Leadership
Development Program 2003
Policy Access: Campus Needs and Best Practices Project
Research Findings
I. Survey Analysis
The Policy
Access Project survey received 1,567 responses
[Appendix I].
Of the respondents, 85% indicated they need access to campus policies in order to do their work.
Survey demographics found that:
- 49%
work in an academic department
- 49%
work in a non-academic department
- 2% did not respond
Regarding Job Classification:
- 53%
selected Professional & Support Staff (PSS)
- 13%
selected Management & Senior Professional (MSP)
- 13%
selected Academic
- 13%
selected Represented (Union)
- 3%
selected Non-Senate Academic
- 2%
selected "Other"
- 3% did not respond
Regarding Years of Service at UC Berkeley:
- 36%
of the respondents have less than 5 years
- 15%
of the respondents have between 5 and 10 years
- 48%
of the respondents have been employed for more than 10 years
- 1% did not respond
While 87% of the respondents only need the most current policy,
a scant 4% "Strongly Agree" that they know whether a policy is current.
Only 21% of survey respondents agree that UC Berkeley policy is accessible.
Other significant findings are:
- 67%
of respondents want to see a summary for each campus policy
- 79%
of respondents use a campus website to search for campus policy
- 71%
of respondents do not contact a policy owner to resolve policy conflicts
- 61%
of respondents can only "Sometimes" identify policy owners
- 60%
of respondents ask a manager/supervisor for policy interpretation
- 65%
of respondents sometimes need to have policy procedure exceptions
- 37%
of respondents use "workarounds" because policy is unclear
- 62% of respondents are self educated about campus policies
The survey also addressed education about and dissemination of campus policies. Survey results indicate:
- 45%
of respondents want immediate notification about policy updates
- 55% of respondents want notification via subscription to a policy-specific listerv
As stated earlier, 85% of respondents need access to campus policies to do their job; however, 14% "Never" receive information about new or updated policies, 72% "Sometimes" receive information, and only 11% "Always" receive new or updated information about policies.
When asked where the campus should focus efforts on improving access to policies, 67% of respondents selected a campus website.
Further, 55% of respondents think an improved policy website would be the most effective way to learn about campus policies.
II. Policy Makers
Policy Development and Approval Process
Policy maker interviews revealed two distinct policy approval processes on the Berkeley campus: academic and non-academic. Each process involves complex and variable development and approval paths; and, at times, an accelerated process is required to address urgent policy needs.
Currently, there is no single office or individual responsible for overseeing the campus policy development and approval process. Consequently, all the affected or appropriate constituencies do not always vet a policy before it is finalized. Most policy makers recognize the need for an ultimate authority, such as the Vice Chancellor's Administrative Council (VCAC), to certify an official policy. A few policy makers expressed concern that this additional step might add a burdensome element to the approval process.
Policy makers voiced concern about whether faculty have the opportunity to fully participate in policy development. However, our research shows that multiple faculty members, faculty committees, and the Academic Senate vet academic policy. One policy maker expressed a strong belief that faculty's participation in all policy development, even non-academic policy development, should be routine. The recommendation was that a policy review committee be appointed, consisting of faculty, staff, and students. Some seasoned administrators cautioned that involving too many constituents in policy development could prolong the process.
Academic policy approval process
Academic
policies may result from needs identified by a faculty or staff committee,
or by the UC Regents (in which case the campus receives general guidelines).
There are several groups that may be involved in academic policy development.
The Committee on Committees may appoint individuals charged with defining
a policy's issues and associated risk factors. While in draft form,
a policy is sometimes vetted by the Divisional Council on Legislative
Matters (DivCo). Generally, the draft policy goes to Academic Senate
committees for review and comment. These comments are compiled and
reviewed by the chair of the Academic Senate. An academic policy is
also generally sent to Deans and Directors for comment. The draft
may be shared with faculty affected by the policy for further comment.
Final approval may be granted by one of several bodies or offices.
Primary dissemination of an academic policy is usually via a Deans
and Directors memorandum.
Non-academic policy approval process
A policy can originate from various sources, including:
- The
University of California Office of the President (UCOP). The
campus may have the opportunity to participate in the UCOP policy
development process. In that case, an individual coordinates the
comment process on campus and submits collective campus recommendations
to UCOP. Once UCOP policy is set, the same coordinator consults
with appropriate campus committees for development and approval
of UC Berkeley's interpretation of the policy and proposes procedures
for implementation. One persistent problem voiced by policy makers
is that some UCOP policies are not easily implemented in the current
environment. For example, in the financial area, UCOP policies do
not support a central billing model, which poses challenges to UC
Berkeley business practices.
- Federal, state and/or local government. Each campus policy maker oversees a particular policy area and keeps abreast of related governmental regulations that need to be implemented on campus. The policy maker coordinates the regulation's integration into campus policy through interpretation, approval, and implementation. These particular policies, such as the policy on smoking, may have campus-wide impact; or, they may only affect particular units, as does the policy on animal research.
- Labor contract and athletic regulation changes. The campus contract negotiator or other appropriate official works with campus officials to develop and implement appropriate policy changes.
- A high-level campus administrator. The administrator may identify the need for a policy independently or as a result of feedback from the campus community. The administrator may delegate policy development to either a unit head or a subject-matter expert.
- Faculty or staff committee. A committee may see a need for a policy. Committees generally direct their proposals to a high-level campus administrator.
Any policy may go to a subject-matter expert for refinement in the drafting process. A draft of a policy may be vetted by a particular subject-matter committee, where it is refined and then routed up the organizational hierarchy for comment. Once a policy has been further refined, it may go to the Deans and Directors for comment. The process for final approval of a policy varies widely across campus. In some areas, such as Information Systems and Technology, interim policies are issued until the policy completes the approval process.
Central Policy Administration
Interviews with policy makers revealed that the UC Berkeley campus has no central policy administration to serve as a central policy repository or central policy authority. Because many external agencies and internal constituencies contribute to policy development at UC Berkeley, the campus risks developing conflicting policies. All but one policy maker recognizes the need for, and supports the creation of, central policy administration to streamline the process.
Concerns
were raised about individual control-unit standards, which are often
higher than campus policy proscribes. A suggestion was offered that
there be a mechanism to identify varying standards and consequences,
and that a central policy administration be authorized to advise departments
on how to properly implement department-specific modifications.
Standardized Template
Policy makers shared widespread agreement on some aspects of a standardized template:
- Present
a uniform format
- Include
related procedures with a policy
- Include
related forms, as long as responsible departments can easily update
them
- Include
an official "approved policy" seal
- Standardize
and include definitions of policies, procedures, guidelines and
regulations, as well as common language for certain terminology
- Create
an easy identification system to distinguish among campus official
policy, interim policy, draft policy, procedures, and guidelines
- Include
delegation of authority and clarify departmental scope of authority
- Strive
for clarity, including a policy statement and bulleted summary of
key areas
- Aim
for a consistent voice for all policies
- Identify
policy owner
- Identify
policy interpreter
- Include
a numbering scheme
- Identify
high-risk policy areas
- Include
links to responsible department's website
- Keep it simple - this came up over and over
[For specific policy maker concerns regarding standardized templates, see Appendix J]
Dissemination of Policy
Policy makers shared widespread agreement about the need for expanded policy dissemination:
- All
official policy should reside in a central policy repository
- Deans
and Directors memos are not an effective means of disseminating
- Policy
listservs that identify a specific policy area in the subject line
for easy identification are welcome
- A
link to an official policy website from the main UC Berkeley homepage
is desired
- An alternative method to access campus policies is needed for staff who do not have access to computers
[For
specific policy maker concerns regarding policy dissemination, see
Appendix K]
Training and Help
The interview
question, "Other than a website, what are alternative methods
of policy dissemination?" generally led to substantive discussion
about the need for training. Policy makers shared widespread agreement
about the need for policy training and assistance for both policy
makers and users [Appendix
L].
Navigation and Search Tools
Specific suggestions were routed to the Best Practices subgroup.
III.
Best Practices
Best
Practices research focused on policy access, website content, policy
format, web architecture and navigation, and commercial tools. More
than thirty website comparisons were made, and several website developers
were interviewed.
Access
The most
accessible university policy websites were linked directly to a campus
homepage. Without a direct link, keyword searches for "policy"
or "policies" often presented numerous options, usually
relating to the university's School of Public Policy. Websites that
provided links to the websites of various "policy holders"
(e.g., Human Resources, Benefits) suffered from a lack of standardized
formats and navigation. The best practices access findings are incorporated
in the "Recommendations and Implications" section.
Website Content
Website
content relates to the specific components and presentation of a centralized
policy website. The best practices website content specifics are incorporated
in the "Recommendations and Implications" section.
Policy Format
A standard
format with standard elements reassures the user that they are viewing
current and official policies. The best practices policy format findings
are incorporated in the "Recommendations and Implications"
section.
Website Architecture - Behind the Scenes
Those
maintaining a website must have control and flexibility to implement
user suggestions; to seamlessly incorporate technological innovations;
and to maintain direct, timely, and collaborative communication with
policy makers and end users. The findings regarding website architecture
were obtained from interviews with web designers, research into commercial
and freeware software, and a study of system-wide and campus publications.
The website architecture best practices findings are incorporated
in the "Recommendations and Implications" section.
Go to LDP Policy Access Project Table of Contents
Back to Top