？有哪些因素、哪些人影響中共對台決策過程？台灣民眾的利益是如何輸入中共的決策中樞？對台政策如何制定？政策制定的法定程序如何？有哪些實際過程？制定出來的政策如何執行？哪些組織或人控制著對台政策的執行過程？對台政策能否得到有效的執行？影響政策執行的因素為何？政策制定與執行如何互動？ 政府過程（process of government）是對政府活動的行為、運轉、程序，和構成要素如政治利益團體之間，以及它們與政府之間的交互關係，進行實證性的分析、研究和闡述。政府過程研究，強調用一種動態的方法，對政府體系與制度進行觀察、分析。政府過程的核心功能是政府決策和決策實施。過程是指政治要求與支持的輸入，轉化成權威性政策輸出的過程，包括利益表達（interest articulation）、利益綜合（interest aggregation）、政策制定（policy making）、政策執行（policy implementation）等，其中政策制定或政策執行是政治過程的關鍵性階段。本文假設中共的對台政策的制定依據，都來自於聽到、看到、想到：聽到台灣領導人、朝野政黨、社會意見領袖、學者專家、大眾傳媒怎麼說，看到台灣平面媒體怎麼寫，民意調查怎麼反應，以及政治、經濟、社會如何變化，中共決策制定者進而思索如何據此制定適當的對台政策。因此，本論文以為中共對台工作的政府過程，始自訊息的蒐集、綜合研析。 本論文探討的中共政府，有四個層次：一是狹義的政府，這是指中央政府的國務院及各級地方人民政府；二是廣義的政府，除了國務院及各級地方人民政府，還包括全國人民代表大會及各級地方人民代表大會；三是更廣義的政府，也就是除了第二類，尚包括中國共產黨各級組織、軍隊組織，以及中國人民政治協商會議各級組織等；四是包含上述之外，同時涵蓋民主黨派、人民團體，甚至企業、社團等，也就是所謂的政府體系。就宏觀面來看，本論文其實就是在探討中共政府體系的對台工作。 中共對台工作機制的建立，與其對台認知有關，當認知改變，對台政策隨即跟著改變，對台工作的方法，以及組織和人員也接著改變。因此，中共慣稱，政治路線決定組織路線，組織路線又決定幹部路線。政治路線是總方針、總政策，政策決定後，就須從其本質和需求，考慮何種組織體系以達成目標。同時，就政府過程探討中共對台組織結構，並不只是從規範層面就結構談結構，而是從實務運作上可以觀察到的功能進行分析，也就是以哪些政治結構實際上介入政府過程為標準。基本上，中共對台工作已經形成一個龐大的網絡，是以台辦系統為主幹，再佐以黨、政、軍、群等其他相關部門，構成網絡關係結構。綜合而言，中共對台工作機制，是中共為進行國家統一過程而設置的一種制度安排，並具有下列特點：一、黨的領導；二、黨政共治模式；三、軍隊角色特別突出；四、領導與協調小組普遍設置；五、社群參與政府過程運作；六、多元、多層次的複雜工作體系。 關鍵字：中共對台工作、政府過程、利益表達、利益綜合、政策制定、政策執行 / The research over Leading Group of Taiwan Affairs has been an important issue in the study of Cross-Strait Relations. This thesis attempts to find out the pattern of China’s policy over Taiwan Affairs through the process of decision making within Leading Group. At least seven research questions can be listed in this thesis. 1) Who and which group control policy over Taiwan Affair in China? 2) Who is involved in the process of decision making? 3) Which element can influence the change of policy? 4) How does China consider the interest of Taiwan’s people? 5) How to implement Taiwan’s Policy in reality? 6) Who has power over the implementation of Taiwan’s Policy? Finally, 7) how does the interaction between policy implementation and policy making in China? The research over process of government can be considered as the behavior, performance, procedure and formation of government, as well as the interaction and empirical analysis of political interest groups and government. It is a dynamic process over the investigation of governmental system. Process is defined as the input of political request and demand, as well as the output of authoritative policy, including interest articulation, interest aggregation, policy making, and policy implementation. The last two elements, especially, are the essence of policy process. By assuming China’s policy on Taiwan is formed by hearing, listening and deliberating of Taiwan: hearing the voices of Taiwan’s leaders, scholar, media; listening to the poll of Taiwanese people; and deliberating the evolutions on Taiwan’s political, economic and social changes; China’s decisions making in terms of Taiwan Affairs can be molded. This thesis will focus on the Chinese governmental process on Taiwan Affairs and discuss four levels of central governments in terms of decision making over this issue. The first and most narrow-defined level of central government refers to the State Council and its national branches. The second and less narrow-defined of central government refers to the first level governmental organs plus the National People’s Congress and its national branches. The third level of government is defined as the first and second levels of governmental organ plus the Chinese Communist Party, military organization and National Committee of the Chinese People’s Consultative Conference. Whereas the fourth and widest-defined central government includes above organizations plus all kind of governmental bodies. From this aspect, this thesis aims to discuss Taiwan Affairs from all sorts of governmental bodies. The establishment of Policy on Taiwan Affairs is based on China’s perception on Taiwan issue. The change of perception will shift the direction of policy, which will also affect China’ attitude and arrangement of personnel. Therefore, China government used to argue—it is political direction determines organization direction, and it is organization direction decides cadre direction. Political direction is the mainstream of all kinds of principles and policies. When political direction is decided, organization direction should be adjusted in order to achieve political direction. In the meantime, the discussion over the process of government in terms of Taiwan Affairs should not be focused on the‘norm,’rather; it is the empirical analysis that matter. Basically, China’s affair on Taiwan Issue has formulated an enormous governmental network, which constitutes by the Chinese communist party, politic, military and many governmental divisions. All in all, six characteristics of Taiwan Affairs can be found in this thesis: 1) the dominate of the ruling party; 2) a model of join-governance; 3) the emphasis of the role on military; 4) a wide establishment of coordination committee; 5) various participations within governmental process; and 6) multi-variate and multi-levels working system. Key words: Taiwan affairs, Process of government, Interest articulation, Interest aggregation, Policy making, Policy implementation