Memo Instructions

Issues Memo

The issue memo is your opportunity to set the agenda for this course. It is also a chance to learn about how political authority is distributed in the U.S. federal system and the state of Michigan.

You will craft a 1-page memo on the following question:

What are the most pressing energy siting issues in Michigan? Please identify three issues and three local, state, or tribal officials who are in a position to advance policies addressing each issue. These must be public officials.

Memos in this genre are what you will be asked to write if you work for a policymaker, think tank, or advocacy group and your boss wants to get a sense of the current issues and key decision makers in a new policy area.

Issues Memo Template

NO HEADER

Single spaced

A sentence or two about each policy issue and three bullets with a sentence or two about each policymaker’s authority to address it:

Issue 1

  • Policymaker 1.a: Legal authority to address issue 1
  • Policymaker 1.b: Legal authority to address issue 1
  • Policymaker 1.c: Legal authority to address issue 1

Issue 2

  • Policymaker 2.a: Legal authority to address issue 2
  • Policymaker 2.b: Legal authority to address issue 2
  • Policymaker 2.c: Legal authority to address issue 2

Issue 3

  • Policymaker 3.a: Legal authority to address issue 3
  • Policymaker 3.b: Legal authority to address issue 3
  • Policymaker 3.c: Legal authority to address issue 3

Policy Memo

General Instructions: This document provides the exact template for the policy memo assignments. Your memo should include a memo header, executive summary, background summary, analysis of the issues, review of options, recommendation, arguments and counterarguments, and conclusion. You are limited to four double-spaced pages, excluding endnotes/citations. You should use four pages—no more, rarely less. Because you are limited to four pages, consider the most efficient methods to convey necessary information: charts, bullet points, tables, graphs, or text. Please use a consistent citation style. Given the page limit, endnotes are best. Use 1-inch margins and 12-point font.

In preparing your memo, consider your reader. What does the reader already know? What does your reader need to know to understand your analysis and recommendation? Because policy memoranda are brief–no more than a few pages—avoid restating the obvious or discussing at any length that is well known or well understood by your reader. Your job is not to tell the reader everything that you know on the issue; it is to tell the reader what they need to know to make a policy decision.

I will announce the policymakers you are to address in class and on Canvas. Please ask me if you are uncertain who you are assigned to address.

These policy memos involve two kinds of analysis: (1) issue analysis that identifies the key policy problem and its causes (identifying the causes of a problem and why it has not already been solved generally includes a political/stakeholder analysis) (2) policy analysis comparing policy options on criteria suggested by your issue analysis.

Memos in this genre are what you will be asked to write if you work for a policymaker, agency, think tank, or advocacy group and your boss asks you to develop and compare policy options.

The multiple memos you write for this class are exercises in practicing a craft. Yes, they are addressed to real people, but I will give you feedback, and you will have a chance to revise it before sending it to them (if you want to do so). The purpose of doing iterations on the same memo form and subject is to get practice, workshop, and improve. You should approach the policy memo assignments as practice. I know this is a new form of writing for most of you and a new subject matter for nearly all of you. Please be careful not to be too hard on yourself or hold yourselves to unreasonable expectations. There is no way anyone can become a true expert in any subject or craft in this short time. I’ve read and graded hundreds of students’ policy memos, and I am not expecting perfection on the first attempt. I expect a good first effort at doing something new and challenging, and I know you can all do that well. In the next iteration, I expect improvement, and I know you can do that as well.

Policy Memo Template

TO: 501 Students (I will give you a current public official to address in each memo)
FROM: Devin Judge-Lord (Please use only your student ID for the first policy memo you submit on Canvas.).
DATE: September 1, 20XX.
RE: Policy Memo Template (A one-line summary of the memo)

The rest is double-spaced (excluding endnotes/references)

Executive Summary: Your executive summary should be brief. It should state the problem, provide an overview of your memo’s organization (e.g., the cause of the problem, options for addressing it, and goals/criteria you use to analyze these options), and summarize your recommendation. This should be done in four to seven lines of text, no more.

Background: Your background summary should provide a brief history and context of the problem addressed. It might include a few facts to lend a sense of the magnitude/scope of the problem if your audience is not aware, but it should also discuss what we know about relevant policy tools, especially from the social sciences (economics, sociology, political science, law, management studies, policy studies). Background summaries generally answer who, what, and when questions and provide facts on which there is general agreement. Inclusion criteria: Is it necessary for this policymaker to (1) understand the issue or (2) decide among the options? In a good policy memo, there is no room for evidence that is not essential to the ultimate analysis (even if it is super interesting!).

Issue & Stakeholder Analysis: Your memo must include an analysis of the problem. This involves why questions that focus our attention on a cause that might be targeted by policy and the politics that might enable or limit policy options. Why do these problems exist? How did it come about? Why have policymakers not already addressed this problem? Why is it important to develop strategy and policy around this problem? This is where you tell a causal story about the problem and its politics. Implicitly, at least, this story allocates blame. Who are the stakeholders, and what positions have they taken? Who might be mobilized to block policy, and who who might mobilize to help? You don’t need to cover all of the reasons that they exist, but your analysis should focus our attention on at least one very specific key cause of the problem that might be a target of policy intervention. This focuses us on stakeholders/politics that need to be addressed in the options and recommendations and should lead you to criteria by which to evaluate policy options. You may include charts, tables, bullet points – whatever most concisely lays out information about how the problem came to be (its causes) and the likely consequences of maintaining the status quo and of making change.

Policy Options & Analysis: In this section, briefly present the top policy options, along with a concise but systematic discussion of pros and cons, costs and benefits, or arguments and counterarguments for each. Systematic means that you compare options on all of the criteria (the things your issue analysis concludes are important). The more that your options are true alternative courses of action, the easier it will be to compare them systematically. The most useful comparisons present hard choices where the conclusion is not obvious (and thus requires policy analysis). Don’t include ridiculous options or straw persons that are easily dismissed—these are not helpful. The options that you do not recommend should be the next best things the policymaker might do. Thus, the amount of detail for each should be roughly equal.

  • Number and name the options (e.g., “1. Revolving Loan Fund:”)
  • You may use bullets, charts, tables, or whatever format conveys viable options with an assessment of each

Recommendation: This is the heart of your memorandum. The recommendation should logically flow from the issue analysis and comparison of options. Explain why the option you recommend presents the best strategy. Be clear in discussing strategy implementation: Are you proposing a multi-step strategy/solution? Are there unknowns or contingencies that might arise in a way that may alter the course?

Conclusion: Here is your one brief opportunity for rhetoric. A conclusion should not rehash what you’ve written. You might, in one sentence, summarize your recommendation and give it a sense of weight or urgency. This is your opportunity to leave your audience with some compelling impetus to act on the problem by adopting your strategy. Use the conclusion to catalyze your audience. Good conclusions for memos this short are generally one or two sentences in two lines of text.

References and other endnotes (e.g., “1”), which do not count toward the 4-page limit and should be single-spaced. References must include a URL wherever possible. Please try to link to stable public URLs. For journal articles, DOI URLs are best (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619858874). If you cannot find a DOI, then use some other stable repository like JSTOR or the publisher’s web page (e.g., https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7t5st or https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1086026619858874).

We will be checking to make sure that the source is appropriate for a policy memo (i.e., likely to be perceived as legitimate by your audience) and that it supports the claim made in the text of the memo. Fabricated sources are unacceptable, and the relationship between claim and evidence is critical.

A single endnote may contain multiple references and any additional information that you think is helpful for a reader who is curious about the claim made in the memo and wants to know more.

Formatting

  • Make sure the header is within one-inch margins
  • Use numeric endnotes, not roman numerals (they are easier to read and take up less space)
  • Single-space the header and endnotes, double-space the body text (i.e., everything else).
  • Indent paragraphs to set them apart (except the first paragraph of each section)
  • You may use bold and/or underline to highlight the most important things
  • Write out citations (author, year, title, URL) in the endnotes

Tips for writing policy memos:

1. Structure matters: Every year, I see brilliant students do a ton of good research but still write ineffective memos because they did not follow the template. A policy memo is not a research paper. A memo is the result of taking a 14-page research paper and refining it into 4 pages that a policymaker can digest in the 10 minutes they have before their next meeting. The template forces you to refine your writing to its essential points. This does not diminish the importance of research; good research is critical. A policy memo conveys the essential points, citing the research in which it is grounded.

2. Know your audience: First, they must see themselves as having the authority to take the actions you propose. Be very explicit about what authority you are expecting them to use and how. As the history of the commerce clause shows, the legality of major policy changes is often debated. It is fine if your proposal falls in the legal grey area at the boundary of a policymaker’s presently recognized authority. You just need the policymaker to see it as worth their time, even if their legal authority is uncertain. However, our existing legal institutions and the power allocation embedded in those institutions is a major constraint on pretty much every policymaker, especially the more local ones to whom we have the best shot of being useful. Thus, legal structures, while malleable, are real constraints on the options we propose because they have to be options perceived as worthwhile by busy and pragmatic policymakers. Memos are not an exercise in crafting theoretically ideal policies. They are exercises in practical policy craft. This does not mean that we cannot be creative and innovative, but it does mean that we are highly constrained by institutions as they are and by the people who occupy them.

Be clear about what you are asking them to do. Some people (legislators) have the ability to propose legislation. Agency officials do not.

Second, all policymakers have passions, priorities, and stakeholders that affect the relevant facts, framing, and recommendations. To influence people, you must know what they care about and believe.

3. This is not a campaign or talking points memo: You are helping policymakers make policy, not write a speech. They want solid evidence from reputable (ideally peer-reviewed or government) sources. The goal is to help them make effective policy, not to accrue power.

Public policy is inexorably linked to questions of power. This memo is about policy: “statements of what the government intends to do.” Of course, policy emerges from politics, but it also involves evidence. Political debates define problems, goals, and agendas, but to achieve any goal through policy, evidence about the effects of different policy tools is indispensable. Evidence must come from a source that your audience will trust. Good evidence also ought to be convincing to reasonable opponents of one’s policy goals. Your aim is to win over the policy wonks.

4. How to distinguish background facts from issue analysis: We might distinguish evidence about the state of the world (problems and conditions) from evidence about causes (see Bardach and Patashnik on causal models and Stone on causal stories). Both types of evidence are needed to assess options against your evaluative criteria (the real policy analysis that gets us from options to a recommendation). However, compared to background facts, causal analysis clearly places blame, i.e., explains why we still have this problem and why it has not been solved. Because a key part of the issue analysis is asserting who or what is responsible for the lack of action to solve the problem, stakeholder analysis generally belongs in the issue analysis section.

Another way to distinguish background evidence about the state of the world from arguments about its causes is to consider how opponents of your problem definition will think about it. Background facts are generally things that reasonable people can agree on, even if they disagree about their importance or implications. Issue analysis generally places the blame for a problem in ways that some stakeholders will find objectionable (although not always; sometimes, we place blame on new or changing conditions to which stakeholders have yet to react, and thus, no one is yet to blame for this problem).

5. Avoid solution-oriented thinking. Instead, allow your issue analysis to point to option_s_ and focus on the hard tradeoffs. Our instincts are to focus on the solutions, that thing that sounds like a great idea. Such a focus leads to “reverse-engineered” memos where the issue analysis is weak and focused on the merits of the ultimate recommendation rather than the difficulties and tradeoffs. It also leads to weak alternative options that add little value because it is clear you intend to reject them. This is not helpful.

Instead, follow the logic of the memo. First, analyze the issue. Come up with options that address the key causes and stakeholder considerations identified by your issue analysis. Don’t get attached to any of these options; remain skeptical of all of them and make each the best option it can be. Then, allow your systematic analysis of each option on each criterion to clarify the tradeoffs. Clarifying tradeoffs is much more valuable than selling a particular recommendation. Finally, recommend a particular way to think about making the tradeoffs. The most helpful memos with solid alternative options will offer a helpful way of thinking through tradeoffs that is not obvious.

6. Implementation options as options vs. part of a recommendation: There are multiple ways to implement a policy proposal. If you take a broader policy direction as given, questions about implementation can be options to analyze (e.g., “What is the best source of funding for this policy?” or “Should we start with a pilot/demonstration project?” or “on what timeline should we roll this program out”). In this case, your entire memo is just about one aspect of the implementation of a policy direction that you have good reason to believe that the policymaker wants to (or is planning to) implement.

Alternatively, implementation questions might be addressed in a less analytic way in the recommendation section of a memo, where the analysis section focuses on comparing broader policy options. Here, the heart of your analysis is about choosing which policy direction to take, and your advice on implementation is more about suggesting ways to do the thing your analysis recommends. You might suggest that they start with a pilot program, utilize a certain source of funding, or roll out the program on a certain timeline as advice that is more about suggesting helpful ideas than systematically analyzing the pros and cons of this or that implementation strategy.

Either type of memo is fine. Which is better largely depends on where the policymaker is at. Have they already committed to a new policy direction and new help figuring out how to implement it? Or are they struggling with which direction to go, and once they make that choice, how to do it is more straightforward?

Either way, you will want to think carefully about which details belong in the presentation of options versus the recommendation section. Details–including implementation details–belong in the options section is they matter for deciding among the options. Otherwise, they generally fit better as elaborations on the recommendation.

7. Take advantage of free help: Librarians have superhuman abilities to find good sources for you, especially our dedicated Public Policy Librarian, Shevon Desai. The writing center can help you better communicate your points (writing can always be clearer). Free spelling and grammar checkers like Grammarly can help you avoid silly mistakes that can make your writing hard for others to read.

Notes that I frequently give on policy memos

Clarity

  • Avoid passive voice; it obscures who is doing or ought to do things. This is critical because issue analysis assigns blame and all policies are made and implemented by certain officials (often different ones). Policies do not face opposition; someone opposes them. Policies are not drafted; someone drafts them. Policies are not implemented; someone implements them. These are essential points on which to be extremely clear.
  • Use a grammar checker like Microsoft Word or Grammarly to catch missing commas, etc. (They may also check for passive voice.)
  • Have someone read your memo and mark each sentence as clear or not clear (including passive voice)

Formatting

  • Use numeric endnotes, not roman numerals (it takes up less space)
  • Indent paragraphs to set them apart
  • Single-space the header and endnotes
  • Make sure the header is within one-inch margins
  • Use bold and/or underline to highlight the most important things
  • Number and name options
  • Write out citations (author, year, title, URL) in the endnotes

Section-by-section notes, divided into notes that require major or minor revisions:

Background research

Major: No research specific to the memo’s particular topic beyond what the policymaker already knows.

Minor: Relevant research on the problem, but not on policy tools.

Inclusion criteria: Is it necessary for this policymaker to (1) understand the issue or (2) decide among the options? Very few memos had enough of this second type of information.

Most memos can use less background on the problem and more background research on policy tools, especially from the social sciences (economics, sociology, political science, law, management studies, policy studies).

The best memos are usually the most narrowly focused (a narrowly focused problem definition also makes for easier research) and draw on academic studies of policies/programs implemented in other states. This has the advantage of synthesizing lessons learned (unlike information on another state’s website, academic research is written for an external audience like you) and provides an external analysis of the politics and challenges that may often be missing from reports from the people on the ground.

Issue & Stakeholder Analysis

Major: There is little analysis of why this problem remains unsolved, only statements about the general causes or nature of the problem that the policymaker already knows and/or little discussion of stakeholders.

Minor: There is a discussion of stakeholders and a focus on specific causes of the problem, but the lessons for how we should then evaluate options are not clear.

Almost every memo I read needs to focus more on why we are in this situation. Why do these problems exist? You don’t need to cover all of the reasons that they exist, but your analysis should focus our attention on at least one very specific key cause of the problem that might be a target of policy intervention. Why have policymakers not already addressed this problem? This focuses us on stakeholders/politics that need to be addressed in the options and recommendations.

Policy Options and Analysis

Major: Options are vague, and/or pros and cons are not robustly addressed.

Minor: Pros and cons are addressed, but not systematically to facilitate comparison.

Ask yourself: Are these alternative paths to address the problem that I am focusing on? How do they compare to each other across all criteria that my analysis shows are important for any solution to address?

Recommendation

Major: It is unclear why you chose the option you chose.

Minor: It is clear why you chose the option you chose, but more details are needed on implementation.

Conclusion

Major: The conclusion is way too long and/or repeats what is above.

Major: The conclusion is slightly too long and/or repeats what is above.

Peer Reviews

My expectation for the peer review is a significant and thoughtful engagement with each memo’s structure and ideas, as well as detailed notes on the writing. This is an exercise in constructive critique, so there must be suggestions for improvement.

This means at least a page of written feedback as well as some notes or markup of their writing. Writing can always be improved.

How to submit your review

You can use the markup features on Canvas as you read. Your written critique should then be uploaded for the peer critique assignment and sent to your colleague. (You should be able to share a Google Doc or attach a file in the “Comments for this Attempt” bar on Canvas.) Make sure to submit it in both places. The assignment upload goes to me so that you get credit for the assignment. The “Comments for this attempt” make it available to your colleague.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Giving helpful critiques is a nuanced art, and I am happy to talk it through with you.

Tips on peer reviews

From Pedagogy in Action:

  • Before you even make your first comment, read the document all the way through.
  • Make sure you leave enough time for you to read through and respond and for your peer to edit their document with your comments before any deadlines.
  • If you are provided with a feedback form to fill out and something is unclear, do not ignore the item but ask the instructor for clarification.
  • Point out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the document.
  • Offer suggestions, not commands.
  • Editorial comments should be appropriate and constructive. There is no need to be rude. Be respectful and considerate of the writer’s feelings.
  • Be sure that your comments are clear and text-specific so that your peer will know what you are referring to (for example, terms such as “unclear” or “vague” are too general to be helpful).
  • As a reader, raise questions that cross your mind, points that may have not occurred to your peer author.
  • Try not to overwhelm your peer with too much commentary. Follow the feedback form and the issues you are supposed to address.
  • Be careful not to let your own opinions bias your review (for example, don’t suggest that your peer completely rewrite the paper just because you don’t agree with his/her point of view).
  • Reread your comments before passing them on to your peer. Make sure all your comments make sense and are easy to follow.
  • Avoid turning your peer’s paper into your paper.

Talking Points Memo

Talking Points Memo Instructions

The purpose of this memo is to guide your roundtable presentation and your responses to questions. It should be formatted as groups of short bullet points under concise headings. It may or may not follow the outline of the policy memo. You may separately want to write out and practice your entire presentation (I suggest you do). You can bring a script but try not to read from it. Instead, use the talking points memo to keep you on track. The talking points memo will help you address the most important points in the most concise language, both in the presentation and in responses to questions.

Memos in this genre are what you will write to prepare yourself, a boss, or a senior colleague for a meeting—in this case, a public hearing with policymakers who will ask questions.

Your talking points must fit on one page . Please follow the formatting guidelines below, which is good practice because most policy institutions require adhering to similar standards.

Talking points take several forms. The most common is a single page of bullet points grouped into a few major categories. Your memo should be about 50% points for your presentation and 50% points for addressing likely questions. Even if you do not follow the outline of your policy memo, your points should take a clear position on the key issues, including the cause of the problem (problem definition/causal story), the pros and cons of options, the justification for your recommendation(s), and precisely what the policymaker(s) should do.

Talking points should read like a script so that you or your colleague can read them aloud if necessary, but not the entire script—just the most important points. They should help you if you get stuck. Policy professionals typically keep the points in front of them on a lectern or folder as a meeting or public appearance unfolds.

Headers and points are often complete sentences but do not have to be. However, neither headers nor points should exceed two lines. Say it in one line if you can. Use 12-point font, 1-inch margins, and enough space between points to make them easy to read.

You do not need to cite sources for your talking points unless you want to mention the source as evidence or authority for your claims.

*Some of these instructions were adapted from John Ciorciari’s talking points memo instructions.

Talking Points Memo Template

This is an approximate outline; your needs may vary.

NO HEADER (no name, date, etc.)

Single-spaced, 1-inch margins, mostly bullet points, some headers

Two line summary. B.L.U.F.

  • [Most compelling/necessary fact(s)]

[Existing policies won’t fix this.]

  • [Analysis, i.e., why policies will fail and/or why we have failed to make adequate policy]

  • Thus, we need a policy that [criteria].

I investigated [3] policy options, [Option 1], [Option 2], [Option 3] (You don’t need to review all of the options in your policy memo. Do so only if you think it adds value.)

  • [Option 1] is [key pro(s)] but [key con(s)]
  • [Option 2] is [key pro(s)] but [key con(s)]
  • [Option 3] is [key pro(s)] but [key con(s)]

I recommend [specific action that the people you are addressing can take]

  • [Justification/reasoning]
  • [Key implementation consideration]

[Question 1]

  • Answer (or at least the start / bottom line of an answer)

[Question 2]

  • Answer (or at least the start / bottom line of an answer)

[Question 3]

  • Answer (or at least the start / bottom line of an answer)

[Question 4]

  • Answer (or at least the start / bottom line of an answer)

[Question 5]

  • Answer (or at least the start / bottom line of an answer)

There is no required number of questions; in this half page, try to balance having something to say about more possible questions with making sure you remember the key points of each answer.

In this second half of the memo, both questions and points are probably best kept to one line each.

Ideas for anticipating questions

  • Give your presentation to (or just talk about your proposal with) others and write down the questions they ask you
  • Gather questions from feedback on your memos and ask yourself if any of them are likely to be asked in response to your presentation

Resources

Wiki (additional resources from 510 GSIs and students)

Footnotes

  1. This is an endnote citing Judge-Lord, 202X, Policy Memo Template, https://judgelord.github.io/PP510/memos↩︎