THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIARY PUBLIC POLICY

ORGANIZATIONS INSHAPING THE POLICY

AGENDA FORHIGHER EDUCATION

© 2018 University of Denver Morgridge College of Education

1999 E. Evans AvenueDenver, CO 80208303-871-2509morgridge.du.edu

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmited in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permision of the publisher or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Angency.

Text Design by: Sophia Laderman

Cover Design and Layout by: Jordan Kellerman

Edited by: Gloria Auer

Printed and bound in Littleton, CO by QualImage Printing

THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIARY PUBLIC POLICY

ORGANIZATIONS INSHAPING THE POLICY

AGENDA FORHIGHER EDUCATION

A Research Brief

Cecilia M. Orphan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Higher Education, Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver

Sophia Laderman, M.P.APh.D. Student, Higher Education, Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver, and

Senior Policy Analyst, State Higher Education Executive Officers Association

Ryan Evely Gildersleeve, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Chair, Higher Education, Morgridge College of Education,

University of Denver

Dedication This research brief is dedicated to the memory of Julie Davis Bell, a tireless leader of the

intermediary public policy organization sector and advocate for equity in education.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to acknowledge those who provided leadership in the research brief’s

creation. First and foremost, we are indebted to the intermediary public policy organization leaders who shared their time and expertise with us during data collection. Without their

insights, this brief would not have been possible. Jamey Rorison, Former Director of Research and Policy, Institute for Higher Education Policy, offered thoughtful feedback about the brief

captured in the following letter. We are also grateful to Gloria Auer, CommunicationsCoordinator for the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, for serving as

copyeditor. Jordan Kellerman, Marketing Specialist for the Morgridge College of Education at the University of Denver, assisted with graphic design, layout and final production. Finally,

Liliana Diaz, Ph.D. Student, Alejandra Martinez-Faiffer, Master’s Student, and SabrinaSideris, Ph.D. Candidate, Higher Education at the Morgridge College of Education at the

University of Denver, assisted with data management and transcription.

Letter of Introduction

Jamey Rorison, Ph.D.Former Director of Research and Policy, Institute for Higher

Education Policy

Influencing higher education policy is a formidable, critical task, which is why there are so many talented, passionate people across the country who have devoted their careers to the cause. Whether focused on federal, state, or local policy, the field is full of individuals and organizations who conduct research, build and leverage networks, craft innovative messaging, and use various other skill sets in the name of shaping a higher education

system that promotes access, improves affordability, increases completion, and prepares our students for productive futures.

I came to this work because I recognized that college access and success in higher education do not operate on a level playing field. I wanted to amplify the voices of those who don’t always have air time in public discourse or a seat at the policy table. The first group that comes to mind–and is most important to me–is students, particularly students from low-income families and racial groups that have been historically underrepresented in higher education and suffer from policies that often fail to address their needs. Institutions and the personnel within them also vary in the degree to which their voices are heard and interests are considered.

Intermediary public policy organizations (IPPO) have emerged over time as majorplayers in the policymaking process for many different reasons–some want to give voice to these stakeholders who otherwise don’t have an audience with policymakers, others want to bolster their members’ influence, while others want to contribute new data or other evidence to theconversation. The diverse roles of these organizations often stretch beyond just policydevelopment or serving as a bridge between policymakers and other constituencies, and IPPOs operate within a multilayered, complex higher education ecosystem. These organizations aspire to stay apace with a constantly evolving policy landscape, and dealing with these changes is not easy–they must balance the demands of reacting to legislative and regulatory developments with a desire to proactively shape the conversation. Aiming at a moving target, IPPOs are alwaystrying to think to the future while addressing a present that is forever in flux.

Over the nearly ten years I’ve spent working for organizations that have played thisintermediary role, I’ve experienced first-hand the challenges of balancing research rigor with a desire to influence policy. In many instances, policymakers have been quite receptive toresearch findings. Occasionally, it can be difficult for organizations to rely on research alone to compel action. Regardless of the federal or state political climate at any given time, it often takes a whole community to even move the needle, let alone architect any kind of major policy shift, which is why it is so exciting to take a step back and look at the individuals and groups doing this work.

Orphan, Laderman, and Gildersleeve present a commendable foray intounderstanding this important subset of policy influencers. Their work to classify IPPOs andcapture their engagement in policy agenda setting is timely, as the number of organizations in this space continues to grow. As they note, this research brief opens the door to

much-needed future research, research that I hope will explore just how IPPOs behave as change agents, while considering the ways in which voices outside of highereducation–including, but not limited to, civil rights advocates, K-12 groups, and workforceleaders–promote or limit the progress of an equity agenda for higher education.

It will be interesting to see how the roles of IPPOs and other stakeholders change in the coming years, as the tension between technological and communications advances and the tried, true, and unlikely-to-change policy process continues to force us all to rethink how we go about achieving our goals. At the end of the day, however, the strongest IPPOs will continue to pair robust research and policy development with well-crafted messaging and advocacy tools to capture the attention of policymakers and enable them to create policy that serves our students’ best interests, increases access, improves outcomes, and reduces inequities.

Executive Summary

Intermediary public policy organizations (IPPOs) are designed to support and inform various stakeholders in the policy formation process. While there are several types of IPPOs, they all share a unique ability to influence public policy for higher education. This study examines how IPPOs affect the policy process by engaging in agendasetting. The findings presented are based on document analyses and semi-structure interviews with senior leadership from 24 IPPOs in Washington, D.C., and Colorado. Participating IPPOs consisted of: eight institutional membership organizations, six state membership organizations, five think tanks, four advocacy organizations, and one foundation. Results are organized and presented around five focusing questions:

1.What policy problems and priorities do IPPOs identify as important? Some issues are common across organizations with different missions and ideologies. The most prevalent problems are financial aid and affordability (identified by 83 percent of IPPOs), student access (identified by 50 percent of IPPOs), data use (identified by 50 percent of IPPOs), the Higher Education Act reauthorization (identified by 46 percent of IPPOs), and public finance (identified by 46 percent of IPPOs). Other priorities are unique to individual IPPOs, including: college savings plans, competency based education, economic mobility, freedom of speech, institutional efficiency, student labor laws, and veterans and Native students.

2.How do IPPOs identify policy problems and priorities? Membership organizations are led by the interests and needs of members. IPPOs also identify priorities informally based on staff interest and expertise, availability of grant funding, or priorities expressed by other IPPOs, researchers, and practitioners in the field. Advocacy, foundation, and think tankIPPOs are led by legislative tracking and the values undergirding the organization’s missioninidentifying problems and priorities.

3.What processes do IPPOs use to define policy problems and their underlying causes?IPPOs rely on data when defining problems. Advocacy organizations and think tanks rely on their missions and guiding interests to define problems, while membership organizations are guided by the interests of members and are careful to remain nonpartisan.

4.How do IPPOs formulate solutions to policy problems? Only 10 IPPOs in this study actively formulate solutions to policy problems. IPPOs refrain from formulating solutions because they desire to appear nonpartisan to members and unbiased to policymakers and the generalpublic. Half of IPPOs that formulate solutions rely on prior research to guide the process, but only two use academic research. Other strategies include creating solutions in collaboration with other IPPOs and following mission-centered approaches that vary depending on IPPO type.

1

5.What strategies do IPPOs use to advance policy problems, priorities, and solutions to the decision agenda?

a. All 24 IPPOs host convenings, ranging in frequency from once per year to once per month. Convenings include membership trainings, single-issue meetings, broad policy conferences, and events focused on specific issues or papers.

b. Two-thirds of IPPOs articulate a formal policy agenda that is available on their websites.

c. IPPOs indirectly advance their priorities by sharing information, acting as information conduits for policymakers and other stakeholders. Seventy-eight percent of IPPOs write issue briefs, and 58 percent use newsletters, email blasts, or policy alerts.

d. A common theme across all IPPO types is a push to strategically engage with the media and increase public attention. Advocacy and think tank IPPOs pitch stories to shape media attention, while membership organizations are more passive, responding to media when contacted.

e. Direct advocacy is common in some IPPOs and uncommon in others. Eight IPPOs retain lobbyists. Across all IPPOs, the main forms of direct advocacy are jointly-written letters (with other organizations) and policy briefs. Some IPPOs also endorse specific legislation and/or meet with policymakers and testify on government committees.

The trends described herein are intended to serve as the basis for further inquiry and discussion about the role of IPPOs in the policy agenda for higher education.Questions for further consideration include: What responsibility should IPPOassume for their role in shaping policy agendas for higher education? How mightIPPOs be strategic in agenda setting? What are the implications of memberassociations focusing on member interests rather than other forms of evidence todetermine policy agendas? How do IPPOs conduct research, and does this researchadhere to methodological best practices? And finally, how do large foundations exertinfluence over various IPPO types and, by extension, the policy agenda for higher education?

2

Overview and Background

Francis Bacon famously observed that “knowledge itself is a power,” and E.E. Schattschneider, an eminent political theorist, asserted that “the definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power”.1 Knowledge, information, and data are vital elements of the policy formation process.2 Advocacy and the identification of public problems and solutions are also important.3 There are a variety of knowledge sources policymakers employ when designing policy and considering solutions to problems, including constituent demands, the media, opinion polling, and advocacy statements and research conducted byintermediary public policy organizations (IPPOs). In the last 20 years, IPPOs have enjoyed growing influence and, as such, have been called the “new middle management”.4 IPPOs are defined as organizations that:

occupy the space in between at least two other parties. Intermediary organizations primarily function to mediate or to manage change in both those parties [and] operate independently of these two parties and provide distinct value beyond what the parties alone would be able to develop or amass by themselves.5

Higher education IPPOs operate between three constituent groups—campus stakeholders, including students, staff, faculty, parents, and administrators; the general public; andpolicymakers—and provide information, research, and advocacy used in the policy formation process.6 There are four subsets of higher education IPPOs: advocacyorganizations; foundations and funders; research organizations; and constituent/membership organizations.7

Table 1. Higher Education Intermediary Public Policy Organizations8

Type of IPPO Function of IPPO

Issue Advocacy OrganizationsDirect advocacy and promotion of specific issues and solutions

Foundations and FundersUse funding and grant making to drive policy

Research Organizations/Think TanksConduct research about public problems and policy solutions

Constituent/Membership Organizations Promote constituent interests

As Table 1 demonstrates, depending on the mission and type of IPPO, they perform a variety of functions and pursue different policy goals. For example, constituent/membership IPPOs primarily advocate for and serve memberships, whereas research IPPOs conduct research to infuse into policy debates.

3

Extant research has examined how IPPOs engage in the policy diffusion process, including their roles in promoting the higher education completion agenda, encouragingmanagerialism in K-12 schools, engaging in “advocacy philanthropy” for particular policy solutions, acquiring resources for higher education institutions, and leading interstate policy diffusion.9 Scholars have created inventories for think tanks involved in higher education policy and examined their roles in producing briefs for policymakers, and the media has critiqued the influence of corporations over think tanks.10 To date, no study has systematically examined the role of IPPOs in shaping the policy agenda for higher education beforepolicies enter the formation stage. Yet the potential agenda-setting role of IPPOs is important to understand given the sector’s growing influence. This study seeks to address this gap in our understanding.

This study examines how IPPOs go about identifying and defining public policyproblems and solutions and advocating for member interests or policy priorities topolicymakers, the general public, and higher education institutions and their constituents. The findings demonstrate that IPPOs engage in a variety of activities aimed at influencing the policy agenda for higher education including sharing information, coalition building,convening events, direct advocacy, and efforts to influence public opinion. Although activities vary depending on IPPO type, what is clear is that IPPOs behave strategically and usevarious methods, depending on issue and organization type, to influence the policy agenda.

4

Research Approach

Theoretical Framework

This study employed Birkland’s conception of agenda setting, defined as the process by which a particular problem or solution becomes a focal point of the general public and policymakers.11 Once an issue achieves prominence, policies are designed to address it.IPPOs, as interest groups, are important players in determining which issues gain traction by defining problems, proposing solutions, and advocating for constituent concerns, as well as with their indirect efforts, including infusing research into policy debates. This study examines how IPPOs shape the policy agenda for higher education.

We used Birkland’s agenda-setting framework to conceptualize our inquiry into the contemporary agenda-setting work of IPPOs.12 Birkland’s framework uses an ecologicalapproach to understand how agendas become political actions (for example, laws andfinance strategies). As demonstrated in Figure 1, there are four elements of the policyagenda. At the largest level, there is the agenda universe, wherein all possible policyproblems and solutions exist. Broadly acceptable ideas form the systemic agenda. These are issues that share a generic sense of interest and significance in democratic society, forexample, addressing poverty. When an issue becomes especially significant for a given time or group, it is advanced to the institutional agenda. This set of concerns is the context in which interests are generally fashioned out of issues, and efforts swell onto the decision agenda. The decision agenda is where issues and interests are actively up for debate and a decision about their status (policy or otherwise) is possible. In short, the decision agenda is the set of issues and potential solutions that policymakers debate that eventually becomes policy.

Figure 1: Policy Agenda Levels

5

For the purposes of this brief, we are most concerned with the establishment of issues on the institutional agenda and their movement onto the decision agenda. The broad questionguiding our study is:

What strategies are used by intermediary public policy organizations to influence the public policy agenda for higher education?

Research Methods

To understand the role of IPPOs in shaping the policy agenda for higher education, we used case study methods to examine 24 IPPOs.13 We collected organizational documents including convening agendas, webpages that describe policy priorities or policy agendas, and policy briefs. Additionally, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the most senior staff member at each organization whose responsibilities related to public policy, including senior policy analysts, directors of public policy research, and vice presidents for government relations.14 Interviews took place during site visits and over the phone. We were guided by our theoretical framework in our design of interview questions.15 During interviews, we asked staff to describe their organization’s policy priorities, how the organization identifiesproblems that warrant attention, the evidence base for their work, and how they advocate for policy priorities to policymakers, the general public, and postsecondary stakeholders.

Four subsets of IPPOs were examined: constituent/membership, issue advocacy, foundation, and research/think tank. These subpopulations were of interest because they engage in agenda setting through advocating for member interests or specific issues andproducing research referenced in the policy agenda. There are roughly 100 organizations that fit these criteria. A subset of organizations located in Washington, D.C., and Colorado were selected. Nineteen Washington, D.C. IPPOs were selected because they arguably have the most influence over federal policy given their proximity and relationships with federal agencies.16 Because higher education policy is largely state-focused, membership/constituent IPPOs that serve state agencies, legislators, and actors were also selected.17 Most of these organizations are in Colorado, so we included five Colorado-based IPPOs. Sampling in two locations allowed for exploration of the roles of state- and federally-focused IPPOs. Table 2 lists the IPPOs and interviews included in this study.

6

Table 2: IPPOs Included in Study

Type of IPPO Position ParticipatingOrganizations

Advocacy Director 2

Foundation President 1

Member (Institutions) Associate Vice President 1Member (Institutions) Director 2

Member (Institutions) Vice President 5

Member (States) Director 2

Member (States) Executive Director 1Member (States) President 2

Member (States) Vice President 1

Single-Issue Advocacy Director 1

Single-Issue Advocacy President 1Research/Think Tank Director 3

Research/Think Tank President 1

Research/Think Tank Senior Staff 1

Total 24

7

Research Findings

A variety of findings arose about the role of IPPOs in shaping the policy agenda for higher education. We highlight findings related to the issues identified by IPPOs as being salient; the processes by which IPPOs define a policy problem and its underlying causes and identify solutions to public policy problems; and strategies used to shape the policy agenda.

1. What policy problems and priorities do IPPOs identify as important?

We began interviews by asking IPPO leaders to describe the issues and priorities of importance to their organizations. In total, IPPOs identified 94 distinct topics that arerepresented in Figure 2. These topics run the gamut and include rural educational access,Indigenous and Native student access and success, year-round Pell grants, andadult learners. The size of the words in Figure 2 represents the frequency they werementioned by IPPO leaders.

Figure 2. Policy Problems Identified by IPPOs

We identified 15 broad categories under which these 94 issues fall, as shown in Table 3. The most frequently mentioned priorities of importance to IPPOs were financial aid andaffordability; college access; data capacity use and privacy; reauthorization of the Higher Education Act; public finance for higher education; and accreditation, accountability, and efficiency.

8

Table 3: Broad Categories of Policy Issues and Priorities

Policy Issues and Priorities IPPOs Policy Issues and Priorities IPPOsFinancial Aid and Affordability 20 Student Success 8

College Access 12Workforce Readiness andDevelopment

8

Data Capacity, Use, and Privacy 12 Student Health and Safety 7

Higher Education ActReauthorization

22Governance, Infrastructure, andLeadership

6

Public Finance 22 Attainment and Completion 4

Accreditation, Accountability, and Efficiency

10 Innovation 4

Equity and Diversity 9 Learning and Assessment 4

Non-Traditional Students 8

2. How do IPPOs identify policy problems and priorities?

Interest groups identify problems and priorities in the policy universe they deemsignificant, and encourage public and policymaker attention on these issues so that they advance to the systemic agenda.18 We were interested in how IPPOs identify policy problems and priorities. Our findings are represented in Figure 3. Membership IPPOs are largely led by member interests, as is exemplified in this quote from a vice president, “I think ourcharacteristic as an association is in trying to ensure we are representing [our membership].” These IPPOs ascertain member interests through surveys or receiving anecdotal information that a problem is causing a member difficulty. The IPPOs whose members are legislators or policymakers focus on issues of relevance to the roles and responsibilities of theseindividuals, and gubernatorial fiscal priorities often rise in priority. Membership IPPOs also engage in legislative tracking to determine policies that affect their members. A policydirector listed common sources: CQ State and Federal, National Journal, LexisNexis, Federal Register. Another shared, “We’re very proud of reading the Federal Register every day; we cover every technical review panel.” Advocacy and think tank IPPOs also monitor legislation, relying on similar sources.

Thirteen IPPOs are led by their boards of directors in identifying policy problems and priorities, as is described by this vice president quoting a board member, “The board in some ways provides us the context, as in, ‘Listen, this is the issue, okay, we need to work on sequestration.’” Boards are often composed of members of those IPPOs and staff from other IPPOs, which contributes to the consistency in problems and priorities identified by separate IPPOs. Eight IPPOs have special committees composed of staff from member institutions who

9

work directly with policymakers. As a vice president described, “We closely consult with our counsel on federal relations; these are the federal relations officers from our institutions. We use them for the priorities themselves.”

IPPOs also focus on policy problems at the behest of funders. Fifteen IPPOs receive funding from major foundations such as Bill & Melinda Gates and Lumina to focus on policy problems identified by grantors. Occasionally, funder priorities do not align with IPPOpriorities and in these cases, IPPO leaders refuse funding. For advocacy organizations, the identification of problems is derived from the mission or focus of the organization, regardless of available funding. Staff experience and expertise are other important determinants of an IPPO’s process for identifying problems. This vice president shared, “A lot of it starts with the [IPPO] staff and the expertise that resides there and the histories that we have. A number of us have been in our jobs for a decade or more, others have been there for multiple years. You get a sense of the priorities.” IPPO staff also track the media and may focus on aproblem due to growing public interest. Finally, IPPO staff encounter experts, thought leaders, and policymakers who influence their identification of problems and priorities. At times,IPPOs are constrained in the problems they focus on because their membership or funders are disinterested, or they lack staff expertise, as is described by this president:

One [issue] is around sexual assault and campus safety, the other is campus racialclimate. Those are just two which we have not done much about and really no one has asked us. Through what we have seen on campuses over the last several years, we think those are important, so we are trying to figure out, are there opportunities here, would the [board] agree that those are important to our mission and is there funding available? And then a fair question of whether we have on staff thecompetence to address this?

Figure 3. Strategies Used by IPPOs to Identify Public Policy Problems

10

3. What processes do IPPOs use to define policy problems and their underlying causes?

After identifying policy problems and priorities, IPPOs that desire influence over policy agendas define problems by describing what they are and why they exist.19 Groups thatsuccessfully define problems for policymakers and the general public are powerful and are often enlisted to identify solutions that advance to the decision agenda.20 The process ofdefining problems is not neutral; indeed, various organizations may define a problemdifferently depending on their particular interests, goals, and constituent groups. We found this to be true of the IPPOs studied. IPPOs largely relied on information, research, constituent interests, and a desire to avoid regulations when defining problems.

a. Information Use

IPPOs often use data and information of some form to define problems and underlying causes. Some IPPOs rely on secondary research or reports from other IPPOs to define public policy problems, whereas others collect their own data. For example, two membership IPPOs use data about national demographic trends to define college access problems. OtherIPPOs collect data from different sources, such as states, to which they benchmark members or problems. Six IPPOs use benchmarked data to define policy problems, as the following vice president of a membership IPPO described:

We do a benchmarks report, we do the fact book for regional higher educationindicators, but often what we will do is take publicly available data and do analysis of that.

Advocacy IPPOs draw on data that demonstrate that their focal issue is a problem, and to uncover its underlying causes. One membership IPPO whose guiding policy issue is student success uses research to divide this issue into constituent parts to define it, including teacher preparation, college readiness, and career and learning outcomes.

b. Member Interests

The most common way in which a problem is defined by membership IPPOs is when itnegatively affects members. For seven IPPOs whose constituency includes Republicans and Democrats or all U.S. states and territories, the process of defining problems is nonpartisan with staff providing multiple perspectives about how an issue is defined. Six membership IPPOs involve members in the process of defining policy issues. For IPPOs whose membership includes postsecondary institutions, staff create illustrative case studies about how particular policy proposals, such as free college, would affect members and share these cases withpolicymakers. As one policy director shared, “Getting that information, we sort of came up with a way to capture the data and represent that and make it clear so we have thelegislator interacting [with a policy proposal] to understand its effects on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.”

11

c. Desire to Avoid Regulation

Two IPPOs (one institutional membership IPPO and an ideologically-conservative think tank) define policy problems as those that placed undue regulations on colleges anduniversities or created duplicative legislative structures.

4. How do IPPOs formulate solutions to policy problems?

Schattschneider asserted that of all the powers available to policy actors and interest groups, the ability to articulate and advance policy solutions and identify policy alternatives was most important.21 The reason for his assertion was that those articulating solutions to policy problems are most likely to have their ideas adopted into policy. We found that seven membership IPPOs, two advocacy IPPOs, and one think tank formulate policy solutions. One reason for the reticence on the part of some IPPOs to identify solutions is that many serve diverse members and do not want to advance solutions that run afoul of the politicalideologies of constituents. The research IPPOs also desire to be viewed as nonpartisan, unbiased sources for information for policy stakeholders. One think tank IPPO vice president said that their organization rarely takes positions on policy issues, except when researchsupports this position:

[IPPO name] by charter is nonpartisan. We don’t take political positions. Everything we do is based on research evidence whether it’s the result of a direct [IPPO] study or it’s our review of other work that’s been done in the area. With that said, we will make recommendations when we think the evidence warrants them.

For those IPPOs involved in formulating solutions to public policy problems, a variety of strategies are used, including participation in coalitions, reliance on extant evidence or research, member identification of solutions, guidance from the organization’s values and mission, or analysis of the unintended consequences of policy proposals.

a. Derived from Existing Coalitions

Policy problems are socially constructed through an interplay of interest groups,policymakers, and individuals dialoguing and collaborating.22 All IPPOs that advance policy solutions are members of existing coalitions of other IPPOs and rely on these coalitions toco-create solutions. Birkland described coalition-building as a powerful determinant ofefficacy in advancing solutions in the policy agenda.23 For membership IPPOs, the formation of a coalition with fellow IPPOs carries power in conveying to policymakers that the coalition represents a significant percentage of institutions and students. Because an important element of building coalitions is finding common ground, IPPO leaders at times must compromise about how solutions are formulated, and these compromises may not represent the interests of their entire membership or values.24 Nonetheless, coalition-building is an importantstrategy used by IPPOs because this strategy carries high potential for placing solutions on the institutional and decision agendas.

12

b. Reliance on Evidence and Prior Research

Five IPPOs (two membership and three advocacy) rely on prior research to design solutions. The evidence and research used by IPPOs are research briefs produced by fellow IPPOs, best practices conveyed by IPPOs, national datasets such as the IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), academic research, and results of member surveys. One president of an advocacy IPPO described the role of survey data in providing an evidence base for proposed solutions:

It’s research in a different way. We’re not doing research or publishing research with actual data. We don’t collect any student level data or any kind of data like that, but what we did do for the first ten years is we did an annual survey every year of states.

Only two IPPOs rely on academic research in formulating solutions. An example of the use of academic research is captured in this quote from a foundation president:

We have also invested more resources into research. A good example is that we just recently completed a literature review that looked at what has been published on the traditional ROI on education and we have proposed to one of our funding partners to develop a more appropriate return on investment framework for [student success].

A director of an advocacy IPPO described how academic research was foundational to their work, yet shared that the IPPO accesses national datasets and conducts their own analyses, saying, “We do our own work. We certainly want to incorporate perspectives that come from academic research and we use it as sort of foundational, but all of our products are our own.” Another membership IPPO president reported that analyzing prior research orconducting original research was beyond the scope of staff capacity, except for when a president identified an issue that merited research:

We don’t have a lot of resources, so we don’t delve into heavy or deeply-thorough research because we don’t have the time, but when we choose to, we’ve gotten to a point where the president for each year selects an issue as a critical issue to examine.

c. Mission Driven

Six IPPOs use mission-centered approaches to formulating solutions (four membership IPPOs, a think tank, and an advocacy organization). The membership IPPOs are guided first and foremost by members, as is described by this vice president:

We show [the membership] the positions we’re taking, and [ask] what we are missing, what’s the nuance, what are the unintended consequences, so that on the whole, the positions we take are, we think, very, very grounded in our members and what’sgoing to affect them.

When there are differing opinions among members about which solutions are appropriate,

13

IPPOs represent the majority, as is described by this director of government relations: “I have gotten screamed at by some [members] because we sign onto legislation but honestly, if 97 percent of our members feel one way, we are not going to take the position [of] the three percent.”

For the ideologically-based think tank and the advocacy organization involved inmission-driven approaches, the values and mission of the IPPO – such as conservatism,limited federal control of education, or college access – guide the formulation of solutions. The director for the advocacy IPPO described these values, saying, “I think at the end of the day, we’re trying to get at some of the same goals. We want students to succeed.”

5. What strategies do IPPOs use to advance policy problems, priorities, and solutions to the decision agenda?

Birkland and Stone described the role of interest groups in advancing policy problems to the decision agenda and shaping debate and subsequent solutions.25 Groups use a variety of strategies, including sharing information, garnering media attention, forming coalitions, publishing policy agendas, conducting research, leveraging focusing events, engaging indirect advocacy, and blocking the implementation of policy. We found these strategies at work within higher education IPPOs; however, there was variance in the use of strategies by IPPO type. In addition to these strategies, we found that IPPOs use convenings to shape the policy agenda for higher education. Each strategy is described in turn.

a. Convenings

Each IPPO hosts convenings as a strategy for advancing policy problems andsolutions. Indeed, many IPPO leaders see the ability to convene people to discuss problems and solutions as a form of power, as this vice president describes: “One of the things we know and value our association [for] is our convening power and the ability to harness the collective towards improvement and working with things that affect, of course, highereducation.” Another vice president noted their IPPO’s ability to convene many people is an indicator of influence, saying,

The biggest wins for me are the ones where we have live briefings and we havehundreds of people that login and say they want to come. The reason I listed that first is because before we even had this brief, we just decided to do a live briefing. Just one hour, say, [and said] “Hey, here’s what you need to know to get started now.” Over 700 people registered for it.

Of the 24 IPPOs, 19 are in Washington, D.C., which provides frequent opportunities to convene formal conferences, host briefings, and provide trainings. As such, some DC-based IPPOs host as many as 10 events per year and have in attendance media representatives, legislative staffers, policymakers, and staff of fellow IPPOs. The Colorado based IPPOs also

14

host convenings; however, these events tend to take place annually or biannually and have in attendance state policymakers, IPPO staff, and researchers.

Membership IPPO conduct surveys before convenings to determine which problems and solutions are of interest to members and to receive feedback about how the IPPO is advancing policy priorities, as is described by this vice president:

Being an association of this size and the number of conferences that we deliver and professional development opportunities, we’re often looking for feedback frommembers about how we’re doing, what types of topics would they want to see more of, how effective were our delivery methods, all those types of things.

IPPO staff also use convenings to raise awareness among members about policy solutions and problems they believe warrant attention and support, as is described by thisvice president:

Our public policy 101 sessions and our annual conference ... I think it’s a really good primer, just letting you know here’s how you can watch what’s happening in ourlegislature environment or regulatory environment.

Ten IPPOs use convenings to provide training to members about how to engage in policy advocacy, as is described by this vice president:

We engage our members and equip our members with a lot of information that they then deploy…What we found in recent years, that we found most effective, is that the advocacy—the sitting down to talk about an issue with a member of Congress or a member of his or her staff—is most effective actually in the state or district and least effective in Washington.

In this way, IPPOs engage in a push and pull with members through convenings, being pulled by their members to focus on particular problems or solutions and pushing them to advocate for problems or solutions.

IPPOs frequently hold events to release policy briefs or convene conversations among legislative staffers, policymakers, and fellow IPPOs. Often these convenings are specialized and focus on a specific policy problem, such as data use or student debt. During convenings, experts, IPPO members, and policymakers are invited to provide framing for the topic and the results of a study or policy brief are released. Occasionally, during convenings IPPOs release sample legislation they hope will be adopted during the policy formation process. A director described the role of convenings, saying:

We will host a presentation where we will invite a bunch of Congressional staff to come and talk to them on the basis of the student aid program or some of the things

15

we’re working on. In those instances, [IPPO] staff also present but we also bringour members.

b. Formal Policy Agendas

The second most common strategy IPPOs use to advance problems and solutions is through the articulation of formal policy agendas available on organization websites and released directly to policymakers, the media, and constituent groups. Sixteen IPPOs use this strategy; 10 membership IPPOs, three advocacy IPPOs, and three think tank IPPOs. Policy briefs produced by membership IPPOs primarily represent the interests of members. Two of the think tanks rely on research to inform the creation of their policy agenda and the third ideologically-based think tank relies on the organization’s values. The three advocacy IPPOs mine best practices related to the issue for which they are advancing, and use thisinformation to formulate policy agendas. As this president shared, “Our goal is to have as many best practices identified as possible because that helps build field knowledge and also allows people to...build off of other people’s experiences.” Some IPPOs, such as onemembership IPPO composed of institutions and one composed of nonprofit organizations,articulate state-level and federal policy agendas. While these IPPOs articulate policyagendas, three membership IPPOs avoid becoming involved in public debates. This contrasts with the ideologically-based think tank that uses a variety of strategies for engaging in public debate and moving solutions and problems from the agenda universe onto the institutional agenda, as is described by this vice president: “Some of what we’re doing is playing the long game. The main thing I have tried to do is make part of the debate about college cost the theory that student aid fuels tuition inflation.”

c. Information Sharing

Sharing information publicly is an important element of advancing policy problems to shape the public policy agenda.26 In this less direct form of agenda setting, IPPOs curate information specific to their policy agenda and distribute that information to stakeholders and the public. When IPPOs share information about a problem or solution, they advance it on the policy agenda by “using symbols and images to induce greater media and public sympathy for their cause”.27 In this way, even less powerful IPPOs can generate attention about policy priorities in the policy agenda.

In general, IPPOs do not share information as a strategy to shape the public policy agenda. Instead, information sharing is defined as a way to build a collective understanding about policy problems. Half of the 14 member organizations shareinformation with their members when it relates to their particular policy priorities. IPPOs often act as translators or conduits of information.28 Fourteen IPPOs share information or research with policymakers, and five indicated that they serve as information conduits for other groups such as the federal government, funders, think tanks, institutions, or other stakeholders.

16

IPPOs use several strategies to share information, but the most common involvereporting aggregate data. Birkland explained that aggregate data “appears to haveaccuracy that anecdotal evidence lacks,” making it particularly attractive to groups interested in influencing the policy agenda.29 Eighteen IPPOs (78 percent) write policy or issue briefs and position papers, and 14 said they use newsletters, email blasts, or policy alerts to share timely information. At times, IPPOs craft a case study to share data about how a policysolution may negatively affect a group or, if it is a membership IPPO, their members, as this vice president described:

[We] did a very thorough presentation of the model and what the data was and then [our] senior VP for government relations talked with them and their lobbyist about, “Look, here are the implications, and frankly, here are the concerns we have about using some of these data in the outcomes.”

Strategies that rely more on opinion than data are less common. Four IPPOs shared information through blog posts, and only two IPPOs used student voices to supplement data. Eight IPPOs are experimenting with the use of multimedia. As this senior analyst described, “We’re increasingly trying to use new meeting formats like webinars or short videos that we can put on our website to try to engage people in the issues that we’re studying.” Several IPPOs used webinars to share information, but the director of an advocacy IPPO said that webinars were less effective than other methods of sharing information.

IPPOs also use information sharing to shape the policy agenda by curating thecontent on their websites to focus on certain problems or solutions. IPPO websites areorganized around policy priorities, prominently sharing information of relevance to their articulated policy agenda. Finally, some strategies are used differently by different types of IPPOs. One foundation, one advocacy, and one think tank IPPO use secondary research or policy synthesis to translate academic research for policymakers and the public. Bothadvocacy organizations conduct focus groups to share information with clients (no otherIPPOs do this).

d. Attempts to Garner Media Attention

Birkland described encouraging media attention as a strategy to shape the public policy agenda.30 Even short bursts of attention can lead to long-term changes to the policy agenda. Media attention encourages dissatisfaction among the general public with the status quo while increasing the likelihood that the public will demand policy change. IPPOsleverage media attention with policy briefs or other resources to promote information they have developed, or to capitalize on a focusing event.

There is growing desire among IPPOs to garner media attention, and a common theme across all types of IPPOs is proactively engaging the media. For example, anadvocacy IPPO has a communications director on staff to pitch stories to the press and

17

manage messaging and blogging; an advocacy IPPO tracks positive and negative stories in the media; a state membership IPPO uses newsletters and blog posts to drive media attention –a new goal for the organization; and a think tank recently adopted a focus oncommunications and media relations. One of the think tank’s staff described their strategy:

Oftentimes, work that we’re doing with government or policy organizations will have a specific engagement plan. We’ll try to develop events or activities that engagepeople in the research process while we’re doing it and then in the outcomesor results.

Advocacy organizations and think tanks are more deliberate than membership IPPOs in their attempts to garner media attention and shape public opinion. Strategies includebeing first to comment on a policy proposal and staying in the public eye with opinionpieces. One director of an advocacy organization described releasing a report tointentionally distract attention from a public hearing. A director at another advocacyorganization explained that media attention is used to drive public attention, saying “[W]e pitch press stories [to] start driving more of a public conversation, then people who may not have wanted to pay attention can be forced to.” On the other hand, membership IPPOs use the media to demonstrate how various policies might affect members and are more passive about engaging with the media. Two state membership IPPOs receive media attention and inquiries rather than pitching stories to the media.

e. Storytelling

Policy entrepreneurs and interest groups commonly use stories to convey the problems or solutions they wish to promote.31 Six IPPOs use stories: three membership, one foundation, one think tank, and one advocacy. IPPOs use stories to provide nuance for numbers and data provided to policymakers, as is described by this director of a membership IPPO, “We got data, we can make the arguments from a public policy standpoint and all thesetechnicalities, and they are very helpful in sort of doing the story telling that needs tohappen as well.” Another vice president of a membership IPPO described how stories convey the importance of particular policy solutions, saying, “The stories we are telling arebecoming the currency of funny sounding research and [policymakers] need examples, they cite that and then they have to say, ‘It actually has value.’” Stories concern how policysolutions would benefit or harm various groups or priorities, and are shared through videos, policy briefs, blog posts, during convenings and congressional testimonies, and onorganizational websites.

f. Coalition Building

Coalitions are formed when interest groups, individuals, and policymakers have shared interests in seeing priorities gain attention or solutions adopted.32 Effective coalitions

18

can exert enormous power in advancing problems, priorities, and solutions to the decision agenda. Coalitions have the most power when indicators of problems change and generate greater awareness among policymakers and the general public. Sixteen of the IPPOsreported forming coalitions to advance problems and solutions; 11 membership IPPOs, three think tanks, and two advocacy IPPOs. Most frequently, IPPOs form coalitions with fellowIPPOs. Increasingly, funders are interested in supporting existing coalitions, which hasencouraged IPPOs to pursue this strategy, as this director of policy for a think tank described, “I think that one of the big things that we’ve been thinking about and a lot of our funders have impressed upon us is coalition building.”

An important step in forming coalitions is defining the roles of potential actors.Membership IPPOs define the role of states, various policymakers (such as state budget officers), the federal government, and their own members. Given that IPPOs operate between policymakers and postsecondary stakeholders, the act of defining roles carries power in that it dictates how these individuals engage in the policy agenda.

IPPOs use convenings to maintain existing coalitions and build new ones. IPPO staff are invited to speak about issues of common interest at one another’s convenings, as is described by this vice president, “Our director for policy advocacy just went to the [IPPO] conference and did joint presentations with [name] on the guns on campus work. That’s a new audience for us.” IPPOs also co-host events to make public their coalition or co-advocate for solutions or problems. As another vice president described, “We do all sorts of events for [IPPO] itself but oftentimes we’re convening in coalition with others.” Another IPPO hosts regular breakfasts for fellow IPPOs housed in the same building. Networking occurs atconvenings and IPPO staff strengthen coalitions or establish new relationshipswhile attending.

At times coalitions are formed around a single issue such as increasing the maximum Pell grant or Higher Education Act reauthorization. This was described by the policy director of an advocacy IPPO:

The [name of project], if you’re familiar with that, promotes organic collaboration, where organizations sort of were like, ‘Oh, hey, [IPPO]. You’re interested in this, so are we. We come at things a little bit differently, but let’s work together.’

For the institutional membership IPPOs, a natural coalition exists of other institutionalmembership IPPOs. Occasionally, all institutional membership IPPOs form a coalition around a single issue and write a letter advocating for that issue. In essence, this coalition represents all postsecondary institutions and, as such, carries weight among federal policymakers. Coalitions established by IPPOs can also include policymakers and institutions. As this vice president of a membership IPPO shared, “We also have a number of collaborative initiatives that foster research sharing and collaborations across institutions

19

and across state departments of higher education.”

Effective higher education IPPO coalitions leverage unique organizational assets. For example, membership IPPOs have captive audiences that may be mobilized in support of an issue where a think tank may provide research relevant to that issue. IPPOs also frequently share one another’s information and policy briefs through daily or weekly policy emails,webinars, or alerts. In sharing information produced by fellow IPPOs, staff are tacitlyendorsing these positions and reinforcing their coalitions.

g. Leveraging Growing Public Attention to an Issue

The agenda universe contains a plethora of problems, priorities, and solutions that might be considered.33 For IPPOs to advance a particular problem, priority, or solution through the stages of the policy agenda to the point of decision, they often leveragegrowing public attention. We saw evidence that eight IPPOs (six membership and two think tank) strategically looked for focusing events or growing public attention to advance their policy problems and solutions. For example, during the time of data collection, the issues of campus sexual assault and support for veterans–long advocated for by one membership IPPO –were gaining media attention, as is described by this policy director:

There will be times where–sexual assault is one, that is a big area, you get stuff around veterans issues a lot of times–that sort of media attention, where there would be popular flare ups that get a lot of press attention or get a lot of public attention and part of our job is not necessarily leading the community but leading in a response.

IPPOs are able to provide framing and definition to policy problems and solutions through leveraging a focusing event and growing public concern.

h. Direct Advocacy

A final strategy that IPPOs use to shape the policy agenda for higher education is direct advocacy (see Figure 4). Eight IPPOs (four membership and four advocacy) reported having lobbyists on staff. Lobbyists work with fellow IPPOs to advocate for particular issues, as is described by this vice president, “We work with external organizations as well to do our lobbying work, and we work a lot with the federal relations and lobbying folks from the other higher education associations.” IPPO staff write letters or memos to policymakers,advocating for problems or solutions or sharing comments about proposed legislation. This vice president described letter writing as advocacy in this way, “Our advocacy work, it can span from original comment letters on pending legislation or it might be that we do a joint sign-on letter with another group of associations. We do that often.” IPPOs also endorsespecific legislation if it reflects their policy priorities. As this policy analyst shared, IPPOleaders are called on to testify: “I think our public policy division chair, she did testify [on a topic] for a Senate Committee…We provided a lot of support with that and helped to

20

Figure 4. Direct Advocacy Strategies used by IPPOs

IPPOs may also engage in advocacy to prevent the adoption of proposed solutions (Figure 4).34 We found this to be the case among four IPPOs with higher education institutions in their membership. The primary reason for blocking proposed legislation was that it would negatively affect members. One vice president described “reducing regulation” as one of a few “macro priorities” of their advocacy.

develop her actual formal statement that she used.” A key element of providing directadvocacy is building relationships with policymakers, which can be complicated, as this vice president reflected:

When you are meeting with staff, the relationship is multi-faceted. It is complicated and exists over a period of time on multiple different issues so there will be things that Democrats or Republicans, committees, staff, or individual members have put forward.

As a result of these relationships, IPPO leaders are contacted by legislative staffers orpolicymakers to provide comment about policy proposals. As this vice president described, “I’ll meet with a legislator who says, ‘We’re looking at ideas for the Higher Education Act or we need to have an act, something like that, would you come and talk to us?’”

21

Enduring Questions and Concluding Thoughts

The findings described are intended to serve as the basis for further investigation into the role of IPPOs in shaping the policy agenda for higher education. From our analysis, there is a clear coalescence around the most prominent and widespread concerns in highereducation – issues related to money (for example, finance, affordability, financial aid, etc.). These multifaceted concerns intersect with other popular policy issues across like federal legislation (for example, the Higher Education Act) and accountability. Federal involvement in higher education is generally limited to the provision of financial incentives (for example, institutional access to financial aid programs and some grant funding).35 Accountabilityconcerns largely connect to the public and private investments in students’ pursuit of a college degree. Immense energy and resources are expended on these interrelated issues, which raises the question of capacity for attention to other vital concerns. It is important to note that only one IPPO mentioned Native higher education (specifically Native students and tribal colleges) as a pressing priority. The needs of Native students cut across all of the other public policy priorities, but an identity-focused framing was limited to only one IPPO, suggesting that Native students might very well go unrecognized or unattended in other organizations’ development of policy priorities as interests in movement onto decision agendas. Herein we offer a set of enduring questions and concluding thoughts.

Although few IPPOs had embarked on strategic social media campaigns, these early analyses suggest that social media may play an increasing role in moving issues and interests onto both the institutional and decision agendas.36 That is, social media can be used to generate interest in issues broadly, which makes a given issue more likely to receiveadditional attention from other IPPOs and institutional leaders (for example, collegepresidents). Social media activity then solidifies an issue on the institutional agenda. Social media can also be useful in capturing the attention of policymakers–where the decision agenda forms. Social media is far greater than simple Facebook posts and Instagram feeds. Media such as Twitter are used to connect to lengthier stories, editorials, issue briefs, and other traditional forms of information sharing. However, while social media can spreadaccess to information quickly and broadly, its development is still in its infancy. There are many more questions to be asked than available answers when it comes to learning the best practices of using social media for agenda setting.

It is noteworthy that despite the rise of digital media and the proliferation of interests across IPPOs, the face-to-face work done through direct conversations with members,policymakers, and staffers during convenings remains the most commonly used way toadvance priorities. The social network and social capital requirements for developingviable priorities on the decision agenda seem incredibly significant. This dynamic begs further inquiry into the responsibilities of IPPOs around their agenda-setting activities. If social and financial capital remain the most decisive factors in elevating concerns via convenings, how do IPPOs engage in agenda setting in support of strengthening democracy? Put another

22

way, how might IPPOs mitigate elitism and exclusion in the development of the public policy agenda for higher education?

Since IPPOs are a diverse and dynamic set of organizations with varied missions,constituents, and interests, it is difficult to wrestle with concerns about responsibility. Yet, precisely because of their organizational diversity, it is imperative that the broader field of higher education and public policy engage with questions of responsibility. With access to the leading organizations and institutional actors, as well as powerful information flows and outlets, IPPOs have significant potential for sharing leadership in setting the public policy agenda for higher education as it relates to advancing equity. Their positioning as separate from postsecondary institutions, or sometimes as completely independent from postsecondary institutions, provides unique opportunities to influence agendas and decision-makers.

The role of funders in shaping the ways in which IPPOs engage with agenda setting should also be considered given that funder priorities may at times override existingorganizational concerns. Additionally, worthy of further inquiry is the question of howmembership IPPOs navigate their role in representing the interests of their members when these interests may not always reflect issues that merit attention in the agenda universe. A final question concerns the types of information used and proffered by IPPOs. Several IPPOs make use of research and information; however, the degree to which this evidence base reflects best practices in research must be investigated. Our hope is that this research brief inspires continued research and discussion about the role of IPPOs in shaping policyparticularly as they involve themselves in promoting the equity agenda for higher education.

23

The Authors

Cecilia M. Orphan, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of higher education at the University of Denver. Her research centers on the effects of neoliberal ideology on higher education’s democratic purposes, the role of regional comprehensive universities in facilitatingopportunity and regional civic life, and public policy discourses about the purpose of higher education. Prior to her doctoral program, she directed the American Democracy Project (ADP), a national multi-campus initiative of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The 240 regional comprehensive universities involved with ADP focus on higher education’s role in educating informed, engaged participants for U.S. democracy. Dr. Orphan holds a Ph.D. in higher education from the University of Pennsylvania and abachelor’s degree in political science from Portland State University. In 2011, she was therecipient of AASCU’s John Saltmarsh Award for Emerging Leaders in Civic Engagement.

Sophia Laderman is a Ph.D. student in higher education at the University of Denver and a senior policy analyst at the State Higher Education Executive Officers association (SHEEO). At SHEEO, Sophia is responsible for the State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) project. She has co-authored reports on affordability, serving adult students, student equity, and tuition policy. Prior to joining SHEEO, Sophia worked in admissions at the University of Colorado and as a research coordinator at Duke University. Sophia has a B.A. from the University of Hawaii and an M.P.A. from the University of Colorado Denver. Sophia is interested in how and why public postsecondary finance and affordability policies are adopted, and theramifications of such polices. Her current research focuses on the relationship between finance policy and volatility in state appropriations, as well as the role of intermediary public policy organizations in the policy process.

Ryan Evely Gildersleeve, Ph.D. is an associate professor and department chair of highereducation at the University of Denver. He pursues a research agenda grounded in thephilosophical foundations of higher education, critical policy studies, and criticalqualitative inquiry. He was a National Academy of Education / Spencer FoundationPostdoctoral Fellow in 2012-2014 and received the 2011 Early Career Award in Research Methodology from the American Educational Research Association. Gildersleeve earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in Education from UCLA. He is a graduate of Occidental College.

24

Endnotes1 Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Bos-ton, MA: Cengage Learning.2 Birkland, T. (2010). Introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making, 3rd Edition. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.; Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Second Edition. New York: Longman.; Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.3 Michelau, D. (2010). The role of interstate policy organizations in state higher education policy pro-cesses: Perceptions of policymakers and policy shapers. Retrieved from Proquest. (9781124387093).; Ness, E.C. (2010). “The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy” In J. C. Smart (Ed.). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 25. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.4 Honig, M., I. (2004). The new middle management: intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-875 Ibid.6 Hillman, N.; Tandberg, D. & Sponsler, B. (2015).7 Leeson, P. T., Ryan, M. E., & Williamson, C. R. (2012). Think Tanks. Journal of Comparative Econom-ics, 40, 62-77.; Ness, E.C., & Gándara, D. (2014). Ideological think tanks in the states: An inventory of their prevalence, networks, and higher education policy activity. Educational Policy, 28(2) 258-280.8 Scott, J. T. & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy. 28(2), 233–257.9 Balla, S. J. (2001). Interstate professional associations and the diffusion of policy innovations. Ameri-can Politics Research, 29, 221–245.; Gándara, D., Ness, E. C., & Rippner, J. (2017). Exploring the “How” in policy diffusion: A national intermediary organization’s role in facilitating the spread of college completion policies in the states. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 701-725.; Garrett, K. N., & Jansa, J. M. (2015). Interest group influence in policy diffusion networks. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15, 387–417.; Hall, C., & Thomas, S. L. (2012, April). ‘Advocacy philanthropy’ and the public policy agenda: The role of modern foun-dations in American higher education. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia.; McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Mokher, C. G. (2009). Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of political factors in state higher education funding. Journal of Higher Edu-cation, 80(6), 686–713.; Tandberg, D. A. (2008). The politics of state higher education funding. Higher Educa-tion in Review, 5, 1–36.; Tandberg, D. A. (2010a). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 15(5), 416–450.; Trujillo, Tina. (2014). The modern cult of efficiency: Intermediary organizations and the new scientific management. Educational Policy, 28(2), 207-232.10 Lipton, E. & Williams, B. (2016, August 7). Researchers or corporate allies? Think tanks blur the line. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html?emc=edit_ta_20160807&nlid=54155253&ref=cta&_r=0.; Ness, E.C., & Gánda-ra, D. (2014).; Scott, J., Lubienski, C., DeBray, E., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The intermediary function in evidence production, promotion, and utilization: The case of educational incentives. In K. S. Finnigan & A. J. Daly (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 69–89). New York, NY: Springer.

11 Birkland, T. (2010). 12 Ibid. 13 Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-tions.14 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and education methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-tions, Inc.15 Birkland, T. (2010).16 Garrett, K. N., & Jansa, J. M. (2015).17 Hillman, N.; Tandberg, D. & Sponsler, B. (2015).; Perna, L. W. & Finney, J. E. (2015). The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.18 Birkland, T. (2010).19 Ibid.20 Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). 21 Ibid.22 Birkland, T. (2010). 23 Ibid.24 Stone, D. (2012). 25 Birkland, T. (2010).; Stone, D. (2012).26 Ibid.27 p. 122. Birkland, T. (2010). 28 Ness, E.C. (2010). 29 P. 128. Birkland, T. (2010).30 Ibid.31 Birkland, T. (2010).; Stone, D. (2012).32 Ibid.33 Birkland, T. (2010).34 Birkland, T. (2010).; Stone, D. (2012).35 Perna, L. W. & Finney, J. E. (2015). The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.36 Feezell, J. T. (2017). Agenda setting through social media: The importance of incidental news exposure and social filtering in the digital age. Political Research Quarterly.