Common Policy Pitfalls

Employees and students — even those with good intentions — sometimes fail to follow campus policies. That may jeopardize safety, and liability can accrue to your institution. To better understand why policy noncompliance occurs and help prevent it, examine the following common pitfalls from United Educators’ claims. Consider whether these pitfalls impact your institution and how improved policy management can make policies more effective.

Pitfall 1: People Never Learned Relevant Policies

People only can follow policies if they know about them. They’re unlikely to adhere if they haven’t been trained on a policy’s contents or don’t know how to find a relevant policy.

Consider the following example:

A volunteer at a summer camp sees a staff member repeatedly violate appropriate boundaries with children participating in the camp. Not knowing your institution’s reporting policies also apply to volunteers, the volunteer searches your institution’s website for guidance but doesn’t find anything. The volunteer doesn’t report the boundary violations and stops volunteering with the camp.

Pitfall 2: Policies Are Hard to Understand

Clear language helps stressed and busy people understand and engage in policies. When people can’t easily comprehend policy language, they may accidentally violate it or stop trying to follow policies altogether.

Consider the following example:

A student alleges disability discrimination based on her depression after she failed out of a program. Disability Services grants an accommodation but doesn’t understand her institution’s convoluted accommodation policy. She mistakenly thinks the policy granted her unlimited time to complete her required coursework.

Pitfall 3: Policies Contradict Each Other

Policies might overlap when they cover similar content or are drafted at different levels of an institution. If provisions in overlapping policies conflict, someone following one policy can violate the other.

Consider the following example:

Your policy requires all employees with driving responsibilities to pass a motor vehicle record (MVR) check every three years. However, the Athletics department’s policy doesn’t require MVR checks. The cross-country coach, who has a history of moving violations, crashes the team van after an away meet. A lawsuit arising from the incident alleges your institution is negligent for letting the coach drive without checking their MVR.

Pitfall 4: Operations Change Faster Than Policies

Operations at K-12 schools, colleges, and universities can change for many reasons, including a new strategic plan, upgraded technical systems, or evolving external conditions. When institutions implement changes quickly, related policies may no longer reflect actual practices. If an incident occurs, a claimant could allege the institution negligently didn’t follow the standard set in its policies.

Consider the following example:

Your hazing prevention policy states students will receive hazing prevention training during orientation. However, Student Affairs delays hazing prevention training to the second month of classes to make room for campus security and Title IX trainings during orientation. Changing training priorities means your Student Affairs team’s decision violates your institution’s hazing prevention policy during the first month of classes, a traditionally high-risk period.

More From UE

Collaboration Is Key When University of the South Conducts Policy Reviews

Additional Resources

University of Colorado: User Guide to Writing Policies

Boise State University: Policy Writing Guidance

University of Kansas: Policy Library

Plain Language Action and Information Network: Federal plain language guidelines