Week 5

Lesson objectives for this week

This week we consider and apply the second step of the four-step problem solving methodology. The second step attempts to answer the question: What are the underlying causes of the problematic behaviors identified in step one? The objective this week is to proffer explanations (or explanatory hypotheses) for the problematic behaviors of the primary role occupants. In order to ensure that the solution proposed by the research report (step three) addresses the underlying causes of the problematic behaviors - not just the symptoms--all possible causes of the problematic behaviors must be identified for each role occupant.

The triangular model (figure 1-1) helps explain why people act as they do in the face of a rule of law. This model provides a starting point for explaining the underlying causes of problematic behaviors:  the rule itself; the implementing agencies’ behaviors; and non-legal constraints and resources. These categories provide general guidance for explaining problematic behaviors but are too broad to formulate the detailed hypotheses necessary to design effective legislative solutions. Therefore the methodology “unpacks” these categories into seven narrower categories: rule, opportunity, capacity, communication, interest, process, and ideology.

The first letter of each category may be assembled to create the “mnemonic” or memory aid - ROCCIPI.  It is pronounced  “row- kee-pee” on the lecture tapes but  also (with a little imagination) could be pronounced more like “recipe” – in this case a  formula  for identifying the causes of problematic behaviors. But regardless of how the ROCCIPI categories are remembered, each category must be considered for ideas as to possible, testable hypotheses for each primary role occupant’s problematic behaviors.

The seven ROCCIPI factors are defined on pages 95 to 98 of the Manual. They do not in themselves explain behavior. They are used to guide the drafter in generating probable explanatory hypotheses.

The B stream exercises this week call for a re-read of Chapter 9 of the Manual. The B Stream Study Guide examines seven important rules for defining the subject of a legislative sentence: specifying the who.

Assignments

• Review Manual, Part II, Chapter 4 (pp. 85-124, especially pp. 93-99, 120-121), Read Chapter 7 (pp. 187-200); and review Part III, Chapter 9 (pp. 231-254).
• Listen to tapes A-6, B-4.
• E-mail to your editor and to the course participants:

• the draft ‘Explanations’ part of your research report on the causes of the primary role occupants’ problematic behaviors (use the ROCCIPI research agenda; see Outline in Manual, pp. 120-121); and
• two more sections of your bill, again making sure you have stated who does what. Indicate where in your bill these sections will appear. Make sure they prove consistent with the other sections that you have drafted. If necessary, amend previously drafted sections of your bill to ensure they are consistent with the new sections.

• Discuss with your group the answers to the general questions, Study Guide, Session A-6, slide #10. (Also see the Study Guide, Session B-4.)
• E-mail to your both editor and to the course participants:

• comments, questions or suggestions you may have about materials covered in the audio-presentations, the Manual or the Study Guide; &
• answers to questions and exercises raised in the Study Guide.