Chapter 9: Is the Policy System the Policy Problem? A Student Changemaker’s Perspective

Posted Septerber 3, 2024 - Hallie Vermette

 

Creating policies does not create systems change, it’s PR and a reason to/not to vote for you in the next election. Public policies are like wind and they blow through our Ani-to-pisi vibrating our collective being.

 

Image description: An activity-based session led by Roy Bear Chief in which participants explored connectedness and complexity through a human Ani-to-pisi.

Public policy is not to be conflated with systems change

As a student with growing frustration towards our highly connected and increasingly complex relationships with each other and Earth, I wish to see a policy-making regime where we are less focused on problem-solving and more focused on problem-understanding. The policy system and the mechanics for making public policy is fraught with gaps. These gaps come from taking humanness out of the ultimate goal of public policy; which is serving our people. To my understanding, policy systems are the ways in which governments enact change but public policy should not be conflated with systems change. Policy systems are not governments but rather the means to which the government formalizes the change they, and hopefully we, wish to see.

In an era many are calling a polycrisis, “a state where multiple crises intertwine, their causes and processes inextricably bound together to create compounded effects,” [1] how might we leverage our differences to meet each other’s needs? 

 

 

Image Description: Latasha Calf-Robe speaks to slowing down our mind, spirit, body, and heart so we can foster environments of intentional collaborative time to address wicked problems.

My Lived Experience

Image Description: Myself with a wickedly smart panel discussing public policy, systems change, and the impact public policies have on our Ani-to-pisi.

I was a guest speaker at the Banff Systems Summit hosted by the Institute for Community Prosperity and ATCO where our panel discussed the conflation of public policy and systems change. The night before the panel, I brainstormed some ideas with my two Map the System teammates/besties, Naheel Al Sourani and Ice Garcia who are seated on the far right of the image above. I described to Naheel and Ice policy-makers as "closers", they close the deal (movement or advocacy) between people and the government. Policy-makers create public policy, but this alone doesn't foster systems change. I felt pretty good about this idea until the next day when I was sitting on stage with a microphone, distracted by the mountainous beauty in front of me and attentive eyes watching us from the audience. I completely blanked and said something-ish related to what I had brainstormed the night before but I couldn’t tell you what I actually said. I definitely cringed at myself in the moment and packed that memory into a nice little box sitting in the edges of my brain that apparently, only gets opened when I am trying to sleep peacefully at night. Yay me!

I wish I had said that public policy is a part of systems change as it provides a formal mechanism for systems change to happen, but they aren’t identical. It requires more than making and implementing policies for systems change to occur and I think anyone reading this blog recognizes that a lot of the policies that are created to address wicked problems aren’t changing the system but rather adding a layer of complexity through government interventions. For instance, the 2019 federal carbon tax policy aimed at encouraging consumers to reduce fossil fuel usage, did not transformatively change the transportation ecosystem or climate consciousness, rather it just created financial anxiety and fear for an individual's prosperity. It did however spark a new wave of anti-Trudeau discourse which is pretty on par with the status quo of our political party system right now, so nothing new there. Creating policies does not create systems change, it’s PR and a reason to/not to vote for you in the next election. 

Public policies are like wind and they blow through our Ani-to-pisi vibrating our collective being. We are impacted as a group but individually face different levels of wind intensity. For example, if a policy barely impacts you but impacts me so greatly that I start to lose my financial security and begin socially disconnecting from our Ani-to-pisi, you will feel those vibrations whether you know it or not. Bringing together our differences in spite of the wind blowing through us feels impossible in that moment of turbulence. I am not sure how to reconcile that feeling of disconnect besides behaving in a way that is conscientious of how my actions will impact strangers. You need me to give good vibrations to our spider web because you and I, we, need you to give good vibrations back to all of us that are connected. 

 

Policy systems spend too much energy making solutions and not investigating the problem

The prescriptive methods and theories of creating policy are reductive -  it’s like, really fast here’s an issue, here are these policy steps to follow to solve your problem and if it doesn’t solve your problem, figure out why the solution didn’t work and then change the solution to solve that problem instead of looking back at the problem you are actually trying to solve. 

 

In a more descriptive way, the flaws in policy systems look like:

1. Strategies for policy-making and policy analysis are rigid, limited, and dehumanizing which encourages solution-solving above problem-solving. Policy systems theories are heavy on solution-solving, meaning fixing, layering, or changing the already implemented policy opposed to problem-solving which requires interdisciplinary collaboration to understand the different facets of a problem. Strategies are bound by technical/cultural norms of policy-making and scarce resources that encourage policy-makers to focus on solution-solving
2. A lack of intentional apprenticing with an issue and the continuous learning about said problem. We have to know more to avoid short-term problem-solving that ends up increasing the complexity of a problem, (sending my appreciation to the Map the System program for building these research skills into my personal everyday policy practice)

I struggle to value general policy-making theories in comparison to social innovation theories because policy theories feel so dehumanizing and dogmatic. Our policy system is made of humans but theories of policy-making don’t speak to our peopleness. One policy cycle theory I see limitations with is Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh, and Anthony Perl’s as outlined in Studying Public Policy, Principles and Processes [2]. The table below is their model which has one step that focuses on learning from people and that step is the first step: agenda setting, where problems come to the government’s attention. Everything after step one fails to recognize the importance of ongoing learning and the need for diverse methods of information gathering that support human-centered policy formulation. The limitations of linear approaches are affirmed by Howlett et al., when he says solving problems can’t and won’t always follow the linear frameworks a basic 5-step approach lays out and in practice, policy-makers act on circumstance and the ad hoc nature of the problem ahead [3].

 

Stages in Howlett’s Policy Cycle Model	Description
Agenda setting	Process of problems coming to gov’t attention
Policy formulation	How policy options are formulated within gov’t Policy subsystem lies here and is composed of only those actors within sufficient knowledge of a problem area, or a resource at stake, to allow them to participate in the process of developing possible alternative courses of action to address the issues raised at the agenda-setting stage
Decision-making	Gov’t adopts a particular course of action or non-action
Policy implementation	Relates to how gov’ts put policies into effect
Policy evaluation	Processes by which the results of policies are monitored and judged by both state and societal actors —[may lead to conceptualization

Table Description: [Figure 1.1 Stages of the Policy Cycle and Applied Problem Solving, (Howlet et al., pg.11, 2020).]

“Policy analysis tends to pursue formal evaluation or estimation of ‘policy impacts’ or outcomes, usually by applying quantitative techniques such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or risk assessment management” [4]. Policy-makers will be practicing policy analysis and if they are focusing on the intended impacts and outcomes of the policy, they could be missing parts of the problem that weren’t identified in the agenda-setting phase. Alternatively, the problem itself could have changed sometime between the evaluation and agenda-setting phase meaning any analysis could be for not since the policy won’t address the new iteration of the problem.

Below is my adapted version of Howlett’s model with the application of Ani-to-pisi created with the help and wisdom of Elder Roy. As you can see, the far right column asks more human-centred questions to understand the problem a policy system is trying to address. It could be true that within Howlett’s models, these questions are an inherent part of policy-makers thought process, so then teach me those skills now instead of on the job. This to me is a gap as future policy-makers are expected to come up with well-thought-out solutions without knowing how to understand the problem from the onset.

Stages in Howlett’s Policy Cycle Model	Description	Application of Ani-to-pisi to the Policy Cycle from my POV
Agenda setting	Process of problems coming to gov’t attention	Feeling and recognizing the vibrations
Policy formulation	How policy options are formulated within gov’t Policy subsystem lies here and is composed of only those actors within sufficient knowledge of a problem area, or a resource at stake, to allow them to participate in the process of developing possible alternative courses of action to address the issues raised at the agenda-setting stage	Where are the vibrations coming from? What is the root cause of the vibrations?
Decision-making	Gov’t adopts a particular course of action or non-action	How might we address the vibrations?
Policy implementation	Relates to how gov’ts put policies into effect	What resources do we have to address the vibrations?
Policy evaluation	Processes by which the results of policies are monitored and judged by both state and societal actors —[may lead to reconceptualization]	How can we reflect, introspect, learn, and live with the vibrations?

Table Description: [Ani-to-pisi Policy Cycle Adaptation. Adapted from the Figure 1.1 Stages of the Policy Cycle and Applied Problem Solving, (Howlet et al., pg.11, 2020).]

In an era many are calling a polycrisis, “a state where multiple crises intertwine, their causes and processes inextricably bound together to create compounded effects,” [5] how might we leverage our differences to meet each other’s needs?

In light of Canada’s poly-crisis, the policy system led by the government should co-opt a systems leadership framework that shifts away from the current To-For model, (to the people–for the people) into a With-Of model, (with the people–of the people). I learnt the To-For-What-Of model in one of Dr. Katharine McGowan’s Social Innovation classes at Mount Royal University. The model resonated with me deeply as a policy studies student seeking to better serve our people. This paradigm shift in systems of governance would be just a bit of an undertaking with an election cycle that runs in convention every 4 years (5 years less a day as Dr. Katharine McGowan would say), so you know, totally possible and easy and stuff.

Image Description: A land-based learning session at the Banff Systems Summit where participants observed biological living ecosystems as educators/teachers for our human world.

---

Moving from To-For into With-Of

To-For

It can feel like as students, we are learning how to serve the government so that it (the government institution) can serve the people instead of learning how to serve the people as a government body. I am mostly taught to think and question from the top down. Questions like how are bills passed? What are the steps to creating policies? Who works for the government and who works for political parties? What is this policy addressing and what are its limitations?

Howlett et al., highlights the internal expertise bias of policy systems when describing, “only those actors within sufficient knowledge of a problem area, or a resource at stake,” can participate in policy formulation [6]. Who chooses who has sufficient knowledge of a problem area or a resource at stake and why is it only them? I have sufficient knowledge of being a student but because I am not “in” the government club, my knowledge is insufficient making me ineligible to participate in policies formulated for and to me, a student? The Ministry of Education is making policies to and for me but not with me which is frustrating. I do want to clarify that “with” does not mean getting me to fill out a survey. It means continuous learning, and compensated trips to the parliament building in Edmonton where we co-create and implement policies based on my sufficient knowledge of the vibrations the Ministry causes to our student Ani-to-pisi. 

 

With-Of

I think we can agree, you cannot solve a problem if you don’t know what the problem is. So if you, the reader, and I, the writer, can agree on this, can we agree that the lack of emphasis on investigating a problem could be a policy system issue? But Hallie, what about all of the millions of dollars spent on consulting with experts or the millions of dollars spent on policy analysts that are researching, problem-solving, and recommending strategies and solutions to elected officials? Keep em! Keep using their research and resources! Let’s diversify the assets though and bring people into the process who aren’t considered conventional experts. Or let’s ask those consultants to diversify their assets and bring in “unconventional experts” so they have holistic information. Let’s make lived experience credible since it is how we react, interact, and feel our Ani-to-pisi. What is an expert? Is it someone who studies a problem or someone who lives it? Can it be both? Who and what information is considered credible? Who isn’t involved that may be credible? Why isn’t that person credible? Obviously, there are logistical limitations to bringing everyone in and I don’t think we need to bring everyone in. I just think we have designed and continue to teach a system that invalidates lived experience meaning, we won’t ever know how wicked a problem truly is.

Image description: Panel and audience sitting in a circle at the Banff Systems Summit where they explored “Getting the Whole System in the Room? Change Lab”.

 

I imagine many of you have experienced that To-For approach in your lives and it can be frustrating. It can feel like your autonomy is being violated and you are disconnected from your Ani-to-pisi or community. You wonder, why are these things impacting you when you had no say in the process? I felt this frustration when our panel, The Great Conflation: Public Policy and Systems Change, met to brainstorm prior to the Banff Systems Summit. Ice and I felt like the brainstorming was moving fast and it was hard for us to tie in our expertise to the content they were discussing. We’d been invited to speak “with” the experts but we weren’t “of” the experts and Ice and I felt that expertise gap. Our panel, Ice and I included, weren’t intentional in reframing the question to be more user-student-friendly. Questions like, “how can we highlight your expertise as students? Can we shift the intention of the questions to meet you where you are? What is something everyone here can relate to as current or previous students that can help centre our different experiences?” It felt like I was invited to a table to eat a juicy meal with my panel members but I wasn’t given the right tools to eat with them. While the panel was eating, I sat there being grateful for the opportunity to even have a seat at the table. Like wow, this is the coolest experience ever! In hindsight though, I wanted to eat with them and was bummed that I didn’t enjoy it as much as they seemed to have. I don’t think our co-panelists were doing anything wrong, I think they were doing what we are taught and that is to focus on the output (creating content for the panel) and to do it now (within the hour brainstorming session we had). 

Midway through our panel, Elder Roy asked, “Hallie, do they teach you about Indigenous policy-making? Section 91 and 92 of the Charter? Who is responsible for Indigenous peoples? The Indian Act? The complicated Indian status rules?” My answer was no, no they don’t, not nearly as much as they should since they are training young people to be policy-makers without teaching us the complex and ugly policy relationship Canada has created to and for Indigenous peoples. What can reconciliation possibly look like if we continue to foster this frustrating to-for relationship you, as a reader have also experienced before?

Elder Roy asking this question was exactly what I wanted our panel members to do with Ice and I without knowing that is what I wanted. Be with me and of me. Be with my expertise as a student and ask questions of my identity as a student. It was not until Elder Roy asked me to speak on my expertise did I feel inspired and empowered to be authentic in what I know and that will be a defining character development moment for me and my future. I notice and feel the vibrations of Elder Roy’s question everytime I come to campus, everytime I think about policy and systems change, and everytime I teach kids how to dance and be people in this hard and painfully beautiful world.

Image Description: Hagir Sail (left) and Susan Sanning (right) discussing Inclusive Systems Work: Asking Questions to Better Serve Community. Annand Ollivierre, not pictured in this photo, had fantastic contributions to the panels’ conversation

 

Thank you Elder Roy Bear Chief for giving me that credibility and autonomy to speak my truth. I would have left that day feeling starved had you not given me the tools to eat the wicked meal in front of us. 

---

Ultimately, policy-makers should recognize that understanding human experience and emotion is crucial, as policies impact individuals physically, mentally, and financially which, as we know, reverberates through our Ani-to-pisi. In Policy Studies, we often overlook the importance of feelings in academic writing, which is a significant shortcoming when training the future generation of policy-makers how to serve with the people. To create effective policies that address different parts of a problem, we must ask people how they feel and what they know to be true to themselves. Without that understanding, we may implement policies that will not address the problem meaning the problem may reiterate and manifest itself into new problems and vibrations. Like a feedback loop that just keeps going on and on, or me doom scrolling when I need to do my laundry, the problem persists and doesn’t get addressed. 

I just think we have designed and continue to teach a system that invalidates lived experience meaning, we won’t ever know how wicked a problem truly is.

Image description: Myself and other participants with gleeful smiles leaving Elder Roy’s Ani-to-pisi Banff Systems Summit session holding hands and feeling the energy of the wisdom that was just shared with us.

---

7 Lessons I have learned as a Student Changemaker

1. Post-secondary education is in desperate need of way more Indigenous wisdom and knowledge, period.
2. Public policy is not systems change, it is a small but highly influential part of systems change.
3. The policy system is mechanical, technical, and reductive. It is not a human-centered design framework.
4. Policy systems solve the problem within the preferred or implemented solution and not the problem itself.
5. It is more than bringing people to the table, it’s helping them enjoy the meal.
6. The policy cycle should embrace feelings and empathy since policies influence how we feel and experience the world around us.
7. Young people of every generation want to do and be good. Please bring us into everything so we can be with and of the vibrations felt in our Ani-to-pisi.

Image description: Banff Systems Summit participants dancing, clapping, and celebrating as a collective.

Writing from your heart and being vulnerable when you are so used to writing academic papers is difficult so I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I appreciate feedback and reflections so if you have any thoughts for me, feel free to reach out on my LinkedIn or through icp@mtroyal.ca

If you are inspired to involve young people like me, I have a whole network of smart and kind students I represent as the President of the Policy Studies Student Society. If you want to come talk with us about policy, news, politics, economics, social justice, international relations, business, supply chain management, entertainment and pop culture, anything, please let me know!

---

References

1. J. Allouche., S. Metcalfe., M. Schmidt-Sane, Shilpi Srivastava. (October 31, 2023). Are we in the age of a polycrisis?. Institute of Development Studies. Are we in the age of the polycrisis? - Institute of Development Studies
2. M. Howlett., M. Ramesh., & A. Perl. (2020) Studying Public Policy: Principles and Processes. (p.11). Oxford Printing Press. Studying Public Policy 4th Edition [4 ed.] 
3. Howlett, Ramesh, & Pearl, 2020, p. 12.
4. Howlett, Ramesh, & Pearl, 2020, p. 5. 
5. Allouche., Metcalfe., Schmidt-Sane., & Srivastava, 2023.
6. Howlett, Ramesh, & Pearl, 2020, p. 182.

 

Next up Chapter 10: Learning, Unlearning, and Relearning, from Classroom to Career

Philanthropy may play a much smaller role than government in funding social impact (roughly 1:20 is the ratio, just in terms of dollars), but philanthropy also has a unique capacity to experiment boldly, be relentlessly future-focused, and ultimately play a catalytic role in shifting systems. Hear about Aatif’s incredible journey as a changemaker with a diverse background spanning engineering, social policy, and technology management.

Previous Chapter 8: From the Classroom to the World: Lessons from Emerging Changemakers

Emerging leaders from two pivotal research programs, Catamount Fellowship cohort 2023/2024 and Map the System Canada, shared their experiences of navigating complex social challenges.