The eight very different higher education institutions define excellence in ways that make sense to the people they serve and reflect the demands of culture and place. They are places that have looked for and pursue a clear sense of purpose and where institutional behavior aligns with stated values and goals. These portraits offer insights into the ways institutions can create cultures of excellence without slavishly following the norms and metrics celbrated by international ranking schemes. They also show policymakers that concentrating resources on a few institutions is not the only way to lift quality and strengthen a national system.

Democrats prize experts in staffing the Executive Branch while Republicans prefer political operatives and media spokespersons. But across the issue spectrum, policies are increasingly complicated and technical, requiring knowledge of many previous rounds of institution-building and policymaking. New social problems require remixing of complex policy tools, often led by research and experts. Addressing climate change and public health, for example, requires professionalized expert workforces and technical analyses. Even seemingly value-based areas of policymaking such as economic development and racial discrimination increasingly require subject-matter experts and formalized training. And the issue of higher education itself has increasingly divided the parties. Chapter 6 documents how each policy area is increasingly dominated by complex proposals from liberals accompanied by conservative suspicion of expert-led governance. Policy knowledge and evaluation capacity have become increasingly tethered to the Democratic Party, with believably nonpartisan expertise now in short supply.

Although maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health is a well-established determinant of health across the lifecourse and across generations, the underpinning concept of DOHaD has not had significant impact on policymaking. This chapter identifies some of the barriers involved and how DOHaD researchers may overcome them. Policymaking is a complex process that is influenced by many factors other than science. Translating evidence to policy requires brokerage that explains the implications of science in a clear, frank way, accompanied by impactful solutions. Yet, the largely preventive approach advocated by DOHaD science does not inherently offer simple, high-impact interventions but rather a broad shift in thinking within the policy community. DOHaD advocacy will need to demonstrate short- and medium-term, as well as long-term, benefits. A complementary approach is to engage with communities to adjust scientific ideas to local knowledge and expertise.

Chapter Five examines the role of international law in State Department policymaking. It describes the formal and informal decision-making processes within the State Department, focusing on the influential role of the Legal Adviser and the Legal Adviser’s Office. The chapter then examines closely the weight given by policymakers to legal advice and the nature of the interaction between policymakers and lawyers. Policymakers, at least at higher levels, generally have final decision-making authority, but the views of the Legal Adviser’s Office can be determinative in the relatively rare instances when the lawyers deem a course of action conclusively illegal. Otherwise, the lawyers’ advice is influential, but its weight may vary depending on the circumstances, including the nature of the national interest involved. Many former officials indicated that the development of policy was often a collaborative and constructive process. The lawyers were usually willing to work with policymakers, and they were often willing to find alternative courses of action within the law, though they would not usually budge on an interpretation of the law. Some former officials indicated that their relationship involved greater contestation, resembling a negotiation. When international law conflicted with significant policy interests, policymakers could sometimes seek to overcome those obstacles.

Diplomats work in large and complex bureaucracies, in which structures, duties, responsibilities and authorities should be clearly defined–the alternative is a recipe for chaos at best and disaster at worst. A good officer should be able to work in any bureaucratic situation and be effective. To achieve that, one must have solid knowledge and understanding of policy structures, as well as the parallel, informal policymaking culture that each administration develops. That should be the backdrop against which diplomats inform and influence decision-making and implementation. The U.S. government uses the term “interagency” to describe both a structure and a mechanism through which policies are supposed to be developed, debated and presented to relevant Cabinet members, who head executive departments, and ultimately to the president for decision.

This chapter presents the theoretical framework that is applied in the study. We expect the management of the refugee crisis to be heavily shaped by the underlying political conflicts in the compound EU polity of nation-states, by the crisis situation that prevailed as a result of the policy-specific heritage, and the combination of problem and political pressures at both levels of this polity in interaction with a set of particular characteristics of the EU polity. The vertical and horizontal territorial conflicts that are typical of this compound polity are expected to have been exacerbated by two aspects of the crisis situation in particular – the limited number of competences of the EU in the policy domain of asylum policy and the asymmetrical incidence of the refugee crisis among the member statesWith respect to the outcomes of the crisis, we expect more continuity than change – in terms of both policy and conflict structures – and limited spillovers from policy to polity change.

To fully understand the innovative potential of intersectional advocacy, one needs to understand the traditional policymaking process that it confronts. In Chapter 2 illustrates how policy boundaries contribute to inequality in the United States. Drawing from a textual analysis of the Congressional hearings on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and newspaper articles covering VAWA, the chapter presents evidence that the policy boundaries in the VAWA harmed intersectionally marginalized groups. Moreover, it shows advocacy groups that did not represent intersectionally-marginalized groups contributed to the setting of these policy boundaries by participating in the policymaking process. Underscoring how advocacy groups that do not represent multiply-marginalized intervene in the policymaking process, this chapter illustrates what is at stake with the traditional policymaking process and the ways that mainstream advocacy groups have participated in it.

In Chapter 3, the overarching question of this book starts to be answered: how do advocacy groups intervene in policymaking processes to represent intersectionally marginalized populations? Here, work is presented that examines how advocacy groups representing intersectionally-marginalized groups have participated in this policymaking process. Analyses of the testimony and statements from advocacy groups during Congressional hearings over the reauthorization of VAWA from the past 25 years is provided to show that select organizations were successfully advocating for linkages between policies and issues that reflected the experiences of intersectionally marginalized groups. These linkages were between VAWA and policies on welfare, immigration, and tribal rights. In this chapter, “intersectional advocacy,” is identified to explain how advocacy groups in this setting engaged in it to change VAWA policy over time. The chapter shows that VAWA changes in remarkable ways that better represent and serve intersectionally marginalized groups.

The book concludes with a discussion of the current state of gender-based violence in the United States while highlighting the specific landscape of advocacy organizations that are working in this space to serve intersectionally marginalized populations. The chapter elaborates on the challenges that remain for intersectional advocates as they intervene in this issue, as well as the possibilities that lie ahead for their advocacy efforts. These findings are not just applicable to policies and laws related to gender-based violence but are also valuable for identifying policy gaps in U.S. political institutions more generally. The chapter then gives a call-to-action to policymakers, advocacy organizations, foundations, and individuals to critically evaluate the current structure of U.S. policy institutions—who they benefit, who they represent, and to what extent they are ineffective for resolving some of our most pressing social issues. The call is accompanied with tangible examples of how these stakeholders can practice and support intersectional advocacy to change U.S. policy institutions to be more effective, equitable, and representative of an increasingly diverse democracy.

What explains why these groups take on the practice of intersectional advocacy? In Chapter 5, this question is answered from an organizational perspective. Drawing again from the qualitative analysis of interviews with organizational leaders, the chapter presents the features of organizations that practice intersectional advocacy. There are four constitutive features of their organizations that were related to their engagement in intersectional advocacy. Despite a commitment to intersectional feminism, one of these organizations did not have all of these features and it also did not fully participate in intersectional advocacy. By discussing this case, the chapter demonstrates how an analysis of the four organizational features also help identify why groups such as these do not fully take on this practice. It then ends with how organizations with commitments to intersectionally marginalized groups but have not actualized them through intersectional advocacy, can change their varying organizational structures to take on this approach. This chapter is written in a way that scholars and organizational practitioners can both understand and appreciate the practice of intersectional advocacy.

The book opens with the story of Mariella Batista, a woman who was unable to access essential services through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 because of her immigration status and who tragically died from intimate partner abuse. Her experiences with VAWA reveal the ways in which policy institutions are rigidly confined to one primary issue area (i.e., gendered violence) and as such these laws fail to serve women with other marginalized identities (i.e., Latinx, noncitizen, low-income women). Her story illuminates the institutional inequalities that lie within U.S. policy institutions. The remainder of this introduction chapter explains the history behind these institutions and the ways in which women have resisted them for centuries. These historical moments set the contemporary landscape for advocacy within today’s movement to address gendered violence. This chapter then introduces the concept of “intersectional advocacy” led by organizations that are reimagining and reconfiguring policies to better represent women like Mariella.