Higher Education Act of 1965: A theoretical analysis

The Public Policy Process-601

Seth Porter

Environment & Overview

The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) was a major federal policy in higher education. To
understand the HEA and the incremental history of education policy, the environment of the
time period needs to be understood as well; this section will cover a brief overview on higher
education policy as well as the atmosphere surrounding the legislation of the Higher Education
Act of 1965.
In 1944 the Servicemens Readjustment Act of 1944, now known as the GI Bill of Rights, was
passed. This was an immense federal education policy, an area usually reserved for the States
(U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 2015). The GI Bill almost died multiple times throughout
the legislative process, it was controversial, but deemed necessary for many reasons. The U.S.
economy was thriving and Congress saw this as an opportunity to help relieve unemployment
of returning GIs. Before WWII, college was reserved for the elite, those who could afford a
college education without federal or state funding, but in part because of the GI Bill, this
changed dramatically. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (2015) clarifies this impact, In
the peak year of 1947, Veterans accounted for 49 percent of college admissions. By the time
the original GI Bill ended on July 25, 1956, 7.8 million of 16 million World War II Veterans had
participated in an education or training program (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 2015).
This was a huge impact on policy for higher education at the federal level, and one of the key
policy decisions in higher education history. Another significant federal policy decisions was the
National Science Foundation Act and the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) (U.S.
Department of Education 2015).
In 1957 the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite into space. The reaction to this
1

was close to panic, but it helped encourage Congress and Dwight Eisenhower to focus on higher
education, specifically, science, technology and math. The NDEA was focused on training and
educating individuals to compete with the technical advances of the Soviet Union. This
included financial support to college students, the sciences, mathematics, and a renewed focus
on foreign language instruction, graduate grants, fellowships and more (U.S. Department of
Education 2015). This is crucial in understanding the growth of federal higher education policy
leading up to the Higher Education Act of 1965. These were all investments in U.S. social and
human capital (Nafukho, Hairston, Brooks 2004).
HEA was designed to aid higher education and students ability to obtain a college degree.
The main emphasis was to develop educational equity, and the focus of the bill was increasing
federal support of higher education. This bill increased money, loans, grants and scholarships to
eligible students. HEA also increased federal funding for libraries, staff and teacher
development, as well as facility construction (Higher Education Act 1965).
HEA was a part of President Lyndon Johnsons Great Society, the shock of John F.
Kennedys assassination help create the political culture and environment to push through the
biggest domestic program since the New Deal (U.S. History.Org 2015). The Great Society was
similar to JFKs a New Frontier; this passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964, Head Start, Volunteers in Service to America, National Endowment for
the Arts, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and more (U.S. History.Org 2015).
This agenda was part of Johnsons War on Poverty, which was at the heart of the Great
Society, as was his focus on education, this combined with his skill as a legislator and personal
connections help pass a liberal agenda. These joined with the dissemination of educational
2

policy issues that had hung up legislation in the past, such as tension between federal funding
for private, public, and religious orientated schools, which had stopped most bills in the past
(Cross 2014). But in the Great Society, and particularly ESEA, the funds were focused on the
students, not the schools. ESEA was also crucial to the environment that HEA was passed in.
ESEA was signed into law in 1965. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2015), ESEA
offered new grants to districts serving low-income students, federal grants for text and library
books, it created special education centers, and created scholarships for low-income college
students. Additionally, the law provided federal grants to state educational agencies to improve
the quality of elementary and secondary education. This was crucial because it was passed on
the grounds of educational equity by a man who believed deeply in this cause. Johnsons own
experience as a student drove this policy (Payne 2012).
The Higher Education Act of 1965 was originally attended to help mobilize and help low
income students and promote social mobility through education (Stampen and Zoolick 2009).
Johnson was able to get bi-partisan support by making college affordable and attainable for
low-income and minority students. President Johnson believed that the majority of this
support should come from the federal government, but he believed state and local support was
necessary as well (1). The HEA changed higher education in a number of ways. Private lending
that was federally insured was a focus point but the funding was primarily in the form of
Educational Opportunity Grants (Pell Grants) (Stampen and Zoolick 2009). At this point in higher
education most public colleges and universities depended on state funding which was aimed at
keeping tuition low. Private colleges gained their funding through tuition, endowments and
gifts. The HEA changed this and added in heavy federal support (Stampen and Zoolick 2009).
3

The Higher Education Act appropriated $804 million to support higher education, including
community service and continuing education, library support, strengthening developing
institutions, student assistance, and teacher programs as well construction support (Capt 2013).
Francis Keppel (1987) a major educational policy actor and member of the Gardner task force
breaks HEA down into three main pillars:
1.
2.
3.

Parental Contribution.
Need-based Aid
Student earnings (57).

Parental contribution was a tax on parents as well as the expectation of some financial
support; need based aid, which was originally financial assistance was based on need and not
merit. This was a way to give students who are from poverty a chance at college. Student
earnings were a popular aspect of this program and contributed to its passage. This was seen as
working your way through college which often gets more policy support than a free ride
(Keppel 1987). The Higher Education Act was a part of a liberal policy agenda, but it was a
landmark federal legislative policy that in a way was a turning point for federal inclusion in
education which had been reserved for the states previously.

The Policy Process Model

Agenda Setting
The Higher Education Act of 1965 was part of Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society, which was
focused on equity and social mobilization and was the largest domestic agenda passed since the
New Deal (U.S. History.Org 2015). The environment was suitable for this type of legislation and
the previous bills towards higher education help put this issue onto the national stage. The
success of the GI Bill and NDEA in bringing economic success to millions, a goal previously
4

thought unattainable as well as the impact of the Cold War, helped bring higher education to
the front of the Great Society (Cross 2014, 27). The problems with education had been defined
by President Johnson multiple times and Johnson made his views on higher education clear at a
commencement speech at Tufts University, We have entered an age in which education is not
just a luxury, permitting some men an advantage over others. It has become a necessity
without which a person is defenseless in this complex, industrialized society. We have truly
entered the century of the educated man (Federal Reserve Research Library 2015). Johnson
believed in the power of education as an economic tool and understood that in the modern
world, to compete, individuals had to be educated. He saw higher education and federal policy
as a way to turn this belief into action.
Throughout the Great Society Johnson implemented a far reaching domestic agenda which
included, The Civil Rights Act, that had previously been held up in Congress, but President
Johnson used the image of John F. Kennedy to help endorse the bill and eventually push it
through. The Voting Rights Act followed soon after that; these two policies helped education
legislation, because it helped resolve segregation, in policy theory anyway (Cervantes et. al.
2005, 17).
The Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) was a major part of his War on Poverty and an
important piece of legislation to the Higher Education Act. But the most important piece of
legislation to HEA was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. ESEA
directed one billion in funding for elementary and secondary education schools with a large
population of low income student (Cervantes et. al. 2005, 17). ESEA was landmark legislation
that helped set the agenda for the passing of the Higher Education Act. Education had been
5

progressively more of a federal and national issue, the combination of the GI Bill, NDEA, the
death of John F. Kennedy, ESEA and the rest of the Great Society as well as Lyndon B. Johnsons
focus on education and personal experience as a legislator, and understanding of the lack of
equity in higher education, drove this evolution (Payne 2012) (Cervantes et. al. 2005, 17).
Lyndon Johnson was personally invested in education and its impact. He was educated at
the public university of Southwest Texas State Teachers College (Texas State University).
With a small loan and working any part-time job that he could find, Johnson worked his way
through college (Payne 2012). This combined with his experience as an educator and position as
head of the Texas National Youth Administration, helped drive the path for the policy
(Cervantes et. al. 2005, 17). This personal experience was another aspect of setting the agenda
for the implementation of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Policy Formulation
As mentioned previously, President Johnson deeply believed in education as a tool for
economic and personal growth (Payne 2012). When formulating the Great Society programs
and specifically the Higher Education Act, Johnson used secretive unofficial task forces (Cross
2014, 27). Johnson used these task forces extensively and they were a main policy force for the
HEA as well as throughout his tenure. A key task force in the formulation stage was the Gardner
task force which developed ESEA, and this helped smooth the passage of the Higher Education
Act (Cross 2014). One of the key issues resolved was how funding would be allotted, in the past
this was contentious because of the general aid to public schools, which brought about conflict
with private and religious schools as well as their opponents and supporters (Cross 2014, 27).
ESEA would focus its impact on low-income students and the Higher Education Act would
6

follow its lead.

For the Higher Education Act Johnson used a task force that was focused on the
administration as well as the government; this was the previously mentioned Gardner task
force, which also created ESEA. The chair was John W. Gardner (Cervantes et. al. 2005, 23)
(Cross 2012). This task force was deeply involved in the creation as well as implementation of
the policy. Their focus was leveling the playing field in education; the task force wanted
educational equity and not personal and professional development decisions based on
finances. According to Cervantes et al. (2005) the key take away from the task force policy
formulation was the following:

Grants in aid to very able students who are among the most needy
Expansion of work-study programs
More extensive use of loans and loan guarantees
Opposition to tax credits for tuition and other educational expenses
Custom-made packages of aid that depended on a student's needs
A scholarship program (24).

There were other policy actors involved in the formulation of the policy but the Gardner
task force was the driving force behind the creation of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Policy Legitimization
The Higher Education Act was legitimized in many different ways. Starting with President
Johnsons appeal to congress to sign ESEA into law honoring John F. Kennedy (Cross 2014, 26).
This was just part of Johnsons political maneuvering. He also was able to achieve bipartisan
support through congress with the passage of ESEA and by making college within reach for
students from poorer economic backgrounds (Stampen and Zoolick 2009). This combined with
his rhetoric on the policy being focused on the War on Poverty as well as human capital helped
7

garner support.
An important aspect of the legitimization of the Higher Education Act came with Johnsons
hands on involvement and lobbying of banks to accept guaranteed student loans (Cervantes et.
al. 2005, 30). He used his personal experience with student loans and political skill to get their
support. Cervantes et. al. (2005) has an interesting example of President Johnson chronicling his
own experience:
You know, Johnson reflected, Mrs. Johnson has some business interests of
her own, and they [the business interests] come to me every once in a while
and they ask me where would be a good place to put $100,000 for a while. I
dont have any difficulty telling them where to put it; you put it in that bank.
When completing the story LBJ wagged his finger at the bankers and said,
Gentlemen, I want you to know that was the best damned loan that banker
ever made (30).
The support of key members in the House and the Senate, Edith Green and Wayne Morse,
combined with the political skill of Johnson helped get wide spread support for the Great
Society as well as HEA (Cross 2014, 26). But the real legitimization of HEA seems to come from
the climate in which it was proposed. The combination of the economic outcomes of the War
on Poverty, the Civil Rights Act, John F. Kennedys assassination and the passage of ESEA
signaled a change in the environment in education and the federal role.
Policy Implementation
While implementing the Higher Education Act there were many different conflicts and
concerns that were dealt with to successfully implement the policy. But for a policy of its size
and importance, the implementation was relatively smooth. Conflict in the past has been held
up by what Cervantes et. al. (2005) calls, the three Rs race, religion, and Reds (24). The
previous legislation passed in the Great Society, specifically The Civil Rights Act, and ESEA
8

helped change this attitude and environment. This combined with the nature of the policy,
focusing on categorical aid, and on the students instead of the schools helped the Higher
Education Act become implemented somewhat efficiently. As well as a belief in local and state
involvement with additional federal funding was crucial in the implementation.
There were disputed issues in Congress such as a controversy about how to fund some of
the programs. Republicans wanted tuition tax credits and the Democrats wanted grants. The
Democrats won out with this issue but conceded with guaranteed student loans (Cervantes et.
al. 2005, 28). When the policy was fully funded with over $800 million awarded towards the
Higher Education Act (Capt 2013); President Johnson signed the bill at his alma mater
Southwest Texas State College. Johnson in his remarks expressed the bipartisan support it took
to implement and what an important policy this was socially and economically (LBJ Library and
Museum 2015).
Johnson focused on the equity aspect of the policy and that students will now be able to
access higher education regardless of economic ability. Johnson also used this platform to sell
education as his War on Poverty including, So to thousands of young people education will be
available. And it is a truism that education is no longer a luxury. Education in this day and age is
a necessity (LBJ Library and Museum 2015). This reflects the implementation process.
President Johnson used the environment, the framework implemented with ESEA, his political
skill and education as an economic necessity, to implement the policy.
Policy and Program Evaluation
Policy evaluation and assessment was built into the legislation. The Higher Education Act
was to be continually assessed and evaluated and would be reauthorized every three years

(U.S. Department of Education HEOA 2015). This policy has incrementally evolved over the
years following continual assessment and evaluation, but other factors have attributed to this
as well, including, politics, budget deficits and many different policy actors becoming involved.
One of the aspects of the Higher Education Act of 1965 that was seen as a mistake was who was
eligible to be counted as a student. This categorization of students could have a large impact on
who was eligible for financial aid to continue their education. For example, part-time students
and vocational students were not addressed or focused on in the Higher Education Act. Also,
the institutions where they were enrolled were not addressed either (Keppel 1987, 52). This
was addressed in reauthorizations of HEA in the future and is an important aspect of the policy
(Keppel 1987, 52). This shows that the HEA has been evaluated and incrementally improved
over time through assessment; but this does not take into account partisan politics, individual
decisions, ambition, or executive change.
Policy Change
The Great Society and the War on Poverty enacted by President Johnson changed higher
education in the U.S. forever, and made it a federal priority. But there have been many changes
to the policy since its birth. Throughout the policy there have been key issues that have created
conflict since the beginning. Cervantes et. al. (2005) states these clearly:

The tension between providing aid to middle-income borrowers and

targeting aid programs to the needy
The provision of an increasingly large proportion of federal student aid
through the loan programs instead of through the grant programs; the
continuing proliferation of federal aid programs
The huge expansion in program costs
The deepening direct involvement of the federal government in assistance to
post- secondary students (36).
10

There are many issues that have become contentious and important in the higher education
landscape from the inception of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and like most federal policy
it is not a permanent. This has created incremental change in the policy depending on many
factors, including, political and cultural environment, partisan politics, electorate change, and
demographic and economic changes in the country.

The Higher Education Act of 1965 has been reauthorized in 1968, 1971, 1972, 1976, 1980,
1986, 1992, 1998, and 2008. The most recent reauthorization in 2008 changed the policy name
to the Higher Education Opportunity Act (U.S. Department of Education HEOA 2015). As
mentioned previously this policy has changed incrementally, but it has changed, with such
changes as Title IX that focused on limiting sex based discrimination for any higher educational
program that received federal funding (U.S. Department of Education Title IX 2015). This is just
one of the more influential policy changes to the original Higher Education Act of 1965.

Multiple Streams Approach

Multiple Streams Approach or MSA is a framework on how policy is created in an
ambiguous political process (Zahariadis 2014, 26). Policy is never made without politics and HEA
is a clear example of this. Zahariadis (2014) explains, Ambiguity is the state of having many
ways of thinking about the same circumstances or phenomena (26). The basic framework
behind MSA is the three streams, problems, policies and politics. Educational theory, policy and
politics are ambiguous by nature, as is knowing the policy and political lines between federal
and state control. There are many different elements struggling for input and control. Two
elements of MSA are policy windows and policy entrepreneurs. Policy windows are when the
three streams are fused together during important events, such as the assassination of John F.
11

Kennedy and policy is created. Policy entrepreneurs are policy actors who try to combine the
three streams and control the policy process, such as President Johnson following the
assassination of JFK, and his political planning that resulted in the implementation of the Great
Society programs (Zahariadis 2014). This framework can help understand how the Higher
Education Act of 1965 was passed.
The three most crucial aspects of the MSA are the three streams which Kingdon (1995) laid
out as problems, policies, and politics. One of the criticisms of MSA is that the streams are not
truly independent. While working with the MSA framework applied to HEA, aspects of this were
evident and this will be clear when reading the MSA diagram, but the theory and framework
still help to clarify the key aspects in a complex process. This includes similar elements of the
policy process in different streams, including: ESEA, the JFK assassination, President Johnsons
political skill, Great Society and more. The Higher Education Act is complex and ambiguous, and
to understand this process clearly and to see all elements of the HEA and MSA, the flowchart or
diagram on the following page will help clarify the ambiguous nature of policy and the Higher
Education Act:

12

Diagram of the Multiple Streams Framework & HEA

Politics Stream

Problem Stream

-JFK assassination (Executive Turnover)

-Progressive Congress
-War on Poverty
-Educational Shift from State to Federal

-Large Generation (Baby Boomers)

-Educational In-Equity
-Post-Industrial Society (Educational
Priority)

Policy Window
-Great Society & WOP
-Civil Rights Act
-ESEA
-JFK Assassination
(Emotional response to
legacy)

Policy
Output
-HEA 1965

Policy Stream
-Strong Economy (EOA)
-Skilled Task force
(Gardner) (ESEA)
-New Frontier Policy
leftovers

Equity

Policy Entrepreneurs
-President Johnson (Skilled
political actor)
-Great Society proponents
-Banking Executives
-Small Secretive Task
Force
-Congressional Leaders
(Green & Morse)

13

( (Zaharadias 2014, 31).

Equity
The focus of Lyndon Johnsons War on Poverty was social equity and a key element of that
was the Higher Education Act of 1965. Johnson believed deeply in education as a tool for social
and economic equity, he had experienced it personally by paying for his college education with
loans and part time jobs (Cervantes et. al. 2005, 28). He understood how education could help
an individual to succeed on their own, they just needed an opportunity, and to President
Johnson, this opportunity was federal education involvement. This is evident in his signing
statements on November 8th, 1965:
Last May, 2,700,000 boys and girls graduated from all the high schools in
America-2,700,000. One million, four hundred thousand--about half of them-went on to college. But almost as many--1,300,000-dropped out and never
started college.
This bill, which we will shortly make into law, will provide scholarships and
loans and work opportunities to 1 million of that 1.3 million that did not get to
go on to college. And when you, the first year, with the first bill, take care of 1
million of that 1.3 million through this legislation, we are hopeful that the State
and the local governments, and the local employers and the local loan funds, can
somehow take care of the other 300,000.
So to thousands of young people education will be available. And it is a
truism that education is no longer a luxury. Education in this day and age is a
necessity (LBJ Library and Museum 2015).
Johnson saw educational equity as human capital, which would benefit the micro as well as
the macro. The Higher Education Act was directly coupled with concerns about poverty in the
United States and corresponding economic issues (Stampen and Zoolick 2009). This is crucial to
understanding the policy; education was economics and was seen as a public good. Equity in
politics is who is getting what, when and how (Stone 2012, 46-47). In policy the dimensions of
Equity are membership, merit, rank, group-based distribution, need, value, competition,
lotteries, and elections. This is the basis on how policy decides who is a member of the
14

community that will receive a benefit (Stone 2012, 47). The following are the key aspects of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 and how these relate to equity.
Title I: Strengthening Community Service Programs was focused on making education access
more equitable across rural and suburban areas (group-based distribution). Title II: Assistance
for Libraries was focused on building a research environment and resources (need and value).
Title III: Developing Institutions was focused on helping fund and develop mostly AfricanAmerican institutions. This is a prime example of the equity of HEA (group-based distribution,
need) (Higher Education Act 1965) (Stone 2012).
Title IV: Student Assistance Act authorized federal aid to students for higher education. This
is the most important aspect of HEA as well as the most equitable, giving access to student who
may have never had an opportunity for higher education or its benefits before (group-based
distribution, need). Title V: Teacher Corps was a program to improve teaching quality and
pedagogy through fellowships (group-based distribution).Title VI: Undergraduate Instruction
was created to provide grants to higher education institutions to improve educational
technologies (group-based distribution, value). Title VII: Higher Education Facilities was created
to provide funding for educational facilities for the expected growth of college students
following HEA (need) (Higher Education Act 1965) (Stone 2012).
Title VIII: Part A-Educational Opportunity Grants and TRIO were created to fund higher
education institutions for first-year, fulltime students. TRIO was created to encourage lowincome youth to go to college. Title VIII is a perfect example of equity and education. It was
including students who would not have the opportunity to receive an education into the
community of equity and in that the polis (group-based distribution, need) (Higher Education
15

Act 1965) (Stone 2012).

Another aspect was Part B-Guaranteed Student Loans, which gave students the majority of
the funding for their education that was not available before (need). Part C-Federal Work Study
Program, was focused on low-income students and gave the prospect of working as a way to
help finance their education (group-based distribution, need, merit). Part D-National Defense
Student Loan Program, was part of the NDEA was targeted at the most intelligent and
successful students (merit) (Higher Education Act 1965) (Stone 2012).
Title III, Title IV, Title IV, Part B, and Part C are prime examples of equity in policy and
specifically groupbased distribution and need (Stone 2012). But as Stone (2012) explains
membership is also an aspect of equity and (Keppel) 1987 points out that part-time students
and their institutions were not part of the community (57). This was not equitable and was
remedied in future reauthorizations. The Higher Education Act is a clear example of a policy
that was created and designed with social and economic equity in mind.

16

References

Capt, Robin L. 2013. Analysis of the Higher Education Act Reauthorizations: Financial Aid Policy
Influencing College Access and Choice. Administrative Issue Journal: Education, Practice, and
Research. http://www.swosu.edu/academics/aij/2013/v3i2/capt.pdf (March 23, 2015).
Cevantes, A., Creusere, M., McMillion,. McQueen,. Short, M., Steiner, M., Webster, J. 2005.
Opening the Doors to Higher Education: Perspectives on the Higher Education Act 40 Years
Later. TG Research and Analytical Services. http://www.tgslc.org/pdf/hea_history.pdf (March
26th, 2015).
Cross, Christopher. 2014. Political Education: Setting the Course for State and Federal Policy,
Second Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act | U.S. Department of Education.
http://www.ed.gov/esea (March 23, 2015).
Federal Role in Education. 2012. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html (March 23,
2015).
Higher Education Act of 1965. 1965. United States Public Laws. 89th Cong. P.L. 113-67.
http://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/HEA65_CMD.pdf (February 24, 2015).
Higher Education Opportunity Act - 2008. 2010.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html (March 24, 2015).
History and Timeline - Education and Training. http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/history.asp
(March 23, 2015).
Keppel, F. 1987. The Higher Education Acts Contrasted, 1965-1986: Has Federal Policy Come of
Age?. Harvard Educational Review. ILLiad University of Alabama in Huntsville Document
Deliver. (March 8, 2015).
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas Alternatives and Public Polices. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins
LBJ Library and Museum - Education WHCA370.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/Johnson/lbjforkids/edu_whca370-text.shtm (February 24, 2015).
Lyndon Johnsons Great Society. 2014. U.S. History Pre-Columbian to the New Millennium.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/56e.asp (March 26th, 2015).
Muyia Nafukho, Fredrick., Hairston, Nancy., Brooks., Kit. 2004. Human capital theory: implications
for human resource development. Human Resource Development International, Vol. 7, Iss. 4,
17

Google Scholar (March 26, 2015).

Payne, Tara. 2012. Get Into the Higher Ed Act. The New England Journal of Higher Education.
http://www.nebhe.org/thejournal/time-to-get-into-the-higher-ed-act/ (March 17, 2015).
Research Library of the Federal Reserve. 2009. Education and Earnings. Economic Information
Newsletter. https://research.stlouisfed.org/pageoneeconomics/uploads/newsletter/2009/200908.pdf (March, 26th 2015)
Stampen, Jacob O., Bradford J. Zulick, and Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary
Education University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2009. "The 2008 Amendments to the Federal
Higher Education Act: Are We on the Right Track? WISCAPE Policy Brief." Wisconsin Center For
The Advancement Of Postsecondary EducationERIC, EBSCOhost (accessed March 26, 2015).
Stone, Deborah. 2012. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Third Edition). New
York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Title IX 1979 Policy Interpretation on Intercollegiate Athletics. 2005.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9interp.html (April 10, 2015).
Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2014.Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed.
Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible. Philadelphia, PA: West View Press.

18