Course: PA/PSCI 5304 Policy Processes, Implementation, and Evaluation

Professor: Dr. Elliott

Term: Spring 2010
Meetings: Saturdays, 10:00am – 12:45pm
Classroom: GR 3.606

Professor’s Contact Information

Office Phone GR3.104
Office Location Phone: 972.883.2066
Email Address Email: eelliott@utdallas.edu
Office Hours Office hours: 8.00a.m. – 10:00a.m. Saturday and by appt.

General Course Information

Course Description Application of models of the policy process to the analysis of legislative and administrative (and
in some cases judicial) processes at different points in the policy cycle with special emphasis on
problems of policy design, implementation and evaluation. Use of case studies, empirical
analysis, direct observation, and group projects. Prerequisite: POEC 5303 or equivalent. If in
doubt, contact instructor.

The course focuses on an in-depth analysis of the various stages of the policy process conveyed
with appropriate readings for different stages. The examination will be done within the context of
detailed analysis, both in groups and individually, of a set of policy initiatives selected by the
class. Since aspects of this course can be considered a practicum, the course is designed to give
students experience and exposure to policy making in the real world. I hope, in that regard, to
also arrange for occasional guest speakers.

Students will be divided into teams to work on different policies. You will be responsible for
completing your assignments on time.

The work will be organized into two (somewhat overlapping) phases:

1. Fact-finding, problem definition, issue framing, agenda setting, policy formulation and
adoption
2. Policy design, implementation and evaluation.

I am open to student input concerning specific issue-legislation, but I have a slight preference for
an emphasis on state and local policymaking. Specific cases will be discussed in the first two
classes, and hopefully finalized no later than Saturday, January 23.

Learning Objectives The objective of this course is to help you develop scholarly and professional skills in the design,
implementation and evaluation of public policy. The course, therefore, builds on and applies
knowledge and ideas developed in POEC 5303. These skills include analysis of policy strategies,
issues framing, oral presentation of policy proposals, design of implementation schemes, and
appreciation of practical and ethical issues in the policy process and in the substantive content of
policy

Course
A. The team project, consisting of two presentations by team members dealing with an
Requirements and
analysis of your selected topic at different stages in the policy cycle. Each presentation
Grading Criteria should be approximately 20-25 minutes in length.
B. A midterm essay exam, scheduled for March 13.
C. Short (individual or duet) presentations covering weekly readings will also be
occasionally assigned, depending on class enrollments. Also, depending upon
enrollment, each student will be asked to select an article that is not a part of the
 2

syllabus, and present an oral report on that article and its significance.
D. Students will have a choice between a take home final exam and a final paper:
(1) There will be a take-home final exam due May 9. A set of questions from which the
exam will be taken will be distributed two weeks prior to the due date.
(2) Approximately 13-15 page literature review relating to a specific topic covered in the
course. The paper might cover a key concept, theory or concept dealt with in class
discussions and/or readings. It would be due May 9.

Grading Scheme Mid-term Exam 25%

Two Oral Presentations (group project) 25%
Other individual class presentations & participation: 20%
Final Exam (Take-home) or Literature Review: 30%
100%

Grades will be assigned using the following scale: A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, F

Note: Presentation grades will be based on the quality of your individual presentations
as well as the overall team effort. Presentations should be as polished as possible, and
use of audio-visual aids where appropriate is strongly encouraged. Also, the instructor
reserves the right to make modest changes in the schedule and course requirements
depending upon class size. It is also expected that guest speakers will meet the class
periodically throughout the semester.

Required Course Three texts have been selected as required reading for the course. They are available at the
Readings bookstore. A number of articles have been selected to augment the texts, and there will probably
be some additional articles and other handouts provided over the course of the semester.

The texts are:

Anderson, James. 2006. Public Policymaking Sixth Edition. Boston and NY: Houghton
Mifflin.

Rochefort, David and Roger Cobb, 1994. The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping
the Policy Agenda. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Baumgartner, Frank and Bryan D. Jones. 2002. Policy Dynamics. Chicago and London:
University Chicago Press.

Course Policies
Make-up Tests and Students failing to complete assignments in a timely manner, without adequate reason may be
Exams assessed a failing grade on those assignments.

Attendance Regular attendance in a course of this type is essential.

Academic The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility and academic honesty.
Dishonesty Because the value of an academic degree depends upon the absolute integrity of the work done by
the student for that degree, it is imperative that a student demonstrate a high standard of individual
honor in his or her scholastic work. Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to,
statements, acts or omissions related to applications for enrollment or the award of a degree,
and/or the following acts: cheating, plagiarism, collusion and/or falsifying academic records.
Students suspected of academic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary proceedings. (See
Appendix of the current undergraduate catalog).

Student Conduct & The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas have rules and regulations
 3

Discipline for the orderly and efficient conduct of their business. It is the responsibility of each student and
each student organization to be knowledgeable about the rules and regulations which govern
student conduct and activities. General information on student conduct and discipline is
contained in the UTD publication, A to Z Guide, which is provided to all registered students each
academic year.

The University of Texas at Dallas administers student discipline within the procedures of
recognized and established due process. Procedures are defined and described in the Rules and
Regulations, Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, Part 1, Chapter VI, Section 3, and
in Title V, Rules on Student Services and Activities of the university’s Handbook of Operating
Procedures. Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the
Dean of Students, where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and
regulations (SU 1.602, 972/883-6391).

A student at the university neither loses the rights nor escapes the responsibilities of citizenship.
He or she is expected to obey federal, state, and local laws as well as the Regents’ Rules,
university regulations, and administrative rules. Students are subject to discipline for violating the
standards of conduct whether such conduct takes place on or off campus, or whether civil or
criminal penalties are also imposed for such conduct.

Academic Integrity The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility and academic honesty.
Because the value of an academic degree depends upon the absolute integrity of the work done by
the student for that degree, it is imperative that a student demonstrate a high standard of individual
honor in his or her scholastic work.

Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, statements, acts or omissions related to
applications for enrollment or the award of a degree, and/or the submission as one’s own work or
material that is not one’s own. As a general rule, scholastic dishonesty involves one of the
following acts: cheating, plagiarism, collusion and/or falsifying academic records. Students
suspected of academic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary proceedings.

Plagiarism, especially from the web, from portions of papers for other classes, and from any other
source is unacceptable and will be dealt with under the university’s policy on plagiarism (see
general catalog for details). This course will use the resources of turnitin.com, which searches the
web for possible plagiarism and is over 90% effective.

Email Use The University of Texas at Dallas recognizes the value and efficiency of communication between
faculty/staff and students through electronic mail. At the same time, email raises some issues
concerning security and the identity of each individual in an email exchange. The university
encourages all official student email correspondence be sent only to a student’s U.T. Dallas email
address and that faculty and staff consider email from students official only if it originates from a
UTD student account. This allows the university to maintain a high degree of confidence in the
identity of all individual corresponding and the security of the transmitted information. UTD
furnishes each student with a free email account that is to be used in all communication with
university personnel. The Department of Information Resources at U.T. Dallas provides a method
for students to have their U.T. Dallas mail forwarded to other accounts.

Withdrawal from The administration of this institution has set deadlines for withdrawal of any college-level
Class courses. These dates and times are published in that semester's course catalog. Administration
procedures must be followed. It is the student's responsibility to handle withdrawal requirements
from any class. In other words, I cannot drop or withdraw any student. You must do the proper
paperwork to ensure that you will not receive a final grade of "F" in a course if you choose not to
attend the class once you are enrolled.

Student Grievance Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on Student Services and Activities,
Procedures of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures.
 4

In attempting to resolve any student grievance regarding grades, evaluations, or other fulfillments
of academic responsibility, it is the obligation of the student first to make a serious effort to
resolve the matter with the instructor, supervisor, administrator, or committee with whom the
grievance originates (hereafter called “the respondent”). Individual faculty members retain
primary responsibility for assigning grades and evaluations. If the matter cannot be resolved at
that level, the grievance must be submitted in writing to the respondent with a copy of the
respondent’s School Dean. If the matter is not resolved by the written response provided by the
respondent, the student may submit a written appeal to the School Dean. If the grievance is not
resolved by the School Dean’s decision, the student may make a written appeal to the Dean of
Graduate or Undergraduate Education, and the deal will appoint and convene an Academic
Appeals Panel. The decision of the Academic Appeals Panel is final. The results of the academic
appeals process will be distributed to all involved parties.

Copies of these rules and regulations are available to students in the Office of the Dean of
Students, where staff members are available to assist students in interpreting the rules and
regulations.

Incomplete Grade As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for work unavoidably missed at
Policy the semester’s end and only if 70% of the course work has been completed. An incomplete grade
must be resolved within eight (8) weeks from the first day of the subsequent long semester. If the
required work to complete the course and to remove the incomplete grade is not submitted by the
specified deadline, the incomplete grade is changed automatically to a grade of F.

Disability Services The goal of Disability Services is to provide students with disabilities educational opportunities
equal to those of their non-disabled peers. Disability Services is located in room 1.610 in the
Student Union. Office hours are Monday and Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; Tuesday and
Wednesday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

The contact information for the Office of Disability Services is:

The University of Texas at Dallas, SU 22
PO Box 830688
Richardson, Texas 75083-0688
(972) 883-2098 (voice or TTY)

Essentially, the law requires that colleges and universities make those reasonable adjustments
necessary to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability. For example, it may be necessary
to remove classroom prohibitions against tape recorders or animals (in the case of dog guides) for
students who are blind. Occasionally an assignment requirement may be substituted (for example,
a research paper versus an oral presentation for a student who is hearing impaired). Classes
enrolled students with mobility impairments may have to be rescheduled in accessible facilities.
The college or university may need to provide special services such as registration, note-taking, or
mobility assistance.

It is the student’s responsibility to notify his or her professors of the need for such an
accommodation. Disability Services provides students with letters to present to faculty members
to verify that the student has a disability and needs accommodations. Individuals requiring
special accommodation should contact the professor after class or during office hours.

Religious Holy Days The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a student from class or other required activities for
the travel to and observance of a religious holy day for a religion whose places of worship are
exempt from property tax under Section 11.20, Tax Code, Texas Code Annotated.

The student is encouraged to notify the instructor or activity sponsor as soon as possible regarding
the absence, preferably in advance of the assignment. The student, so excused, will be allowed to
take the exam or complete the assignment within a reasonable time after the absence: a period
equal to the length of the absence, up to a maximum of one week. A student who notifies the
instructor and completes any missed exam or assignment may not be penalized for the absence. A
 5

student who fails to complete the exam or assignment within the prescribed period may receive a
failing grade for that exam or assignment.

If a student or an instructor disagrees about the nature of the absence [i.e., for the purpose of
observing a religious holy day] or if there is similar disagreement about whether the student has
been given a reasonable time to complete any missed assignments or examinations, either the
student or the instructor may request a ruling from the chief executive officer of the institution, or
his or her designee. The chief executive officer or designee must take into account the legislative
intent of TEC 51.911(b), and the student and instructor will abide by the decision of the chief
executive officer or designee.

Schedule
January 16 Overview of Course, Introduction, and Discussion of Organizational Issues

Jeffrey W. Knopf. 2006. Doing a Literature Review. PS. 127-132.

January 23 Overview of the Policy Process and additional discussion of organizational issues, theory of
problem definition
Anderson, Ch. 1 and 2

David Rochefort and Roger Cobb. “Problem Definition: An Emerging Perspective: in D.

Rochefort and R. Cobb (R&C) p. 1-31.

John Portz. “Plant Closings, Community Definitions and the Local Response, in R&C,
pp. 32-49.

Ellen F. Paul “Sexual Harassment: A Defining Moment and its Repercussions” in R&C
pp. 67-97

Edella Schlager and William Blomquist, 1996. A Comparison of Three Emerging

Theories of the Political Process. Political Research Quarterly 49 : 651-672

B. Dan Wood and Alesha Doan, 2003. The Politics of Problem Definition: Applying and
Testing Threshold Models. American Journal of Political Science 47: 640-653.

January 30 Problem Definition (cont’d) and Agenda Setting

J.F. Coughlin, “The Tragedy of the Concrete Commons…”, R&C pp. 138-159.

David Rochefort and Roger Cobb. “Instrumental versus Expressive Definitions of AIDS
Policymaking”, R&C pp. 159-181.

February 6-13 Agenda Setting (cont’d), Decisionmaking, Policy Fomulation and Adoption

Anderson, ch. 3 and 4.

Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones in Baumgatner and Jones (B&J), “Positive and
Negative Feedback in Politics” pp. 3-28.

Frank Baumgartner, Bryan D. Jones and J.D. Williams. “Studying Policy Dynamics”
(B&J) pp. 29-50.

John W. Hardin “Multiple Topics, Multiple Targets, Multiple Goals and Multiple
Decisionmakers: Congressional Consideration of Comprehensive Health Care Reform”
in (B&J), pp 96-124.
 6

Valerie Hunt, “The Multiple and Changing Goals of Immigration Reform: A

Comparison of House and Senate Activity, 1947-1993. (B&J), pp. 73-95.

Jeffery C. Talbert and Matthew Potoski: “The Changing Public Agenda Over the Past
War Period”, (B&J) pp. 189-204.

Frank Baumgartner and Jamie Gold, “The Changing Agendas of Congress and the
Supreme Court”, (B&J), pp. 270-290.

Bryan Jones and Frank Baumgatner, in B&J “Punctuations, Ideas, and Public Policy”,
pp. 293-306.

Charles E. Lindblom. 1959. The ‘Science’ of Muddling Through’ Public Administration

Review 19: 79-88.

Paul Pierson, 2000. Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.
American Political Science Review 94 : 251-267.

Informal team meetings with instructor

February 20 First group presentations

Feb. 27 – March 6 Policy Design and Related Issues

Stephen H. Linder and B. Guy Peters. 1984. From Social Theory to Policy Design.
Journal of Public Policy 4: 237-259.

Peter J. May. 1993. Reconsidering Policy Design: Policies and Publics. Journal of
Public Policy 11: 187-206.

Michael Mumper, 2003. Does Policy Design Matter? Comparing Universal and Targeted
Approaches to Encouraging College Participation. Educational Policy 17 : 38-57

Clayton Stallbaumer, 2006. From Longitude to Altitude: Inducement Prize Contests as

Instruments of Public Policy in Science and Technology. Journal of Law, Technology and
Policy. 2006: 117-158

March 13 Midterm Exam

March 20 Spring Break

March 27-April 3 Policy Design, Implementation and Related Issues

Anderson, Ch. 6

Richard Maitland. 1995. “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-

Conflict Model of Policy Implementation”. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 2: 145-174.

Marcia K. Meyers, et al. 1998 “On the Front Lines of Welfare Delivery: Are Workers
Implementing Policy Reforms?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 17: 1-22.

Heather C. Hill. 2003. “Understanding Implementation: Street Level Bureaucrats

 7

Resources for Reform”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13: 205-
282.

Helen Ingram and Anne Schneider. 1990. Improving Implementation through Framing
Smarter Statutes. Journal of Public Policy 10: 67-88.

Jane Waldfogel. 1999. “The Impact of the Family Medical Leave Act”. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management. 18: 281-302.

April 10-24 Policy Evaluation

Anderson, ch. 7 and 8.

Wildavsky, Aaron. 1972. “The Self-Evaluating Organization”. Public Administration

Review 32: 509-520.

George A. Boyne, et al. 2004. Toward the Self-Evaluating Organization? An Empirical

Test of the Wilddavsky Model. Public Administrative Review 64: 463-473.

Geva-May, Iris. 2004. “Riding the Wave of Opportunity: Termination in Public Policy”.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14: 309-333.

Frantz, Janet E. 2002. Political Resources for Policy Termination. Policy Studies Journal
30: 11-28.
April 24-May 1 Second Group Presentations
Concluding Remarks and Course Wrap-up

May 8 Take Home Final Exam or Literature Review Due [By 10AM in GR 3.104]
Please do not email exam or paper.

These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the discretion of the Professor depending upon
class enrollments, guest lectures, and other possible exogenous factors. Any changes will be announced
well ahead of time.