A new typology for policy engagement models

The Local Policy Innovation Partnership Hub (LPIP) has released a new typology for university civic work. Its “civic framework” identifies six models of civic and policy engagement, all of which contribute to local institutions fulfilling government missions.

These are:

• civic-embedded regional development institutes – such as the University of Birmingham’s City-REDI – which are described as “data-driven, deeply integrated with local governance”
• civic engagement and public policy institutes, such as the University of Liverpool’s Heseltine Institute
• networked regional policy collaboratives: multi-higher education institute partnerships, for example Y-PERN in Yorkshire
• single policy issue institutes, which work on a national scale, such as the Productivity Institute
• interdisciplinary public policy think tanks, for example the Bennett Institute at University of Cambridge, which produce “conceptual, high-level policy frameworks”
• translational policy communication platforms, such as Policy@Manchester.

The report does not conclude that any one model of civic engagement is better but that they contribute differently depending on local contexts, funding, and institutional strengths. It finds that even where there are superficially the same funding conditions, missions, and organising principles, there is often genuine novelty in how universities approach their civic and policy engagement.

There are institutions deeply embedded in regional governance, some focused on policy co-production with local communities, others bringing together multiple institutions as a network. To strengthen the success of civic and policy output the report recommends that universities consider this typology in strengthening their own civic work. The report finds that

institutes that support shared political will, long-term capacity, robust local knowledge, and evidence-based monitoring deliver more impactful regional engagement.

It points toward innovation where institutions see themselves as part of the picture, not all of it, in driving regional improvements. The innovation models uncovered here are different – but coalesce around the idea that understanding what is going on allows institutions to react in shaping their work, coordinating their investments, and spurring further innovation. But equally, it is an environment where unstable funding can undermine continuity, capacity building, and sustained regional partnerships.