Course: PSCI 6314 Policy Processes, Implementation, and Evaluation

Dr. Elliott
Professor: Spring 2011
Term:
Meetings: Saturdays, 10:00am – 12:45pm
Classroom: GR 3.606

Professor’s Contact Information

Office Phone GR3.214
Office Location Phone: 972.883.2066
Email Address Email: eelliott@utdallas.edu
Office Hours Office hours: 8.00a.m. – 10:00a.m. Monday-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.

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
Requirements & dealing with an analysis of your selected topic at different stages in
Grading Criteria 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 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 or Seventh 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.

Page 2 of 9
 Course Policies

Make-up Tests Students failing to complete assignments in a timely manner, without

and Exams adequate reason may be 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
Dishonesty 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).

Student Conduct The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas have
& Discipline rules and regulations 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 The faculty expects from its students a high level of responsibility and
Integrity 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.

Page 3 of 9
 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
Class 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.

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

Page 4 of 9
 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
Policy 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.

Disability The goal of Disability Services is to provide students with disabilities

Services 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 The University of Texas at Dallas will excuse a student from class or other
Days 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.

Page 5 of 9
 A student who notifies the instructor and completes any missed exam or
assignment may not be penalized for the absence. A 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

Page 6 of 9
 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.

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

Page 7 of 9
 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 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.

Page 8 of 9
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.

Page 9 of 9