Read the following scenarios and decide what you would do if you were Henry, Malinda and Joe. Remember to review and integrate Chapter 2's reading on the Role of the Analyst and Ethical Considerations in your response. These scenarios raise several important issues, including the following:

• Who does the analyst really work for?
• Can the analyst really be a neutral party?
• Does organizational welfare outweigh honesty?
• Depending on how the analyst handles each case, who are the potential winners and losers?
• Would you really evaluate yourself out of a job?

Scenario #1: Metroville Urban Renewal Henry is a policy analyst for the Metroville City Planning Department. His current assignment is to study the effects of 10 years of urban development projects sponsored by the department. A significant amount (more than two-thirds) of the project has been funded by federal grant funds. Federal guidelines accompanying these funds stipulate that urban renewal must significantly assist disadvantaged populations. While conducting a stakeholder analysis, he discovers that there is wide-scale citizen opposition to the continuation of the renewal work. Foremost, critics contend that the development policy in Metroville has uprooted poor families (gentrification), harmed small businesses, and advantaged upper-middle-class families and corporate interests. The director of the planning department (who is Henrys boss) recently won a national award for his work in Metrovilles urban renewal. If Henry reports the citizens complaints, he might well trigger a federal investigation, and Metroville might lose future funding and even face fines for misuse of past grant funds. Henrys position is funded by federal monies, and the department has several exciting new urban renewal projects on the front burner. How does Henry handle the information from Metrovilles citizen stakeholders?

Scenario #2: The Inner-City Drug Program Malinda is a policy analyst working for a state welfare agency. For the past five years the agency has sponsored anti-drug programs in local school districts with inner-city high schools, including East High, which is right across the street from the house where Malinda lived when growing up. The program has been a tremendous political asset for the agency because it allows agency personnel to have considerable interaction with local school districts, parents, and others. Through hard work, the agencys programs have increasingly reflected its commitment to a philosophy of community outreach. Malinda is very committed to the program, played a significant role in its planning and implementation, and believes in her heart of hearts that this program really helps these inner-city kids. She has been charged with conducting an evaluation of the program. Her extensive evaluation has been unable to document any successes in reducing drug use among urban high school students. In fact, her data demonstrate that drug use in the schools in the program has actually increased over the past five years. Despite the data, she still believes in the program and in her work in implementing it. Many in the state legislature would like to see the program cut because they believe the welfare agencyin becoming involved in community outreachhas overstepped its mission. However, the director of the welfare agency recently wrote a report in which she stated, The inner city anti-drug program is a model of how the agency can positively affect local communities. How does Malinda handle this evaluation task?

Scenario #3: Commercial Fishing in Lakeside Joe is an analyst for a state commercial fishing agency. The job of the agency is to regulate commercial fishing in the state. Lakeside is a fishing community that has relied extensively on commercial fish catches from a huge lake. Recently, the fish population has declined dramatically, and fish catches have dropped precipitouslyto almost nothing. There are certainly not enough fish now to support commercial fishing. Three years ago, against heavy political pressure from environmental groups, Joes agency implemented new regulations allowing for much larger catches of fish. In addition, the agency at that time allowed (for the first time) commercial and residential development along the shores of the waterfront. Joes task is to determine the cause of the fish population decline and to write a report on his conclusions. The governor of the state, the mayor of Lakeside, and the director of the fishing agency have all publicly stated that the cause is simply mother nature (increases in water temperature, disease, poor food years, etc.). The director of the agency (who hired him) told Joe directly that This is a natural problem, but a lot of environmental groups will try to blame our new regulations. Your job is to show that our regulations had nothing to do with the problem. After much serious study, based on a wealth of scientific studies funded by his agency and the state university, Joe concludes that the decline in the fish population is due almost solely to a combination of over-fishing and pollution directly linked to the increased development on the shores of the lake. If he reports this information, his agency will face a major shake-up, and the director will almost certainly be fired. The press and the environmental groups will have a field day with this and both the mayor and the governor will suffer politically. What should Joe do? Having a well-thought out view on the big questions, and knowing what lines you wont cross, are important ways to avoid falling into behavior that is unethical and makes you unable to look in the mirror and feel okay about the person looking back at you.

I just need an idea. thank you