Abstract
SB 617 (Calderon & Pavley, 2011) is an ambitious experiment to improve state regulations and increase government transparency. The statute reforms California’s regulatory review process by making the executive review of regulations more robust and adding requirements to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The policy directive mandates many new activities on state institutions and it is uncertain how SB 617 will develop from plan to practice. This thesis looked inside the “black box” of the SB 617 implementation process and unraveled agencies’ early attempts to implement SB 617 by looking at the activities of 10 regulatory agencies and evaluating eight factors. My interviews with implementers were the primary source of data, and public records provided supplemental information. I developed a comprehensive analytical framework to evaluate the ability of the statute to influence the implementation process from the top, and assessed how some factors influence implementation at the ground level. I selected three statutory and five non-statutory variables to analyze the data. I found key differences between the agencies implementing the SB 617 requirements for “non-major” and “major” regulations. State agencies with “non-major” regulations have implemented with guidance and training from the Office of Administrative Law. In contrast, agencies continue to struggle with implementing the new law’s requirements for “major” regulations, waiting for policy guidance from the Department of Finance. I also found extreme variance in the size of regulatory agencies implementing SB 617 and that most regulatory agencies share rulemaking activities among different types of bureaucrats. I observed that agency characteristics related to agency size, having dedicated units to develop regulatory packages, or the degree to which regulation is the primary function of agencies did not affect the implementation process. To increase the probability of success for SB 617, policymakers should focus on the Department of Finance’s implementation process, continue to monitor regulatory agencies’ activities, and ensure that all implementing agencies have the resources and capacity to implement. Additionally, when devising other overarching policies and to increase policy design and implementation effectiveness in the state, policymakers should 1) design clear statutes that separate implementation activities, 2) listen to the “street-level” perspective, and 3) combine macro and micro approaches to policymaking.