You are on page 1of 7

Course: Professor: Term: Meetings: Classroom

:
Professor’s Contact Information

PA/PSCI 5304 Policy Processes, Implementation, and Evaluation Dr. Elliott Spring 2010 Saturdays, 10:00am – 12:45pm GR 3.606

Office Phone Office Location Email Address Office Hours

GR3.104 Phone: 972.883.2066 Email: eelliott@utdallas.edu 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 A. The team project, consisting of two presentations by team members dealing with an analysis of your selected topic at different stages in the policy cycle. Each presentation 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

Course Requirements and Grading Criteria

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

Three texts have been selected as required reading for the course. They are available at the 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 Exams Attendance Academic Dishonesty Students failing to complete assignments in a timely manner, without adequate reason may be assessed a failing grade on those assignments. Regular attendance in a course of this type is essential. 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 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). The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas have rules and regulations

Student Conduct &

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. The administration of this institution has set deadlines for withdrawal of any college-level 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. Procedures for student grievances are found in Title V, Rules on Student Services and Activities, of the university’s Handbook of Operating Procedures.

Withdrawal from Class

Student Grievance 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 Policy As per university policy, incomplete grades will be granted only for work unavoidably missed at 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. 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

Disability Services

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 Feb. 27 – March 6 First group presentations 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 March 20 Midterm Exam Spring Break

March 27-April 3

Policy Design, Implementation and Related Issues Anderson, Ch. 6

Richard Maitland. 1995. “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The AmbiguityConflict 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: 205282. 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. Second Group Presentations Concluding Remarks and Course Wrap-up

April 24-May 1

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.