First hand voices from
US policy practitioners
Brigid Freeman, University of Melbourne (brigid.freeman@unimelb.edu.au)
Nancy Capell, formerly of University of California Office of the President
Andrew Goldblatt, University of California – Berkeley
ABSTRACT
This presentation will explore responses provided by
United States university policy administrators
and senior institutional managers primarily
through survey responses.
This presentation is based on collaborative research the Institutional Policy Project - between the
University of Melbourne, University of California –
Berkeley, Otago Polytechnic in New Zealand, and
Pacific Adventist University and Island Research and
Consultants in Papua New Guinea.
The presentation will consider how United States
higher education institution policy practitioners
conceive policy and the policy cycle.
In addition, the presentation will explore the
various ways in which institutions frame and
conduct policy work, through policies on
policy ("meta-policy"), policy repositories, and
policy management approaches.
METHODOLOGY
Institutional Policy Project (United States)
21 interviewees
58 survey respondents
Respondent involvement with policy (n=56)
Note: Respondents were invited to tick all options that applied
Factors leading to the development of
‘policy on policy’ (meta-policy)
Meta-policy:
• defines the range of policy instruments
• establishes definitions
• articulates the policy cycle
• establishes a classification scheme
• defines the application of policy
• establishes approval authorities approval
authorities
Factors leading to the development of metapolicy (n=36)
Note: Respondents were invited to tick all options that applied
CONCEIVING POLICY -
BROAD DEFINITIONS

“A University Policy is a policy with broad
application throughout the University which
enhances the University’s mission, promotes
operational efficiencies, reduces institutional
risk, helps ensure compliance with applicable
laws and regulations, promotes ethical standards
and integrity, and is approved in accordance with
the procedures described in this Policy. In general,
University Policies include and are of a kind and
nature similar to policies that are posted on [the
policy repository].” [RESPONDENT]
CONCEIVING POLICY
OBJECTIVES

“Policy that applies broadly throughout the
University and pertains to more than one division
of the University. University policy requires the
President's review and approval and falls into three
categories, namely: policy that enhances the
mission of the University; policy that ensures
compliance with applicable laws, rules and
regulations; or policy that promotes operational
effectiveness and efficiencies and reduces
institutional risk.” [RESPONDENT]
Your text here
CONCEIVING POLICY
RECORDS MANAGEMENT

“University policies are maintained by the Policy Office
in the policy manual. University policies often
prescribe standards, requirements, restrictions,
rights, or responsibilities and support the mission,
values, and operation of the university. In this
document, the terms policy and policies refer to
university policies. Policies may not exist except at
the university level. Divisions, colleges, schools,
departments, programs, offices, etc. may have
guidelines, practices, and standard operating
procedures.” [RESPONDENT]
CONCEIVING POLICY
GOVERNING PRINCIPLE

“The policy statement is the governing
principle, plan, or understanding that guides
the action. It states what we do and why, but not
how. The policy statement(s) should be brief, and
is supplemented by the information within the
rest of the section.” [RESPONDENT]
Variations in the conception of ‘policy’
reported by respondents
CONCEIVING PROCEDURES
 Operationalize policy
 Frequently stepped
 Forms/methods
 Orderly administration
 Provide accountability
CONCEIVING PROCEDURES
IMPLEMENTATION

“Procedures are the functional steps used to
implement policies.” [RESPONDENT]

“it is the how you implement” [RESPONDENT]

“A defined course of proceeding – often
composed of steps, using established forms or
methods – to carry out a particular policy.”
[RESPONDENT]
CONCEIVING PROCEDURES
METHODS & COMPLIANCE

“Information for implementation, administration,
and compliance in a consistent, efficient, and
effective way. Outlines the processes, step by step,
that need to be followed to comply with the policy.
Outlines “how” to follow the policy. Required actions
are listed according to the tasks themselves.
Contains similar information to the Responsibilities
section which outlines required actions according to
the office or job function.” [RESPONDENT]
CONCEIVING PROCEDURES
METHODS & COMPLIANCE

“Statement of method to be used in
implementing Board Policy. It includes details of
policy implementation, responsibility,
accountability, and standards of practice
consistent with the intent of Board Policy.”
[RESPONDENT]
CONCEIVING THE POLICY CYCLE
Freeman et al. (2014) found that:
 “United States higher education managers and
policy practitioners interviewed for the
Institutional Policy Project conceive the policy
cycle either as a “cradle to grave” policy
process, or a process primarily focused on policy
review. The “cradle to grave”, “life cycle” or
“policy pipeline” metaphors provided by interview
respondents involve the various policy cycle
stages broadly including “creation –
implementation – updating – review.” (p. 4)
CONCEIVING THE POLICY CYCLE
Freeman et al. (2014) found further that:
 “Conversely, the “policy cycle as policy review” view
focuses explicitly on post-approval policy review
processes including maintenance functions,
implementation evaluation, formal review against
practices, and ongoing text amendment to
accommodate internal or external changes. Almost all
respondents report challenges regarding the final
stages of the policy cycle; that is, policy
implementation, and policy implementation monitoring
and evaluation (for example, absence of evaluation
activity, limited evaluation capacity, dislocation
between development, implementation and
evaluation).” (p. 4)
CONCEIVING THE POLICY CYCLE
Freeman et al. (2014) found further that:
 “Concurrently, many respondents saw this
as a challenge for policy “owners” or
“responsible officers”, rather than policy
practitioners centrally managing
institutional policy.” (p. 4)
Institutional policy cycle requirements (n=41)
Note: Respondents were invited to tick all options that applied
Number of policies currently overdue for review
16.7%
22.2%
none
between approximately 1-25%
of policies in the policy library
27.8%
33.3%
between approximately 26 –
50% of policies in the policy
library
over 50% policies in the policy
library

“This is the core of the problem with
administrative policies at any institution of
higher education in this country, and that is
that, you know, the struggle between
academic freedom and rules. So I mean I
understand that culturally it is very, very
difficult here. … I would love to be there [in
Australia] where people were saying, we
consider it important enough because they are
checking … [to] see that we’re implementing
what we say we are implementing.” [RESPONDENT]

“… most of my colleagues I speak to, they have
regular … review cycles but we all struggle with …
getting the policy owners to actually you know to
do as comprehensive a review as we would like. … I
am not that aware of, you know, anyone who has
standardised to the extent that any of us would like
it standardised. And I think that the reason for
that, I am just gonna say, … is because for the
most part, those of us who want centralised policy
offices … do not have the authority to say you must
do it this way. Because we don’t actually own the
policies.” [RESPONDENT]
Number of institutions that have conducted a
policy suite review (n=42)
POLICY SUITE REVIEW PROJECT
One respondent recommended the following:

“This project needs a champion at the senior leadership level
(University President or Chancellor); and a senior leader at the VP
level should be charged with process leadership. Ensure
appropriate delegations are in place. Form a policy process
committee. Draft and get formal approval for "policy on policies."
Ensure it is disseminated widely. Appoint individual who will make
it happen (probably not the VP). Divide policies into areas (finance,
HR, IT, academic etc) and categorize by level of complexity and outdatedness. Have a timeline. Assign each committee member to
functional area.” [CONTINUED OVERLEAF]
POLICY SUITE REVIEW PROJECT

“Work with functional area to define a process that
works for them. Use deadlines established by champion
(President) to assure the review gets done. Make
committee members accountable for her/his area and
report back to committee. For those areas not making
progress, invite VP to committee to discuss. Be willing to
do some of the work for the functional areas, including
benchmarking, drafting, scheduling meetings. Make it
happen. Don't let your policies be like Latin - exist in a
book somewhere but functional areas think of them as
‘dead’.” [RESPONDENT]
Resources available to support policy
development or amendment (n=32)
Note: Respondents were invited to tick all options that applied
Resources available to support policy review
(n=17)
Note: Respondents were invited to tick all options that applied
Institutional policy website inclusions (n=17)
Note: Respondents were invited to tick all options that applied
Human resources available (n=33)
Note: Respondents were invited to tick all options that applied
CHARACTERISTICS OF A
GOOD POLICY DEVELOPER

“Knowledgeable about multiple aspects of the university;
clear communicator; effective organizer; good judgment
about policy implications.” [RESPONDENT]

“Balance of attention to big picture and detail; open to
feedback; good plain language writer; not sexist; knows
what they know and what they don't know.”
[RESPONDENT]
More CHARACTERISTICS OF A
GOOD POLICY DEVELOPER

“Ability to listen to policy stakeholders and translate their
needs and wants into a written document. Ability to
understand business process (both in positive and negative
circumstances).” [RESPONDENT]

“Thorough knowledge and understanding of topic; good
writing skills; ability to interact and garner feedback from
constituents.” [RESPONDENT]
Clusters of policy-related responsibilities
The authors suggest that efforts to encourage increased
activity in one area should be clear about where institutional
responsibility lies, at what points policy practitioners can
appropriately provide support, and how policy practitioners
can develop intervention strategies accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the survey responses and interviews, the
authors conclude the following:
•
•
•
•
•
United States practitioners draw a distinction between
responsibility for administrative policy and
responsibility for academic policy.
Comprehensive meta-policy can go some way towards
embedding good policy practices.
Conceptions of policy are dependent on context
(position, institution type, level of expertise)
United States practitioners have good policy
development skills. However, this focus on policy
development may be to the detriment of the required
focus on policy implementation evaluation and review.
Policies need to reflect practice. [continued overleaf]
Based on the survey responses and interviews,
the authors conclude further that:


United States higher education institutions
have range of institutional policy resources,
libraries and websites, many of which are
publicly accessible for newcomers interested in
establishing quality policy systems.
Policy borrowing, ACUPA initiatives,
institutional policy research, and fruitful
international collaborations can go some way
to propagating good practices to compensate
for the perpetual shortage of policy-related
resources.
Thank you for your participation.

Questions or comments?