Policy Writing Project

This scaffolded writing project guides you through the applied analysis of a real-world policy problem. Over five weeks, you will build a single document — a professional policy memo — through a series of short, focused stages. Each stage extends and revises the work you submitted the week before, so by Week 5 you are not writing from scratch; you are polishing a memo you have been developing all term.

Page lengths and expectations have been deliberately scaled to fit the compressed five-week summer term. Plan to invest the equivalent of a full-time course's effort during each week.

Submission Format — Google Docs Only

All stages of this project are submitted as a single Google Doc that you carry forward across all five weeks. Microsoft Word, PDF, or other file uploads will not be accepted.

Before your first submission:

1. Create a new Google Doc for this project.
2. Share it with dpadams@fullerton.edu as an Editor (Share → add dpadams@fullerton.edu → set access to Editor).
3. Each week, paste the shareable link into the corresponding Canvas assignment by the Friday deadline.

If you lose Editor access or move the file, your submission will be considered late until access is restored.

For Weeks 4 and 5, work in Suggesting mode so your revisions are visible. Instructor feedback will be provided as comments and suggestions directly in your Google Doc.

Project Timeline and Deliverables

Stage 1 — Policy Problem Proposal

Due Friday, May 29 (11:59 PM PT) — 10% of Final Grade

Write a 1-page memo identifying a policy problem, why it matters, and the principal policy actors involved.

Include:

• A clear description of the problem and why it matters.
• A brief overview of the key policy actors and institutions involved.

This is the seed of the document you will develop over the following four weeks. Choose a topic you are willing to live with through Week 5.

Stage 2 — Problem Definition Memo

Due Friday, June 5 (11:59 PM PT) — 15% of Final Grade

Building on Stage 1 in the same Google Doc, write a 1–2 page memo clearly defining the chosen policy problem, including relevant policy context and key stakeholders.

Add or expand:

• Background and context for the problem.
• Stakeholders directly affected and how.
• Why public policy intervention is required.
• At least one academic or empirical source to support your framing.

Stage 3 — Alternatives and Evaluation Matrix

Due Friday, June 12 (11:59 PM PT) — 15% of Final Grade

Continue in the same Google Doc. Add a policy alternatives matrix summarizing at least three possible solutions, plus a brief narrative (half-page to one page) explaining your evaluation criteria.

Include:

• A table or matrix listing your three (or more) alternatives.
• The evaluation criteria you used (e.g., cost, effectiveness, equity, feasibility, public acceptance).
• A short narrative justifying the criteria you chose.

Stage 4 — Draft Policy Memo

Due Saturday, June 20 (11:59 PM PT) — 15% of Final Grade

Submit a 3–4 page draft memo combining your Executive Summary, Problem Definition, Alternatives Matrix, and a preliminary Recommendation. Continue working in the same Google Doc from Stages 2 and 3. Use Suggesting mode so your edits are visible.

Instructor feedback will be provided as comments and suggestions directly in your Google Doc during the week following submission.

Note on Juneteenth: Friday, June 19 is a federal holiday. The Draft Memo deadline has been moved to Saturday, June 20 at 11:59 PM PT so you can observe the holiday.

Stage 5 — Final Policy Memo

Due Friday, June 26 (11:59 PM PT) — 20% of Final Grade

Submit a 4–5 page final memo in the same Google Doc, revised in response to feedback. Use Suggesting mode for your revisions to the draft, then accept your suggestions to produce a clean final version at the top of the document.

The clean final version should sit at the top of the document; the prior draft and tracked revisions remain below it for reference.

Final Reflection

Due Friday, June 26 (11:59 PM PT) — 5% of Final Grade

A 1-page personal reflection on what you learned about public policy, policy analysis, and your own writing process. Submit alongside the final memo (paste the link into the Final Reflection assignment in Canvas).

Formatting Guidelines

• Single Google Doc; share with dpadams@fullerton.edu as Editor.
• 11- or 12-point professional font (e.g., Noto Sans, Arial, Calibri, Times New Roman).
• 1-inch margins.
• Single or 1.15 line spacing for memos (memos are professional documents, not term papers).
• Use clear section headings that mirror the memo structure described below.
• Cite sources consistently in APA or Chicago style.

Late Work and Extensions

All stages are due by 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time on the date specified. Because of the compressed five-week schedule, late work cannot be accommodated except in cases of documented illness or other unforeseen circumstances. Extensions must be requested in writing before the due date.

If you cannot submit via Canvas or are unable to share the Google Doc, contact the professor immediately to arrange an alternative.

Generative AI Use

Generative AI is permitted in this course in service of your learning, but you must do the intellectual work yourself. AI may be used for brainstorming, outlining, explaining concepts, summarizing sources, editing, and sanity-checking your logic. AI may not be used to generate your analysis, arguments, conclusions, or finished prose.

If you use AI beyond basic editing, disclose it briefly at the end of the assignment (what tool, what for). See the Policy on the Use of Generative AI and Other Technology page in the Start Here module for full details.

Academic Integrity

All work submitted must be your own. Plagiarism or academic dishonesty will result in sanctions consistent with the Academic Dishonesty Policy (UPS 300.021). Cite all sources properly and review the syllabus and the Generative AI policy for guidance on appropriate tool use.

Sample Policy Memo Structure

A policy memo is a professional document used to analyze a policy problem and recommend solutions. Use clear headings and concise language. Avoid academic jargon. The structure below is a guide; adapt section lengths to fit the 3–4 page draft (Stage 4) and 4–5 page final (Stage 5).

Header

• To: [Intended Audience — e.g., City Manager, Policy Director]
• From: [Your Name]
• Date: [Submission Date]
• Subject: [Clear and Concise Title of the Memo]

Executive Summary (about 1/2 page)

• Briefly summarize the policy problem, key findings, and your recommendation.
• A reader should be able to understand the issue and your proposed solution from this section alone.

Problem Definition (about 1 page)

• Clearly describe the policy problem and situate it in its broader policy context.
• Explain why the issue is urgent or significant: who is affected, what costs it imposes, why now.
• Identify the stakeholders directly affected and how.
• Support your analysis with at least two academic, governmental, or other credible sources.
• Where appropriate, use data points or brief historical context to support your framing.

Policy Alternatives (about 1 page)

• Present at least three policy alternatives.
• Use a table or matrix to summarize options against your evaluation criteria.

Briefly discuss the pros and cons of each alternative.

Recommendation (about 1/2 page)

• Recommend the best policy alternative.
• Justify your recommendation using evidence and your evaluation criteria.
• Acknowledge implementation challenges and how they might be addressed.

Conclusion (short)

• Restate the importance of addressing the problem.
• Highlight the benefits of your recommended policy.

References

• List any sources cited, using a consistent style (APA or Chicago).

Optional appendices: include additional data tables, figures, or supplemental material if helpful.

Sample Policy Memo

To: Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
From: Jordan Taylor
Date: June 26, 2026
Subject: Managing Overpopulation Under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act

Executive Summary

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) faces a growing challenge under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. Wild horse and burro populations on public rangelands have exceeded sustainable levels, leading to ecological degradation and rising management costs. This memo evaluates three policy alternatives to address overpopulation and recommends expanding fertility control programs as the most cost-effective and publicly acceptable solution.

Problem Definition

The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (1971) mandates the protection of wild horses and burros as "living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West." However, current herd sizes far exceed the Appropriate Management Levels (AML) established by BLM scientists, producing intertwined environmental, fiscal, and political problems. Research shows that unmanaged horse populations cause long-term damage to arid ecosystems by overgrazing native plant species and compacting soil near riparian zones (Beever and Brussard 2000). The Congressional Research Service (2024) reports that the cost of maintaining off-range holding facilities has escalated to unsustainable levels, now consuming the majority of the Wild Horse and Burro Program budget.

The current moment is best understood as a policy window in the sense Kingdon (1984) describes. The problem stream is increasingly hard to ignore: range condition indicators are deteriorating and the GAO has flagged the program as fiscally non-viable. The policy stream offers a maturing alternative — porcine zona pellucida (PZP) immunocontraception has been refined over two decades of field trials and is now operationally ready (Turner, Liu, and Rutberg 2002; Rutberg et al. 2017). The political stream has shifted as well: public attitudes increasingly favor humane treatment of large mammals, and bipartisan concern about federal land-management costs has grown. When these three streams converge, an opening exists for the kind of policy change that has been blocked for decades. That window will not stay open indefinitely.

The conflict around wild horse management also illustrates the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier 1988): the policy subsystem contains at least three durable coalitions organized around different core beliefs. An ecological-stewardship coalition (environmental NGOs, range scientists, much of BLM's career staff) prioritizes rangeland health and ecological integrity. An animal-welfare coalition (humane societies, wild-horse advocacy groups) prioritizes the intrinsic value and humane treatment of the animals themselves. A multiple-use / ranching coalition (permittees, livestock associations, allied legislators) prioritizes productive use of public grazing lands. These coalitions have collided since the 1971 Act passed, and the long policy stalemate is itself evidence of the framework: when coalitions hold incompatible core beliefs, change tends to come through external shocks or learning at the secondary-belief level (Nie 2003).

The pattern is also consistent with punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones 1993): long periods of stable policy under the 1971 statute, occasional bursts of attention when costs spike or media coverage intensifies, and few durable changes in the program's underlying tools. The combined fiscal and ecological pressures now visible may be sufficient to puncture that equilibrium — but only if a viable alternative is available when attention peaks.

Given the converging pressures and the maturity of the technical alternative, the status quo is widely viewed as untenable.

Policy Alternatives

This section evaluates three primary strategies considered in the policy literature (Garrott and Oli 2013; Rutberg et al. 2017).

1. Increased Roundups
   • Pros: Provides immediate relief to overgrazed rangelands; logistically feasible with existing infrastructure.
   • Cons: Extremely costly over time due to long-term holding; public outcry over animal welfare; does not address root cause.
2. Fertility Control Programs (e.g., PZP Vaccine)
   • Pros: Evidence-based and endorsed by wildlife biologists; cost-effective long-term; high public approval; aligns with humane treatment goals (Turner et al. 2002).
   • Cons: Requires sustained funding and logistical coordination; biological efficacy depends on repeated application.
3. Adoption Incentives
   • Pros: Promotes public engagement and reduces herd size through private ownership.
   • Cons: Historically limited impact; low demand; potential welfare issues if adopted animals are not properly cared for.

Recommendation

I recommend expanding fertility control programs using the PZP vaccine. This approach addresses the root cause of overpopulation humanely and cost-effectively. It also has the rare property — important in a fragmented subsystem — of being acceptable to two of the three advocacy coalitions identified above. The animal-welfare coalition supports it on humane grounds; the ecological-stewardship coalition supports it on rangeland-health grounds. The ranching coalition is unlikely to celebrate the policy, but is far less likely to mobilize against it than against, for example, expanded roundups or large new appropriations for off-range holding.

The recommendation should be implemented while the policy window identified above remains open. Four implementation moves matter most:

• Front-load resources for field application teams. PZP is operationally proven but logistically demanding; the program's credibility depends on visible early progress.
• Cultivate a policy entrepreneur inside or close to BLM to maintain attention as competing issues crowd the agenda. Policy windows close when the political stream moves on, and Kingdon's framework reminds us that an entrepreneur willing to couple the streams is essential.
• Build a public-facing narrative that frames fertility control as fiscally responsible rangeland stewardship as well as humane treatment. Framing matters because it determines which coalition's terms dominate the debate, and a dual frame here is what makes cross-coalition support possible.
• Institute annual monitoring and public reporting so the program produces the evidence base it needs to survive future political cycles — a defense against backsliding once attention shifts.

Conclusion

Without policy adjustments, overpopulation will continue to strain federal budgets and damage public rangelands. Fertility control programs provide a sustainable and publicly acceptable solution that fulfills the BLM's obligations under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. More importantly, the convergence of problem, policy, and political streams creates a window for change that has not existed in decades and may not recur soon. Acting now — with humane, evidence-based tools that draw support across two of the three durable advocacy coalitions in this subsystem — is the most plausible route to a durable departure from a four-decade policy stalemate.

References

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Beever, Erik A., and Peter F. Brussard. 2000. "Examining Ecological Consequences of Feral Horse Grazing Using Exclosures." Western North American Naturalist 60(3): 236–254.

Birkland, Thomas A. 2020. An Introduction to the Policy Process. 5th ed. New York: Routledge.

Garrott, Robert A., and Madan K. Oli. 2013. "A Critical Crossroad for BLM's Wild Horse Program." Science 341(6148): 847–848.

Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.

Nie, Martin. 2003. "Drivers of Natural Resource-Based Political Conflict." Policy Sciences 36 (3/4): 307–341.

Rutberg, Allen T., Kayla Grams, John W. Turner Jr., and Heidi Hopkins. 2017. "Contraceptive Efficacy of Priming and Boosting Doses of Controlled-Release PZP in Wild Horses." Wildlife Research 44(2): 174–181.

Sabatier, Paul A. 1988. "An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein." Policy Sciences 21(2–3): 129–168.

Turner, John W., Jr., Irwin K. M. Liu, David R. Flanagan, Kimberly S. Bynum, and Allen T. Rutberg. 2002. "Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) Immunocontraception of Wild Horses (Equus caballus) in Nevada: A 10 Year Study." Reproduction Supplement 60: 177–186.

Bureau of Land Management. 2024. Wild Horse and Burro Program Statistics. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.blm.gov/programs/wild-horse-and-burro/about-the-program/program-data.

The Humane Society of the United States. 2023. Fertility Control and Wild Horse Management. https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/fertility-control-wild-horses.

Congressional Research Service. 2024. Wild Horse and Burro Management: Overview of Costs. CRS In Focus IF11060. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11060.